HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Marriage to a Catholic outside a Catholic Church
Date: 27 Aug 92 07:04:30 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <Aug.26.02.02.32.1992.7623@athos.rutgers.edu> Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu (Fil Sapienza) writes:
>If a Catholic marries a non-catholic outside of a Catholic church,
>and if the ceremony is concelebrated by a non-Catholic clergyperson and 
>a Catholic clergyperson,
>Then the marriage is a real marriage.

   A minor point, but I'm not sure about the use of the word
"concelebrated" here.  That makes it sound like the non-Catholic
clergyman is concelebrating a Mass.

>Can a divorced man be ordained to the priesthood?  I once heard of
>something like this, but don't recall where.

   According to the Code of Canon Law, a valid marriage is an
impediment to Holy Orders.  A "divorced" man could become a priest
only if he were first to obtain a decree of nullity (commonly called
an "annulment"), which he would not be certain to be able to obtain.

>And does the Catholic
>church accept Episcopalian (sp?) priests who are married and then
>ordain them as Catholic priests who are married?

   In rare cases the Pope may grant a dispensation from celibacy
(since celibacy is Church discipline, not doctrine).  I have met
(well, attended Mass celebrated by) such a priest, a former Episcopal
clergyman, married with children, who converted to Catholicism, then
several years later was ordained a priest.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
From: judy@locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Faith and Works: Reflections
Date: 26 Aug 92 06:31:18 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California

In article <Aug.23.20.45.34.1992.22217@athos.rutgers.edu> dwaddell@pyrman2.mis.pyramid.com (David Waddell) writes:
>
>My conclusion is: God gives us many choices and whether we heed the Word
>and do the right thing at the right time is up to us as Christians. 
>

This reminds me of a wonderful story I heard about a final exam at a theological
seminary.  The exam was scheduled for 10:00 and the students were told if they
were late they would fail.  Upon arriving at the examination room they found
a note posted on the door saying that the room had been changed to a room 
accross campus.  

So the students made mad dashes to the other end of the campus, a long walk.
But on the way, they came accross a wounded man begging for help.  Out of a 
class of 30, only 2 stopped to help the man.  They were the only 2 who passed.

In answer to your question about salvation and works, I believe that we are
saved only by the grace of God, but having been saved we have a responsibility
to act upon that salvation.  Failure to do so, I believe, puts our own salvation
in jeopardy.  

Is it not a universal Christian experience that the closer you come to Jesus,
the more is demanded of you as a Christian?  I know that is certainly the case
in my life. 


-- 
Judy Leedom Tyrer

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"	- William Blake
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Trying to define Christianity - clarification
Date: 23 Aug 92 23:24:36 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <Aug.21.00.32.55.1992.14323@athos.rutgers.edu> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|My belief is in what has been recorded and passed to us.  I'm not sure
|how one logically explains away this experience.  There can be and I have
|and still do experience emotions as part of my communion with God, but that
|is the basis of my faith nor the faith.                            ^^^^^^^^
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This should have read "but that is NOT the basis of my faith nor the faith."

Sorry, I believe everyone could tell the statement lacked something, but
I thought I'd go ahead and correct it. :-)

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts


-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: ceb@dbrus.unify.com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Clinton & Gore
Date: 3 Sep 92 03:59:37 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <Sep.1.03.14.19.1992.13353@athos.rutgers.edu> stngiam@athena.mit.edu (Shih-Tung Ngiam) writes:
>
> 
>  As the "Christian Politics" thread develops, there is a question I'd
>like to ask.  The media reports that Governor Clinton is Baptist.  I'm
>wondering whether he is Southern Baptist....
>  How about Sen Gore?

Yes, Clinton and Gore are both Southern Baptists.

>  If indeed he is a member of a Southern Baptist church, many of the
>policies he espouses are contrary to the position of the leadership of
>the Southern Baptist Convention.  And if that is the case, how has the
>SBC reacted?  

If you caught Bill Moyers's show on PBS about the Southern Baptist denomina-
tion a few years ago, you might reasonably conclude that the views of a tra-
ditional Southern Baptist could well be contrary to all positions of the cur-
rent leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention.  Moyers, also a Southern
Baptist, pointed out that the tradition of the denomination *discourages*
litmus tests and *encourages* independent and group study and research to
help an individual come to a closer understanding of God.  Apparently the
current leadership is doing its best to harm anyone who tries to adhere to
this tradition.

>  Going back in time, President Carter described himself as a born-again
>Christian, if my memory serves me right.  His policies would not have
>been approved of by today's Fundamentalist Christians.

