HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish )
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: WANTED: Christian in or near Mobile, Alabama
Date: 12 Oct 92 06:21:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Kansas State University

If you are a Christian, or even if you are not, and live in or near
Mobile, Alabama, I would like you to contact me by e-mail. 

Don't be shy--flood my e-mail box.
 
-- 
Scott Parish                |  The Truth is still the Truth      |  John 14:6
parsons@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu  |  even if you choose to ignore it.  |

[There's got to be a better way to do this, but I can't find a
distribution code for that area.  --clh]
From: mussack@innerdoor.austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Though he may slay me
Date: 16 Oct 92 08:21:35 GMT

About the idea of doing good without reward:

I've always thought that one of the greatest Christian
novels written was Mark Twain's "Huckleberry Finn."
(Even though Mr. Twain might be offended by my thinking so.)
One scene in particular really struck me.
Huck was going down the Mississippi with his friend Jim the
slave, helping him to escape. Huck's conscience gnaws at him,
because he was brought up to believe that helping runaway
slaves was wrong, not just illegal, but agains God's laws.
He finally decides to help Jim and resigns his fate to hell.
He literally is willing to give up his soul for his friend.

Some may think that he showed disobediance and should go to hell.
But I think he showed great insight. He rejected the "God" that
society had taught him and obeyed the real God, the one he
knew in his heart. Even if he didn't know it, by submitting
himself to the law of love he was submitting himself to God.

I think this is also a secondary interpretation of the story
of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham lived in a culture that had
human sacrifice. He thought that to please "God" he would
have to sacrifice his only son. He even thinks that "God" is
telling him to do this. At the last minute he "realizes",
(an angel tells him) that the real God doesn't want human
sacrifices, that the real God does not give us arbitrary
tasks in opposition to our happiness, that the real God
has real virtues that we know exist regardless of our 
ackward attempts to define Him.

People who say they can't worship a "God" who does bad
things and allows evil to exist are in essence acknowledging 
a higher authority that can judge their image of "God." Ironicly
the higher authority that is so righteous is the real God.


Chris Mussack
From: dike@rs054.intel.com (Charles Dike)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Submission in Relationships
Date: 17 Oct 92 02:31:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: geneva.Oct.16.22.31.16.1992.29189
Organization: Intel Corporation, Beaverton, OR

John Eldridge, you also make many outstanding points. I learned a 
lot from your post. To me it makes perfect sense. I never saw that
before. 

But why say it's a transient truth? The Holy Spirit still submits.
Will we not forever submit to God? I think this is much more than
a transient truth. My first reaction is that transient truth is an
oxymoron. 

Thanks,
Charles Dike
dike@scic.intel.com
From: eje@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com (Eric James Ewanco)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Questions that trouble me
Date: 10 Oct 92 06:32:10 GMT
Reply-To: ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <Oct.9.04.18.08.1992.14744@geneva.rutgers.edu>, motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:

> I was a Roman Catholic until two years ago, and spent many years
> trying to reconcile more fundamentalist and Biblical-based Christian
> concepts to the Catholic faith.  I enjoyed the Mass very much, and
> I would like to comment on transubstantiation.

> As I was taught, during the last supper, Jesus  was pointing out to
> his disciples that God became Man, and God could take on ANY form.
> By saying, "This is my body...", Jesus was saying that even simple
> bread could convey God, if that was God's purpose.

> During the mass, the bread becomes the body of Christ.  It is still
> bread, but it conveys the spiritual essence.  And it can be a powerful
> reminder that God is within us both as a church and as individuals.

Wrong -- this is most certainly heretical in the eyes of the Catholic Church.
The bread _ceases_ to be bread, and becomes the body of Christ; the wine 
_ceases_ to be wine and becomes the blood of Christ.  The Lutheran church
believes that it both remains bread and becomes the Body of Christ.

> As for what is believed, I can speak only for myself, not for others
> in the Catholic church (then or now).  I believed that Christ was
> present in the bread and wine.  It made it difficult for me to take
> Communion if I was feeling unworthy . . . 

A good idea, considering the warnings Paul gives us in Corinthians about
approaching the table of the Lord unworthily.

> Mary Otto

--
/===========================================================================\
| Eric Ewanco - Software Engineer   For the rash and outrageous opinions ex-|
| Digital Equipment, Maynard MA     pressed herein I alone am responsible;  |
| ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com        they do not belong to DIGITAL(TM).      |
\==========================- 2 Th 2:15 -====================================/
    "...[T]he greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and
    organized at Rome by [] Peter and Paul, [is] that Church which has the
    tradition and faith which comes down to us after having been announced
    to men by the Apostles.  For with this Church, because of its superior
    origin, all Churches must agree ...  and it is in her that the
    faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition."
       -- St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, c. 180 A.D., 3,3,3.
From: entropy@world.std.com (The Entropic one)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Oregon hate has come full circle
Date: 9 Oct 92 08:20:38 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

Two corrections:

 I didn't mean to imply that all Christians support the OCA, the post
 was meant to be addressed at those who do.

