HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v2.2 (R4).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:47:46 PST
From:         FRANK@LAW.UCLA.EDU
Subject:      Re: Scripture and tradition.

Contrary to popular belief the Bible before canonizing was
traditional and very oral oriented.  It really wasn't until the
Church began to understand that when Jesus said he was coming again
he might not have meant tomorrow.

Writings by the bucketfuls started pouring in.  St. Clement and St.
Ignatius, Origen, St. Justin Martyr all had writings that were being
used in liturgies.  There was also many other writings of dubious
nature such as the Gospels of Peter and Barnabas and a narrative on
Jesus' youth that were considered very popular.  Rightly or wrongly,
all these writings where considered authentic by the communities who
used them to pass on the faith.

The Church then decided it was time to get these writings collected.
To weed out the bad and to meditate and pray on what was truly the
Word.  It wasn't very easy to do.  Clement and Ignatius were believed
to be disciples of Jesus but their writings were considered not very
helpful and somewhat incoherent.  Justin Martyr was deemed much to
philosophical and not very inspirational.  The "Gospels of P & B" were
anti-semitic and or very wrong in doctrine and the narrative
described a young Jesus who was quite the little Lord Flauntroy who
killed a playmate for the sake of doing it.

There are many more examples of this stuff out there and, brace
yourselves, not all writings that ended up in the Bible were
considered worthy including some of the letters of Paul, at least one
of the Gospels (I think) and Revelation, GASP!

But the process, thankfully, did not take place in a fortnight.  Some
300 years or more after the first Easter did the Bible become as we
know it now.  The very idea that some 1200 years later a group of
guys decided, within their lifetimes, that some of the canonized
books were not worthy to be included in the Bible because they did not
agree with the truths revealed within them, makes me laugh.

I believe that the Bible that was first introduced to the
world some 1700 years ago is the Bible that God wanted.  Many years
of precious study, arguing, praying, and consulting by the first
eight, give or take, generations of the Church went into what was and
is the Bible.  James included.

Frank
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: 78witherspoo@cua.edu
Subject: Re: "Homophobic?" for Bernice
Organization: The Catholic University of America
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:33:02 GMT

In article <CHRISTIA%92082606164834@ASUACAD.BITNET>,         Bernice Tennant <U1A9A@WVNVM.BITNET> writes:
> Tom,
> 
>     Two wrongs don't make a right.  Homosexual relations are an abomination to
> God.  Murder is sin.  Both are wrong.  Both are in the bible.  Alot of things
> are in the bible.  There is no way you can justify homosexuality by showing
> the sins committed against homosexuals in the name of the bible.  

--> True, two wrongs don't make a right.  But you say "A lot of things are 
	in the Bible", so what kind of clothes are you wearing today?  Are they
	made out of a cotton/poly blend?  Well, according to the bible, you 
	have committed a sin.  I think the point of the article was this: "If
	you are going to interpret the Bible _in a certain way_ be prepared to
	accept the other elements that go against your interpretation.

> I could sin
> and use my bible as a reason for it but that would not excuse my sin.

--> Correct, but what about the christian boy who committed his gay-bashing and
	not only felt comfortable about what he did, but that his pastor
	_commended_ him??  Nice christian role model, I suppose if he prays
	enough he'll go to heaven-- while the homosexual who was unjustly
	beaten is going to hell. 

	I guess I am the lone voice crying in the wilderness on this one, but I
	feel a little uneasy.
 
 
> We don't have
> to accept the sin as okay just because we know about it and love them in spite
> of it.  We can still love someone and not accept their lifestyle.  And we can
> rebuke in the spirit of Christ too.  

--> No one is asking you to do that.  What I would like to see happen (and the
	author of the piece would agree with me) is that the Bible cease to
	function as a political weapon.  

> We need to pray more for guidance in these
> matters.