Carter, too, is a Southern Baptist; and like Moyers, Clinton, and Gore, is a
traditional Southern Baptist, not the kind the SBC leadership is trying to
restrict the denomination to.  The Southern Baptist denomination as described
by Moyers is, IMO, rather admirable.  The actions of the current SBC leader-
ship (if they're still doing what filled the secular newspapers some years
back (firing traditionalist professors at Southern Baptist U. and replacing
them with outspoken and shameless bigots; forcing traditionalists out of the
SBC leadership and replacing them with o.&s.b.; etc.)) fills me with the same
disgust as the standard secular attempts at coercive bigotry.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244     ----------------------------+
|  There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.     |
|					   --     Mark Twain		      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: news@casper.cs.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Fundamentalism
Date: 27 Aug 92 06:40:16 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Cape Town

From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
>Please let me answer your question from the perspective of one who
>is a fundamentalist Christian.  Yes, the term is misused frequently
>by the media.  Non fundamentalists, cultist, extremist, and sometimes
>just plain neo-evangelicals are referred to as fundamentalists by the
>media.  There is a simple definition for a Christian fundamentalist.
>A fundamentalist is someone who believes in the fundamentals of the
>faith (salvation through faith, redemption through the blood of Christ,
>trinity, divinity of Christ, innerrancy and inspiration of scriptures,
>etc.) AND believes in ecclesiastical and personal separation from
>the world. This does not mean "physical" separation necessarily (I
>can be in the world but not of the world) which is definately necessary
>to be a witness for Christ.  That is about it.  A fundamentalist differs
>from a new-evangelical on the part of separation and many times on the
>inerrancy and inspiration of scripture (but not always).  Standards
>(music, dress, etc) tend to be better for fundamentalists but this
>isn't really part of the definition.  More likely just a part of
>sanctification from Christians who desire not to compromise. Examples:
>Billy Grahm and Jerry Falwell are new evangelical and Bob Jones is
>fundamentalist. I hope this helps.  There are still quite a few
>fundamentalists out there with a few of us here in Massachusetts too.
>Mark

It's great to hear about other uncompromising Christians.
So many "Christians" don't take the Bible seriously and are
practically indistinguishable from the Humanists,Atheists & New Agers.

"Those who belong to Christ have crucified their sinful nature with its
passions and desires." - Gal 5:24

"For you have spent enough time in the past doing what the pagans choose
to do - ... They think it strange that you do not plunge into the same
flood of dissipation, and they heap abuse on you. But they will have to
give an account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead."

"Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is
falsely called knowledge, which some have professed and in doing so
have wandered from the faith." - 1 Tim 6:20,21

Grace be with you.
Anthony
...................................................................
        "How can a young man keep his way pure?
           By living according to your word."     - Psa 119:9
From: ptfarre@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Peter Farrell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: advice wanted
Date: 26 Aug 92 05:55:45 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

In article <Aug.25.02.07.10.1992.18896@athos.rutgers.edu> milton@cs.ucla.edu (Milton Wong) writes:
>...
>The most important points of disagreement were:
>
>1. They demand that you commit a lot of time to meetings with the church, and
>demand that you are active in recruiting new members. 
>
>2. As a member, you are not allowed to date non-Christians. While I accept that
>dating non-Christians might in some cases create problems, I cannot accept
>their unconditional ban on such relationships. Also, their definition of who is
>a Christian is very narrow. They seem to consider only themselves to be true
>Christians.
>
>3. According to their interpretation, "sexual immorality" includes having sex
>before marriage. If a man and a woman love each other, I consider it acceptable
>for them to have sex, provided of course that they are not involved in other
>relationships at the same time.
>
>Now I am looking for a church whose doctrine agrees with my own beliefs.
>
To agree with clh, Milton (so you might know it isn't just the stuffy
moderator dude dissenting with your viewpoint :-) ), it appears that
you have run up on two rocks, one being the peculiarities of that given
group of Christians (they are more strict than most, admittedly), the
other being traditional Christian sexual morality.

There is really just one relationship in which sexuality can be properly
expressed and that is between a man and woman who are married. It really
chafes in this loose, promiscuous age, but that's the way it's written.
It appears you're still quite influenced in outlook by what's in vogue out
there on campus or on television and the cinema of our day. Why don't you
give this second thing a reconsideration? Maybe the Church of Christ crowd
is a bit too overbearing for your tastes, but consider carefully this matter
of sexual morality, Milton. It really would be a pity to see you cast your
lot with a group of morally loose fakers just because you've  hit this
stumbling block.

Jesus said the price of following Him wouldn't necessarily
be an easy one to pay; for you now, that price involves surrendering your
cherished beliefs in sex without marriage. This is not limited to the
Church of Christ; this is a bigger matter.
						God Be With You, Milton!
							Pete
From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: And what *is* a Christian
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:24:23 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <Aug.27.02.40.00.1992.1092@athos.rutgers.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>sbuckley@sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>...And also, what is with all of these denominations?  Do members of one
>denomination think that the members of others are totally wrong and will thus
>be denied access to heaven?  How important are the things that separate the
>denominations.  Could one get along without any of them?  That is, need a 
>Christian be a member or any organized religion at all?  If not, then why are
>so many people members of expensive religious organizations?  Would it not be
>best to worship privately, and to keep others' ideas away?

Different denominations usually develop from different views of the Bible,
different doctrinal beliefs, and sometimes just on how something is
implemented.  It is not necessary to belong to a denomination to be
saved.  One must merely have accepted Christ for that.  All people who
are truly saved belong to Christ's church.  God's plan for his people
is established through the local church.  The local church is important
for areas of teaching, fellowship, worship, etc.  I believe all Christians
should be part of a local church.  One should choose a church that most
strongly conforms to what the Bible says.  Of course, this will naturally
be interpreted differently. I choose to be a member of an independent (meaning
we have no ties to any organization), Baptist (because our church believes
the way I believe...which is what I view the Bible to be saying) church.  This
doesn't mean that a member of a Pentacostal church (where tongues are taught)
isn't saved.  I just don't go because I don't believe that the gift of
tongues are alive today.  Both members may be saved and are members of Christ's
body but both also with differences in interpretation.  When we get to heaven,
I'm sure we'll have all the answers.  As far as expensive religious 
organizations, the expense is no more than what you give.  I believe all 
Christians should tithe and give offerings, but you should establish that
in your own mind from what the Bible teaches.  You are free not to give one
penny...but is that what God wants?

Conclusion: What separates denominations sometimes is VERY important and
sometimes not.  Doctrinal stands are important.  Whether you take communion
at the altar or in your seats isn't.  Hope this helps.
Mark
From: pearsodc@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (D)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Word suspends Warnke sales
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:01:24 GMT
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology

Followup-To: rec.music.christian

More Mike Warnke stuff...from rec.music.christian...

---

From: rhm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Miller)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:33:08 GMT
Subject: Word suspends Warnke sales

Just noted in CCM "In The News" that Word has "suspended" sale of all  
Warnke product". Why they "flip-flopped" is beyond me, unless [warning:  
Bob's cynical (TM) analysis] they decided that it was a better marketing  
decision to bail...

Incidentally, I'm thinking about composing an open letter to CCM magazine 
calling on it to use its insider position and journalistic strength to  
bring about better accountability within the industry and support for  
Christian artists who are trying to live a godly lifestyle within the  
generally corrupting music culture...and posting it to get y'all to email  
in signatures.

Any comments on what we oughta say? I kinda think that if CCM (or Word,  
for that matter), got a letter with 200 signatures *from all over the  
planet*, they might perk up and pay attention...

Bob ("start something") Miller rhm@hpfirhm.fc.hp.com

P.S. don't start mailing me sig's *yet*.... 

---

CCM, by the way, is (as most of you might have guessed) Contemporary  
Christian Music magazine, and aside from the new announcement that Word  
has pulled all Mike Warnke product, there's nothing new in the article.

Send follow-ups to this post to rec.music.christian.  Requests for all  
acquired information (and there's a thick folder in my NeXT account with  
every piece of information you could want to know about this whole  
controversy) to PearsoDC@NeXTWork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (me!).

clueless chuck
From: sbuckley@sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: And what *is* a Christian
Date: 26 Aug 92 06:23:48 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

petersob@uwec.edu (Brent Peterson) writes:

>You could open up an arguement about whether salvation is a one-time
>event or a process.  I used to think that "accepting" Christ was a 
>one-time deal for everyone.  Now, I've been more open because there
>are people that can't remember the day, hour, or even year that they
>were saved.  For me it was a little bit of both.  "Believing" in Jesus
>to me is "a trusting response to God's grace".

  in trying to live a righteous life through the Spirit's conviction
i find re-accepting Christ frequently, sometimes often each day, allows
me to draw closer to God; while in the times when i just think that i've 
accepted jesus once and i'm fine from now on, i tend to drift from a place
where i feel God is close to me and it's harder to live the good life.
From: rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ralph Reid III)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: thought for the day (8-29)
Date: 30 Aug 92 07:24:05 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

Saturday, August 29:

     I viewed the spirit coming down as a dove out of heaven, and it 
remained upon him.  And I have seen it, and I have borne witness that 
this one is the son of God.  <John 1: 32, 34>

-- 
Ralph.  N6BNO.
Phone 1-916-345-9155.
lectromail- rreid@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu.
I do not waste time expressing others' opinions!
From: ASTRO..WESTMAN@cs.hh.ab.com (Don Westman x3645)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: search for online bible texts
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:14:56 GMT
From: westman@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Don Westman x3645)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: search for online bible texts
Date: 27 Aug 92 11:45:01 EST
News-Moderator: Approval required for posting to soc.religion.christian

I have a copy of the "frequently asked questions" for online bibles from this
time last year but all of the pathes to FTPable files seem to have changed
(for example volcano at berkeley doesn't seem to be there any more).  Does
some one have any updates for FTPable bible text and UNIX based bible search
programs?