 In the case of the Ann Frank exhibit the people running it recieved
 harrasing phone calls, it wasn't directly vandalized. The MCC
 and Catholic churchs where.

For a better description of whats going on in Oregon, read 
clari.local.oregon.briefs and alt.politics.homosexuality. 

-- 
----          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!         ----
\  /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers        \  /
 \/   and bean eating ways. Accept the #4 into your heart! \/
     Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568
From: DSIMON@atlas.nafb.trw.com (D_SIMON)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Damnation
Date: 9 Oct 92 08:45:57 GMT
From: dsimon@atlas.nafb.trw.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Damnation
Date: 8 Oct 92 13:21:52 PST
News-Moderator: Approval required for posting to soc.religion.christian

> Hard to believe that so many people who actually read and research the
> Bible still believe in a hell where people are supposedly roasted for all
> eternity.  All the discussion on damnation really has me confused. . .
> Read your Bibles folks, in the Revelation, John speaks about both Death
> and hades being thrown into the lake of fire.  Now tell me, is God going
> to torture death as if it were a personage of some kind?  Is hades to be
> roasted for all eternity?  It is true, the judgement will reveal many
> things, but the penalty for sin is scripturally the "second death".  Not
> some Dark Ages myth about roasting!

Rev. 20:10 - "And the devil . . . was thrown into the lake of fire . . .
where the beast and false prophet are also; and they
will be tormented day and night forever and ever."
Maybe Rev. 20:10 is where the "Dark Ages myth about roasting" originated!

Matt. 25:46 - "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the
righteous into eternal life."
If Xians can expect to live forever, nonXians can expect to be punished 
forever.  Of course, the person who is quoted in Matt. 25:46 was not as
enlightened as many of us are!

Of course, these are only two of many such passages.
I hope that you're right, and that hell is not eternal punishment.  If I
were to make up a religion, I would never include such an offensive doctrine.
But the weight of evidence in the Bible seems to me to indicate that
hell is forever.  
----------
Dan Simon
From: emiddlec@mora.gac.edu (Eric Middlecamp)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Created in his image?
Date: 12 Oct 92 06:42:18 GMT

In article <Oct.9.04.37.13.1992.14917@geneva.rutgers.edu>  writes:
>   o Man was created in the image of God, and in his image created him he.
>o Why would God have arms? 
>o Why would God have legs?
>o In fact, the human design is so poor, what superior being would 
>  WANT to look / be a human? 

Simple: God isn't a "being."
	God is the sum total of all in existence.

[The original challenge was in the context of the Biblical concept
of man being created in the image of God.  It seemed to say that this
makes no sense, because many human physical features would look silly
on God.  Most responses were that the "image" was a metaphor, and
that the similarities were not physical.  By saying that God isn't
a being, you seem to be agreeing with the original criticism that
it makes no sense to see humans as made in God's image.  --clh]
From: wkinman@esk.compserv.utas.edu.au (Warren Michael Kinman)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Dating...
Date: 8 Oct 92 04:52:49 GMT
Organization: University of Tasmania at Launceston

In article <Oct.4.22.10.45.1992.6028@geneva.rutgers.edu>, ichoi@scws4.harvard.edu (Isaac Choi) writes:
>
>Hi everyone!
>
>My roommate (who is also Christian) has broken up recently and is about to
>seriously re-consider the issue of dating--how much is right, what kinds
>are right, or even if dating is ok for a Christian. I couldn't think of many
>scriptural references or much solid advice I could give him, so I was won-
>dering of you people out there in netland would have any sound Biblical 
>advice on dating and the like..  I would hate to start a flame war or a 
>major controversy, but I just want to know if any of you have some ideas
>on the issues of Christian dating...  Thanks!


Hi guys,
Don't know if it will be much help, or even available to you over there. 
(Should be though).  I have a series of tapes (audio) by a guy called Ray
Mossholder (true).  He did one lot on single relationships and another lot
on married relationships.  Also available are work-book type things to go 
with the tapes.  I found them witty and informative, he doesn't skirt issues
like sex, masturbation and such.  If interested I will find out the church he
is affilliated with and possible mailing address.

Hope this is helpful.
Wazza.
From: pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Suggestions about 1Cor.14:22-25
Date: 10 Oct 92 06:28:01 GMT

The Fee [clh] modified explanation sounded pretty good to me.
 
An additional thought about v23 is that we aren't always to govern our
actions by what others think. (Much better if we govern them by what
God thinks.) Also, it doesn't appear to me that the text demands
that we take the reaction of others thinking we are out of our minds 
in a negative light for the purpose of determining our actions.
 