--> Christians need to do more than just pray.  Christians need to call for a 
	"cease-fire" of sorts on this issue.  Let God do the judging, that is 
	His job, there are other concerns on Earth that we could devote our
	energy towards.
_____________________________________________________________________
Bernice--

	Thank you for your response.  No flames are meant from this end, I feel
very passionate about this subject (as you do) and I will agree to disagree
with you.  (Wouldn't be the first time I've done that on this net! :)  What I
saw at the GOP convention just sickened me, and I feel an ill wind is blowing
through this country: the wind of oppression.

Love and good walking,

Tom Witherspoon


Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Re: State Fair & Secular Humanists
Organization: Glassboro State College (T-1 and Counting!)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:41:26 GMT


Angela Zimmerman writes about a flyer "that has the beliefs, basically, of
the secular humanists."

> They seem to be just as moralistic as Christians and in fact share many of
> the same beliefs that I do.  Is anyone interested in my posting those?  I
> know this is a Christian disscusion list, but I thought some of you might be
> interested.

We spend a lot of time talking about secular humanists, atheists, and
agnostics -- often speaking as if they represent the Forces of Evil.  (We
all know that Iago was a secular humanist, and Darth Vader a pagan!)

I think it might be useful for us to better understand of those with whom we
disagree; so that we can speak about who they actually are, instead of cyphers
invented in our heads.

To this end, I've got a quote of my own:


	Does Not The Denial of Religion Mean The Denial of Marriage and
		Chastity?

  Here again, one must reply by another question: Does the man who asks this
  question believe that marriage and chastity contribute to earthly happiness
  here below, or does he think that, while they cause misery here below, they
  are to be advocated as a means of getting to heaven?  The man who takes the
  latter view will no doubt expect agnosticism to lead to a decay of what he
  calls virtue, but he will have to admit that what he calls virtue is not
  what ministers to the happiness of the human race while on earth.  If, on
  the other hand, he takes the former view, namely, that there are terrestrial
  arguments in favour of marriage and chastity, he must also hold that these
  arguments are such as should appeal to an Agnostic.  Agnostics, as such,
  have no distinctive views about sexual morality.  But most of them would
  admit that there are valid arguments against the unbridled indulgence of
  sexual desires.  They would derive these arguments, however, from
  terrestrial sources and not from supposed divine commands.

                 (from the essay "What Is An Agnostic", by Bertrand Russell)


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"Immoral, adj.  Inexpedient." -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
From: gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk (G.J. McCaughan)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: "Their" Lady .....
Date: 27 Aug 92 02:24:09 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

In article <9208261501.AA28540@mcsun.EU.net>, Z_STAFF_CL@SOUTHAMPTON-INSTITUTE.AC.UK writes:

> Whilst I agree with these statements, I would like to suggest that
> some would also object to the implication that they should veiw BVM
> as "Our Lady" when they do not feel able to acknowledge the
> dogma/theology/tradition behind the title.
> It may not always be sarcasm or ridicule.  It may be a straight "I
> have no wish to be associated with that and therefore will not use
> that title."

Perhaps you didn't notice the change from "Guadeloupe" to "Guacamole",
for which I can see no motive but mockery.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 10:33:42 CDT
From:         NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Matt. 24
              2 Sep 1992 07:34:00 CDT from <BKCOBB@LIFE.UAMS.EDU>

Dear Brian ;

See 2 Peter 3 for catyclismic language used eschatologically ... figuratively.
This event is already a done deal.
I believe the A.D. 70 scenario was a literal event that often had figurative
language employed to describe it.

Just for the record, this is a secondary doctrine, compared to the prime
directive of the Gospel.
It does not especially bother me if people disagree on these matters ; however,
the Gospel is another matter entirely.  No bending on THAT one.



Jesse Carnes
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sun, 23 Aug 1992 03:16:32 EDT
From:         Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Perpetual Viginity of Mary (WAS Jesus OR Pope?