Thanks in Christ,
  Don Westman
From: v042517@stortek.com (Vince Dugar)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Need contact at CBN/700 Club
Date: 27 Aug 92 07:29:23 GMT
Organization: STK

I need an e-mail contact at the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN)
or the 700 Club.  Can someone supply an address of someone they know
there?  Thank you.

-- 
Vince Dugar                 | My comments represent me and no one else!
Boulder, Colorado           | 
vince_dugar@stortek.com     | "Wise men still seek Him."
From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: resurrection question
Date: 23 Aug 92 23:55:41 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <Aug.21.00.25.39.1992.14213@athos.rutgers.edu> Malachi.Robertson@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Malachi Robertson) writes:
>In article <Aug.18.01.54.47.1992.26692@aramis.rutgers.edu> tvh@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu (HARRISON, TONY V) writes:
>>
>>	Just a quick question...Once we die do we go straight to heaven in a 
>>new spiritual body, or do we remain in the earth until the Lord comes again?
>>Obviously Moses appeared to Peter, etc., The rich man and Lazarus, upon death,
>>were in hell and heaven, respectively.  Any verses of assurance in either 
>>case?  Thanks in advance.
>>			Tony H.
>
>We don't go straight to heaven when we die...

Tony:
  I would again refer you to my reply but I wanted to reply to this statement
with all that followed.  The story of the rich man and Lazerus was NOT a 
parable.  There is no indication that it is a parable.  Again, refer to the
verses I sent you.  If you really seek the truth, pray about it and I 
am sure it will be revealed.  Measure EVERYTHING you read on this group
by the word of God (even what I write).
Thanks
Mark
From: rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ralph Reid III)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: thought for the day (9-3)
Date: 4 Sep 92 07:06:20 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

Thursday, September 3:

     The night is well along; the day has drawn near.  Let us therefore 
put off the works belonging to darkness and let us put on the weapons 
of the light.  As in the daytime let us walk decently, not in revelries 
and drunken bouts, not in illicit intercourse and loose conduct, not in 
strife and jealousy.  <Romans 13: 12, 13>

-- 
Ralph.  N6BNO.
Phone 1-916-345-9155.
lectromail- rreid@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu.
I do not waste time expressing others' opinions!
From: mgran@astro2.ps.uci.edu (Michael Gran (Garden))
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Landmarkism
Date: 30 Aug 92 07:04:59 GMT
Reply-To: mgran@astro2.ps.uci.edu (Michael Gran (Garden))
Organization: University of California, Irvine


	Of late I have been wrestling with a rather obscure doctrine
that has become vogue in my Babtist chuch and some others closely
associated with it.  Landmarkism, as nearly as I understand it, is the
belief that God only recieves glory from people acting as members of
his church, that is, anything that happens outside the church is of
limited interest to God.  And Landmarkism includes the clause that for
a church to be a 'true' church, there must be a succession of baptism
through true churches, eg. that th e pastor of a church must have been
baptised in a 'true' church for his own church to be valid.

	As near as I can tell, this philosophy has been extant for at
least 100 years.  Can anybody tell me more about where this comes
from?  Is this a philosophy espoused by any other modern day group?

						-Mike 

[According to the Dictionary of Christianity in America, it's a 19th
Cent. Baptist movement from the South.  The dominant figure was James
R. Graves, the most influential Baptist clergyman in the 19th Cent.
South.  It began in 1840 when Graves was appointed as editor of "The
Tennessee Baptist".  The writer thinks that modern Baptist localism
(i.e. distrust of national and particularly ecumenical groups) is at
least partly due to this movement.  In the 20th Cent. the
representatives are the American Baptist Association and the Baptist
Missionary Association of America.  It is described as "exclusivist".
That is, only local churches are of significance, and only a small
number of them that are part of a succession of Baptist churches going
back to the true New Testament Church.  --clh]
From: lbarrass@phillip.edu.au
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Revival Centres
Date: 27 Aug 92 07:33:02 GMT

X-Date: 24 Aug 92 12:54:40 EST
X-Organization: RMIT (Bundoora Campus)

There is an agressive Christian-like fringe group in Melbourne called the
Revival Centres of Australia. They have some very weird doctrines including
British Israelism and Baptismal regeneration. They also say you must speak in
tongues to be saved. If anybody has information on their origin/history as well
as theology, or know of references, could they please e-mail me.


	"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels but have not love
	 I have become as sounding brass or a clanging cymbal"  1Cor 13:1
                                                                (NKJV)





-- 
                                               []
                                            [][][][]
                                               []
                                               []
                                               []   2Chron 7:14
================================================================================
lbarrass@phillip.edu.au                     Lindsay     
================================================================================