It has seemed to me to be a statement of fact. One could paraphrase it
this way, "Hey listen group, if you are all praying in tongues together
at the same time, someone who hears you but doesn't understand what you 
are doing is likely to think you are out of your mind."
 
It does not say that the practice must be avoided because of this 
reaction. It seems just as reasonable that what is implied is that we
should be ready to answer this reaction.
 
Another possible scenario is that the reaction is exactly what is intended and
that while the unbeliever is standing there stunned wondering what 
these crazy people are doing, the direction of the meeting shifts and
a prophecy is spoken of the nature that convinces him that he is a sinner,
reveals the secrets of his heart and causes him to fall down in worship
proclaiming that God is really among us. (This by the way has the
rather dramatic by-product of answer the initial concern about the
sanity of the group that was first found praying altogether in tongues.)

Peter White
From: bremer@katk.helsinki.fi (BREMER H I INCI)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Does anyone want to correspond about Opus Dei?
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:14:12 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki, Computing Centre

Hello, I was wondering if anyone has had experiences with or interestes in 
the personal prelature Opus Dei of the Catholic Church and would like to 
correspond with me about it? I am a German girl studying Theology as my 2nd 
major in Helsinki, Finland, age 26, Catholic, and have many other interests 
as well. I am NOT a member of the OD, just know some & have read some about 
it...
You can write me by either e- or s-mail:

inci.bremer@helsinki.fi

Inci Bremer
Alkutie 67 D 42
SF-00660 Helsinki
Finland.
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Men's/Women's Roles in Marriage
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:33:56 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <Oct.13.01.22.42.1992.21961@geneva.rutgers.edu>
>wagner@grace.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) writes:
>
>> I have found it interesting to note that Peter says that a wife
>> should submit even to an unbelieving husband, so that she might
>> win him to Christ 'without words'.  God's will that the wife
>> 'submit is not conditional on the husband's faith or behavior--
>

I have a problem with this.  If a woman's non-Christian (or Christian, for
that matter) husband told her to do something opposed to God's law --
sleep with his best buddy, for instance -- whom are you implying she
should obey, her husband or God?  I believe that a woman's first duty is
always to God, and that therefore her submission _is_ conditional on her
husband's behavior (though not necessarily his faith).  

Abram told his wife, Sarai, to lie about him being her brother, and she
did so.  The Bible narrates this as fact; it _doesn't_ say that this is
doctrine we should live by.  Nor does it imply that what Sarai did was
admirable.  If my husband asked me to lie, I'd have a real problem with
that.  



-- 
The trick of reason is to get the imagination to seize the actual world --
if only from time to time.     -- Annie Dillard, "An American Childhood"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
From: tonyp@convex.com (honey bunny)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Created in his image?
Date: 9 Oct 92 08:37:14 GMT
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA

As always, before the question, I present the facts;

---
Christian Fact:

   o Man was created in the image of God, and in his image created him he.

   o God is everywhere. He is in all places at all times.

   o God's WILL be done.

   o God can "impart" (as opposed to "talk") knowledge, as in Noah's Arc,
     when one of the brothers was concerned that the lions would eat the
     other animals, and someone said something to the effect that the
     it was implanted in the animals not to do that kinda stuff right now.
---

MAN WAS CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD.

Let's take a look at this, from a good ol' 20th-century point:

o Why would God have arms? 
    He doesn't need to feed himself. 
    He doesn't need to pickup stuff. 
    He doesn't need them to do things.

o Why would God have legs?
    He doesn't need to get up.
    He doesn't need to move around - he is already everywhere.

o Why would God need a mouth?
    He already has the ability to impart thoughts upon others. With
    telepathic abilities having a mouth is ludicrous.

o In fact, the human design is so poor, what superior being would 
  WANT to look / be a human? 

  Face it: other than the brain, it is surpassed by many others;

   - it isn't fast.
   - it isn't strong.
   - it isn't warm.
   - it damages very easily.
   - it has limited repair capabilities.
   - it doesn't last long.

---
We now return to your regularly-scheduled program.


--
    Tony J. Podrasky             BIBLE : 
     San Diego , Ca                       BUY BULL ? 
    tonyp@convex.com                                  ( NO ) 
QSL? QRU? QRZ? QLZ? QFA?                                      BYE, BULL !
From: MOSTERBE@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Sharing the Gospel with people who don't think they're sinners
Date: 8 Oct 92 05:10:19 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs

In article <Oct.4.22.02.16.1992.5928@geneva.rutgers.edu>
miller@b-mrda.ca.boeing.com (Mark Miller) writes:

>(stuff deleted)
> You can inform, bless and love those around you. Until the Spirit
>intervenes, we remain blameless in our own eyes. (Even us Christians, to
>an extent...) It sounds as though your best approach is prayer and fasting.
>Know that the Lord loves these people more than you, and your prayers
>do not fall on deaf ears. I have seen God faithful to my prayers of this
>type, but on His timetable, not mine. It could take literally decades.
>Be faithful in prayer and patient.
>
I heartily agree with this.  Scripture says "Walk "in wisdom" to them that are
without, redeeming the time..  I too have seen God's faithfulness in answering
my prayers for unbelievers.  He puts a "desire" in their hearts a sort of
curiosity, to want to find out just who Jesus is and how he applies to their
lives.  Pray without ceasing!  God bless you.  You have a sincere heart.
In His love,
Maureen Osterberg
From: rjb@akgua.att.com (Robert J Brown)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Name It & Claim It
Date: 8 Oct 92 05:01:32 GMT
Organization: AT&T

If we are going to discuss Prosperity Teaching, let's do it
without the building and bashing of strawmen that look like
Copeland et al.  Let's dicuss the elements of the doctrines
as-taught rather than the worst misapplications you can think
of.  Our Master Jesus can be bashed on the very same grounds
as many of His teachings have been misapplied by well intentioned
folks and I've got the pictures to prove it :-(

Bobby - akgua!rjb
From: aslt@acad2.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Christ vs. chronic depression?
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:21:03 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska

Listened in on an interesting ad hoc discussion which boiled down to whether 
'Christian' and 'chronically depressed' were mutually exclusive terms.
What's the net.opinion on this?

Thanks.  E-mail replies welcome.
From: emiddlec@mora.gac.edu (Eric Middlecamp)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: "Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him."
Date: 12 Oct 92 06:45:28 GMT

In article <Oct.9.04.13.37.1992.14667@geneva.rutgers.edu>  writes:
>DSIMON@thor.nafb.trw.com (D_SIMON) writes:

>>If faithfulness to God DIDN'T pay off (e.g. if there was no heaven, 
>>or if the person knew somehow that he was going to hell anyways) 
>>would there be any possibility of encouraging the person to remain 
>>faithful to God?

Are you including the reward in the act itself?

>Good question - The apostle Paul wrote "For I would be cut off from Christ
>for the sake of my brethren" (I can't remember the exact quote, and I 
>don't have my Bible with me just now) essentially sayin that He would be
>willing to go to hell if by so doing other Jews could be saved. Mindboggling,
>isn't it? Would I do the same? Would you?

The God in me would every time.  Then again, if I could help more
people by not helping this one, I'm not sure what I'd do.

>What if we turn your question around: If faithfulness to man DIDN't pay off,
>would there be any possibility of encouraging God to remain faithful to
>us? Would Christ die for us while we were yet sinners?

Are you saying that God is doing this for himself or for us (which
could be for himself)?  Regardless, God does not even consider the
possibility of rejecting us, i.e. being evil.  That is the nature of
goodness, of God.

Christ wouldn't have had to die for us if we were not sinners. That is
the point.
From: eje@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com (Eric James Ewanco)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Questions that trouble me
Date: 8 Oct 92 05:10:14 GMT
Reply-To: ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <Oct.7.01.49.00.1992.10899@geneva.rutgers.edu>, memco@cns.nyu.edu writes:

> 3)	Finally, it is my understanding that
> when Christians consume the host and drink the
> sacremental wine, at the moment they enter the mouth, they are
> supposedly transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus
> respectively. Considering the human aspect of his body,
> why shouldn't this be considered as cannibalism?

> [Point 3 applies specifically to Catholics only, so I won't comment in
> detail.  However I would guess if you ask why cannibalism is wrong,
> the reasons probably would turn out not to apply to that particular
> situation.

> --clh]

Actually it applies to Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and Lutherans.  We
don't believe that they are transformed into the body and blood of Christ
when they enter the mouth -- they are transformed at the consecration.  It is
not a material transformation, that is, not one that affects our senses or the
atoms and molecules, but rather it is an ontological transformation that cannot
be detected by scientific instruments.  Because it does not turn into molecules
of flesh and blood (or rather molecules arranged as flesh and blood), and
because no human dies in the process (one of the main reasons cannibalism is
wrong), it is not cannibalism.

--
/===========================================================================\
| Eric Ewanco - Software Engineer   For the rash and outrageous opinions ex-|
| Digital Equipment, Maynard MA     pressed herein I alone am responsible;  |
| ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com        they do not belong to DIGITAL(TM).      |
\==========================- 2 Th 2:15 -====================================/
    "...[T]he greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and
    organized at Rome by [] Peter and Paul, [is] that Church which has the
    tradition and faith which comes down to us after having been announced
    to men by the Apostles.  For with this Church, because of its superior
    origin, all Churches must agree ...  and it is in her that the
    faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition."
       -- St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, c. 180 A.D., 3,3,3.