Kerry,

The perpetual virginity of Mary is the standard term for the doc-
trine.  I'm not sure what is the earliest known mention of it, but I
know that Origen (c.185-254) taught it as did St. Augustine (354-430)
in the West and St. Gregory of Nyassa (c. 335-394) in the East.  One
discussion of the matter says that Origen "took the common eastern
view that the 'Brothers of the Lord' were children of Joseph by an
earlier marriage."  That implies that the doctrine of the perpetual
virginity was commonly believed before Origen. If Mary did not remain
a lifelong virgin one could accept the "Brothers of the Lord" as the
children of Joseph and Mary.

Marty Helgesen
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: 78witherspoo@cua.edu
Subject: Re: Thanks Carol!\
Organization: The Catholic University of America
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:42:41 GMT

In article <9208261336.AA24290@mcsun.EU.net>,         Z_STAFF_CL@SOUTHAMPTON-INSTITUTE.AC.UK writes:
> Not directed personally at Bernice but one or two others ...
> I am concerned with the force of the rebuttal this veiw is sustaining.  Must
> we disagree in 'flame mode' ?  Is it not valid to discuss the way in which
> the bible is interpreted without just accepting the most prominent way ?
> 
> 
> Carol A Long
___________________________________________________________________________
Carol--

	Thanks for your support.  The reason I posted the article was to
present another _christian_ viewpoint.  I wasn't trying to subvert anyone or to
insult anyone.  I have felt no insult or flames from anyone who has responded
to me, just the force of their convictions.

Love and good walking,

Tom Witherspoon

78witherspoo@cuavax.dnet.cua.edu
From: KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET (Kerry Stephenson)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Deep Thought
Date: 30 Aug 92 04:59:18 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Hi all:

I was just watching Saturday Night Live, and they gave one of those
"Deep Thoughts":

   Instead of having "answers" on a math test, they should
   just call them "impressions."  And if you got a different
   "impression," so what?  Can't we all be brothers?

For some reason, it reminded me of us.  :-)

Love INC,
         --Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sat, 29 Aug 1992 01:59:36 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: School and Religion
              27 Aug 1992 22:20:40 EDT from <AMZIMM01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU>

Angela:

I don't know what the requirements for your papers are, but you might
consider something on the Black church.  It's a subject not often
dealt with in mainstream literature, and there's a little social
activism to be discussed.  Or you might want to look at rhetorical
style among evangelical preachers and compare, say, Jonathan
Edwards to somebody like Jimmy Swaggart (I pick Swaggart only
because I think his preaching is one of the better examples of
traditional evangelical style.  You might want to pick someone
currently available, though.)  Or, just for fun, you could
examine themes in modern Christian fiction--or even just look at
the development of modern Christian fiction in popular culture.
Or maybe you could look into Christian music and talk about the
variety of forms it has taken over the past 10 or so years.

Here's one I've always wanted to do myself.  It has occurred to me
that the growth of Christian popular culture has led us to a place
now where, despite the secularism that surrounds us, it is possible
to be born, live, marry, have children, grow old and die, entirely
within a Christian context.  You might do something looking at
the almost unending list of available things with the prefix
"Christian" (some of which seems incomprehensible, such as
Christian metal, Christian divorce--see Mike Warnke's new book--
and Christian [insert bizarre noun here]).

Just some ideas.  Let us know how it's going.

Love INC,
         --Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 14:47:00 EST
From:         WKJ <JAMES@XAVIER.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Anti-Catholicism: "Saul, Saul, why ..."

Also, there is nothing new under the sun,
though it may be new to YOU
or me,
etc.

WKJ
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re:      Anti-Catholicism: "Saul, Saul, why ..."
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 22:39:35 GMT


   By the way, my defense of Elizabeth in my last posting was not to
be considered an endorsement of the apparitions in question.  To my
knowledege, they are not approved by the Church.  Even if they were,
as Marty has already said, no one is obligated to accept them.
Furthermore, anything in such a personal revelation that contradicts
the Bible or other teaching of the Church is cause for rejection of
the revelation in question.

   Some people seem to have objections about "following Mary" instead
of Christ.  However, as Mary herself follows Christ, to follow her is
necessarily to follow Christ.

--Steve

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 08:53:00 GMT
From:         Z_STAFF_CL@SOUTHAMPTON-INSTITUTE.AC.UK
Subject:      Re: Mary's other children

>From: A16905 <A16905%BITNET.ITESO@EDU.VT.CC.VTVM2>
>Subject: RE: Mary's other children.
>
>Yes, absolutely, but stable grown men. Mary would have stayed with them
>instead of going with Jesus in a 3 year trip !


Memo,

I wonder.  If the other sons were stable grown men, would it not be
sensible for a mother to go with the one who needs most help - in
practice or support ?  A 3 yr trip sounds like a time when a chap may
need some help from his mother.

Moreover, this woman had been around this chap and "stored up these
things in her heart."  She had also been told he was chosen.  It is
perhaps understandable she would want to be with the one the God had
"given" her.

Carol L
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 12:15:00 EST
From:         "DRCV06::GRAHAM" <GRAHAM%DRCV06.decnet@DRCVAX.AF.MIL>
Subject:      Jesus and the noble savage.
X-To:         christia <christia@asuvm.inre.asu.edu>

Carol, you are correct that Jesus is the only way.  This is not at all in
conflict with what I said about God's elect being in many places that are
outside of what we call Christianity.

Remember the blind man in John nine.  After he had been healed, Jesus again
came to him and they talked.  The blind man said that he didn't know who
the Messiah was, but he's surely worship Him if he did know.  Jesus
revealed himself to the man.  I can well imagine people in far flung places
where no Christian has been being converted by the work of the Holy Spirit,
just like Paul or any of us.  They are going to be saved through the name
and death and life of Jesus, but they might not know Him until the other
side of death, or translation.  We Christians tend to be chauvinistic.  We
think we have the only path to salvation.  Theologically, this is true, but
in practivce, I think we should be far more lenient.

Dan Graham
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: QuickMail/SMTP interface.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 12:39:09 EDT
From:         Leo W <Leo_W@QM.CIRCA.UFL.EDU>
Subject:      Re>Spong

Lauren wrote: "I ask everyone *not* to judge the Episcopal Church (or us
Episcopalians) by Bishop Spong and what he says and does.  He is not
representative of the Episcopal Church or its views."

Speaking as an outsider, I wonder who pays the Bishop's salary, and from what
source the funds.  If he is paid by Episcopal, Inc., and if a portion of every
dollar donated by the Episcopal faithful goes toward his paycheck, then he not
only represents the denomination in an official capacity, but he is also
financially supported by the faithful who donate a portion of their incomes to
Episcopal, Inc.

The recent United Way scandal shows how to influence a large bureaucracy into
swift action.  Local affiliates withheld payments to the national organization
until a key personnel change was made.  If the Bishop is on the Episcopal
payroll, and if local affiliates are sending in their payments and in effect
sponsoring his activites, then the Episcopal church is demonstrating its
oneness with the Bishop.

Does anyone know if he is still an Episcopal employee?

Yours in Christ Jesus,
Leo
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:56:00 EST
From:         WKJ <JAMES@XAVIER.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Catholicism

Memo,

        That is interesting. I am just wondering about the
routing of these prayers...visualizing a big heavenly switchboard so
to speak ( the pun is always intended )  ...

        This is a systems analytical approach:

                1. Prayers Ascend to heaven

                2. God perceives them ( like picking up a ringing phone or
                   modem )

                3. He discerns that they are addressed to Him via, by way
                   of, or through one or another of the saints

                4. He permits the saint to hear the prayer, or forwards the
                   prayer to this saint

                5. The saint hears the prayer and recognizes that it is
                   addressed to God

                6. The saint forwards the prayer ( intercessorily ) back to
                   God

                7. God answers the prayer under some meritorious influence
                   from the particular saint He allowed to hear & ( funnel=
                   re-route ) the prayer back to Himself

                8. Since they live in eternity, all of this takes
                   no time, and space is also irrelevant; and to try to
                   understand it logically is futile because it is beyond
                   us


I can hardly wait to get to heaven. If any one attempts to pray to me, I
will faithfully direct them to the Most High !


WKJ
Username: A kingdom of Priests unto our God
Password: And we shall reign on the Earth
From: CORJB@RHODES.BITNET (Jason Briggs Cormier)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: A question about Mary
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:36:01 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

I was reading an article for a course on the Russian
successor states and came across a reference to Mary
having descended into Hell to provide one day of respite
for sinners.  This is what my text says:

"She alone brought respite from damnation in the famous
apocryphal tale of "The Virgin's Visit to Hell," which
was brought from Byzantium in the twelth century to new
and enduring popularity in Russia.  For the love of departed
sinners, she had descended into the Inferno to win them
annual release from their suffering during the period from
Holy Thrusday to Pentecost."

Has anyone heard of stories like this?  I had never before
and find it interesting.

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CHRISTIA%ASUACAD.BITNET@vaxf.Colorado.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 23:44:46 -0600
From:         Glennerd Skynard <S05152@DOC.FLC.COLORADO.EDU>
Subject:      Something God just reminded me of

Dear Everyone:

     I was talking to a friend of mine last night about how
life in general and things like that were going, and he said
something that really hit me.  In fact, it hit me because I
have not been doing this consistently for a very long time.

     He said that over the past year the main thing that he
has been praying for was that God would somehow work with
him to make his desires and those of the Lord identical.  If
God wanted it, this friend of mine said that he would like
to wish for it as well.

     Made me think about how all this summer I have been
presenting Him with prayer after prayer of my own thoughts,
desires, ides for change, etc., but without ever giving a
thought to what He wanted of me.  I never thought to pray
for something as simple as listening to Him and taking up my
cross, giving up my desires and making them one with His
desires for me and for the world around me.  I just hope
that I can do this through the school year that is yet to
come.  Thank you, Lord, for speaking through this friend and
setting me straight...

                         God Bless,



                        Glennerd :-)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 12:26:38 CST
From:         A16905@ITESO.BITNET
Subject: Re: Has Jesus Returned???

Did  Jesus returned already ???????????

Oh, God, how could I missed it ??!??!?!!?!?!?   :-(

Shalom,
Memo.
PS Prayer voting 1:1 2:0 3:1
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 06:22:18 EDT
From:         Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Mary and sinlessness

        Kerry,

        You write, "If the vision was real, why should the tree have to
        be there?"

        Although I am extremely skeptical about the vision being real, I
        would say that if the vision was real the tree would not have to
        be there unless God intended to use it.  According to John 5 God
        sent an angel to heal people by moving the waters of the pool of
        Bethesda.  Why was the water necessary?  It wasn't except that
        God chose to use it.

        Marty Helgesen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 10:18:58 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Forgiveness of Sins, by Priests?

Marty:

You say, if I got it right, that absolution is an essential part of
bringing about forgiveness.

How can this be?  Jesus has *already* forgiven us.  His blood is
all that is required for the remission of sins, not explicit
forgiveness from any human being, nor any type of ritual.  If
we add another to the work of the cross, we say that the cross is
not sufficient or complete to take care of all our sins, which
the Bible explicitly says it is.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you said.

Thanks.

Love INC,
         --Kerry
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sun, 23 Aug 1992 22:01:14 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Aborted what?
              23 Aug 1992 21:39:05 EDT from <MKLINE%VDH.BITNET@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>

Maks:

I believe her name is "Gianna Jessen."

You're welcome.

Love INC,

      --Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU