HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: alisonjw@spider.co.uk (Alison J Wyld)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Men's/Women's Roles in Marriage
Date: 10 Oct 92 06:09:02 GMT
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK.

In article <Oct.8.01.13.44.1992.12783@geneva.rutgers.edu> cctr058@cantva.canterbury.ac.nz (Robin Harrington, CSC) writes:
>In article <Oct.7.01.12.50.1992.10636@geneva.rutgers.edu>, 
>alisonjw@spider.co.uk (Alison J Wyld) writes:
>> My problem with the whole male headship teaching is this:
>> 
>> It seems to me from the accounts of creation that men and women were
>> both created in the image of God and created equal.  "The curse" in
>> Genesis 3 may not actually be prescriptive, but rather a description
>> of the consequences of the Fall.
>
>The major difficulty with the "curse" theory is that the Genesis
>prescription for marriage in Genesis 2:20-24 occurs before the fall.
>
>Here the ideal of complementarity is highlighted and it is to this
>ideal we should be returning not an equality ideal that has non-Biblical 
>roots. Besides, we would need to re-write Ephesians 5 to fit this ideal.
>

Well I'm afraid I don't see any definition of separate roles or of an
authority structure given before the Fall.  I agree we should be
striving to return our relationships to what God meant them to be, I
guess I just differ in my interpretation of what that means.

I believe that far from "rewriting" Ephesians 5, those of us who
attempt to live in mutual love and mutual submission are living it
out.  As a Christian, I submit to my husband, who is first and
foremost my brother in Christ.  And equally he submits to me, as his
sister in Christ.  And of course we love each other, both as man and
woman and as brother and sister.

I would be curious to hear from folks who do accept the male headship
teaching to hear what practical effects it has on their lives and
decisions.  I ask because I have several friends who claim to practice
this teaching.  In practice however, they appear to do pretty much as
we do - except sometimes I fear there is less honesty between them.  I
know Christian women who regularly deceive their husbands to do
something their husband wouldn't like.  I never need to do that.

>
>Love, respect and submission is a theme that runs through the whole NT
>and they affect all aspects of our lives, not just church or married life.
>But they are conditioned by our gifts and calling, these often providing
>the framework under which they are lived out.
>

Absolutely.  Maybe we are just using slightly different
interpretations to come to basically the same conclustions ?

>Regards
>Robin

In Him

Alison
From: easteee@wkuvx1.bitnet
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: ** Dating **
Date: 7 Oct 92 05:16:16 GMT
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY

Someone asked a question about dating earlier..  I believe the most
benificial and satisfying way to go about dating is make ABSOLUTE sure
that both companions lift up Christ and recognize him together in
their
relationship.  Christian dating is not between 2 people, it is between
3, Christ being in the middle and the most important.  Each person
should pray with one another and for each other and feel free to have
bible studies together.  If both truly love the Lord, you will have
something very, very special and powerful..  If the other person can't
look caringly into your soul and help you and your walk with the Lord
(and vice versa), GET RID OF THEM..  If you are unsure, by all means
use your God-given power to pray about it.
I hope this helps..
      -In Christ
______ __   ___  ___           o  __   ___  |    Western  Kentucky    |
  /   /__) /__  /__  /     )  /  /__) /__   |       University        |
 /   /  \ (___ (___ (__/__/  /  /  \ (___   |  EASTEEE@WKUVX1.BITNET  |
From: anonymous@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Liz Broadwell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: God's Slaves? (Was Re: Question on the Bible)
Date: 10 Oct 92 06:25:32 GMT
Organization: Society of Independent Newswaifs

In article <Oct.8.00.53.18.1992.12479@geneva.rutgers.edu>, Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.
n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Steve Hayes) writes:
> The difference between a servant and a slave is that a servant is a hireling, 
> in it for the money. As slaves of Christ we know that we are not our own, we 
> have been bought with a price. We have been tranferred from the athority of 
> darkness into the kingdom of God's beloved son. There has been a transfer of 
> ownership, of possession, from Satan to God. And it is only as slaves of 
> Christ that we can be truly free.

But that only explains part of the situation, doesn't it?  I don't reject the
idea that "none of us lives as his [or her] own," but I also believe that we
are free to accept or reject the Lord's authority over us.  God doesn't ride
roughshod over human free will; if we're stubborn enough, or stupid enough, or
sinful enough not to accept the transfer of authority referred to above, then
we choose damnation over salvation and have to live with the consequences.

I would propose that neither "slave" nor "servant" alone properly defines the
relationship of human beings to Christ.  Both of them have connotations that
fit the situation -- slavery as total submission to the will of God,
servititude involving the free choice of the will of God over one's own -- and
both have connotations that don't -- slavery as destructive to an individual's
identity, servitude as being in it for the fringe benefits.  Key here is, I
guess, not to let ourselves be locked into one set of images.  How many
different ways did Jesus describe the Kingdom of God in his parables?

So let's not forget one other image of the relationship between ourselves and
the Lord:  "I no longer call you slaves, because a slave does not know what his
master is doing.  I have called you friends, because I have told you everything
I have heard from my Father" (John 15:15).


* Liz Broadwell (by643@cleveland.freenet.edu) ***************************
* Department of English                       *   Cor ad Cor Loquitur   *
* The University of Pennsylvania              ***************************
                                    
Newman Centenary Celebration * 1893-1993 * 100 Years of Campus Ministry!
From: jfb@macsch.com (John Baskette)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Help Needed
Date: 10 Oct 92 07:03:23 GMT
Organization: MacNeal-Schwendler Corp.

In article <Oct.8.01.12.03.1992.12762@geneva.rutgers.edu> motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:
>Greetings.

>
>But can anyone provide me with evidence of scientists and other
>"empirical" thinkers (mathematicians come to mind) who were
>also religious?  Russ Lawrence has been bashing a Christian
>and discrediting his opinions because of Christian beliefs.
>
>Please respond via email or post.  Thanks.
>
>Mary Otto

Some names:

Alfred North Whitehead, mathematician and philosopher
Sir James Jeans, astronomer
Michael Polanyi, chemist and philosopher
Charles Coulson, mathematician and chemist
Charles Townes, Physics Nobel Laureate
Sir Alistair Hardy, biologist
Carl Friedrich von Weizacker, physicist
Werner Heisenberg
Max Planck

Albert Einstein is a border line case.

If you are willing to go back into the history of science
you can come up with other names such as:

Clerk Maxwell  (a strong evangelical)
Sir William Thomson (Lord Kelvin)
Corpernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Leibnitz, Descartes
Isaac Newton (an arian who spent 50% of his studies in the Scriptures)

I am sure that there are more.

John
From: wagner@grace.math.uh.edu (David Wagner)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Men's/Women's Roles in Marriage
Date: 16 Oct 92 08:12:29 GMT
Organization: UH Dept of Math

"Lauren" == Lauren L. Crawford <crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu> writes:

Lauren> 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--

Lauren> I have a problem with this.  If a woman's non-Christian (or
Lauren> Christian, for that matter) husband told her to do something
Lauren> opposed to God's law -- sleep with his best buddy, for
Lauren> instance -- whom are you implying she should obey, her husband
Lauren> or God?  I believe that a woman's first duty is always to God,

I agree with this completely.

Lauren> and that therefore her submission _is_ conditional on her
Lauren> husband's behavior (though not necessarily his faith).

I can't agree with this conclusion unless it is made more precise.
A husband's bad behavior does not excuse the wife from submission,
unless such submission would involve disobeying God. However,
as I said before, if he breaks the marriage bond, particularly
through adultery or malicious desertion, then it is
no sin to divorce him.

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

All I said was that Sarah's example was interesting. I didn't say
it was perfect.

In Sarah's case, her conscience may have been weakened somewhat
by the fact that the lie was only a half-truth--and only a `half-lie'.
Which only shows how temptation usually involves a number of small
steps away from the Lord, and usually not big, obvious ones.

David Wagner
a confessional Lutheran.
From: huang@mwilliams.eche.ualberta.ca
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Help Needed
Date: 11 Oct 92 02:29:14 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada

: >But can anyone provide me with evidence of scientists and other
: >"empirical" thinkers (mathematicians come to mind) who were
: >also religious?  Russ Lawrence has been bashing a Christian
: >and discrediting his opinions because of Christian beliefs.
: 
: Isaac Newton (an arian who spent 50% of his studies in the Scriptures)
: 
: I am sure that there are more.
: 
: John

Just to expand a little bit on Sir Isaac Newton.  He did not spend any
more time on calculus or physics after he turned 45.  Rather he studied
the prophecies in Daniel and Revelation.  His writings usually can be
found in large universities' rare books sections.  I cannot remember 
the exact titles.  I think one of them is called "On the Apocalypse of the
Revelation according to St. John."  Good luck.
From: cnc405@bnr.ca (Charles (C.F.) Board)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: re: Government Subsidizing Religion
Date: 17 Oct 92 02:30:01 GMT

> "All of us?"  You're up in Canada!  You pay taxes to Uncle Sam?! (smirk) :)
        ^^^

Careful - you're jumping to conclusions :). Unfortunately, netaddresses are
not very useful for determining geographic location. I've lived in North
Carolina for 23 years. I have a .ca email address because my employer is
a corporation that (for security reasons) allows net access only through a
single "secure gateway" - which happens to be in Canada.

Given what I've heard about Canadian taxes, I'm glad I pay Uncle Sam instead!
From: allegra!lieuwen@allegra.att.com (Dan Lieuwen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Government Subsidizing Religion?
Date: 17 Oct 92 02:30:42 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ

>>How about Matt 5:38 and following ?  If the government requires us to
>>go ONE MILE in taxes, shouldn't we be willing to go TWO ??
>>
>>Gee Sam, our belligerent, rebellious, American culture doesn't always
>>fit nicely with Scripture now does it??   And mark it down, I don't
>>want to pay any more than the minimum tax required either!
>>

If the exegesis in _Violence and Non-violence in South Africa:  Jesus'
Third Way_ is correct, there's no problem with it.  The author maintains
that we misunderstand that story (and the turn the other cheek, and the
if someone sues you for one piece of clothes, give both).

According to the author, in Roman times, there were mile markers on the roads.
A soldier could legally force you to walk one mile, but could not force you
to walk two.  In fact, he could be disciplined for forcing you to walk two.
The Roman government wanted to get maximum labor out of the conquered people
w/o causing revolts by making things too extreme.

No commanding officer would believe you volunteered to walk an extra mile
for his man.  The soldier would have to beg you not to go two, lest he get
in trouble.   Thus, you are turning the relationship upside down from one
where you are commanded to one where you are begged.  This could force the
soldier to finally see you not as a conquered person but as a PERSON.

All the stories are about creatively attacking legalized injustice and
forcing the other to see you as a human being--thus helping the unjust
person to become more human.

Since that is the purpose, not doing more than the minimum is just fine
(at least based on the exegesis of that passage alone).
However, if you feel that something is unjust, you may have an obligation
to creatively attack it even if this is inconvenient (I think the Freedom Ride
is in that category.  The riders had the law on their side.  By their suffering,
they showed an ugly side of America and helped change it.)

Dan
From: DSIMON@thor.nafb.trw.com (D_SIMON)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: opinions on the big bang needing a external cause
Date: 7 Oct 92 05:22:00 GMT

> The argument that God must exist because the universe could not exist
> without a creator is one of the weakest ever presented. If God can be
> self sufficient and capable of producing the universe why can't the
> universe be self sufficient? This is so simple even a child can
> understand it. Who has not asked "Who made God?" So the bottom line
> is that there is not reason to suppose that the universe must have
> been externally created. Postulating a creator only moves the question
> of ultimate origins back one level. 

I don't agree with this line of reasoning.  Let's assume that the
universe did have a beginning.  Then the easiest explanation for its
beginning is that it was created by some agent which exists outside 
of time and space.  

Now you say that we've just moved the question of origin back one level.
But it may be arguable that the universe had to have a beginning, while
God may by nature be eternal.  So, it is true that we still have a
question of origin.  But the question of the origin of God is qualitatively
different than the question of the origin of the universe.  This is
because God exists outside of time and space.

An eternal God is more agreeable with my intuition than an eternal universe.
I'm not trying to trivialize the question of the origin of God, or how
He could be eternal.  I've just moved the question of origins from
physics to theology.
-----------
Dan Simon
From: hartley@maths.uwa.oz.au (Mike Hartley)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: "Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him."
Date: 9 Oct 92 08:13:38 GMT
Organization: The University of Westrn Australia

DSIMON@thor.nafb.trw.com (D_SIMON) writes:

>Job 13:15 says, "Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him."

>My question is how loyal should a person be to God?  
> [..]
>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?

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?

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?

Just some thoughts...
Yours, Mike H...

--
Michael Hartley 		    _-_|\  | "All things works for good to
hartley@madvax.maths.uwa.oz.au     /	 \ |  them that love God - them that
University of WA ----------------> *_.-._/ |  are the called according to His
					v  |  purpose" - Romans 8:28
From: ccjwm@marlin.jcu.edu.au (John Miller)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Was Sign of Jonah / 3 days etc.
Date: 7 Oct 92 05:11:27 GMT
Organization: James Cook University

(Note to our Dear Moderator

 If the following questions are covered by some FAQ list please
 direct me how to locate this list.  God bless and thanks for
 your consistantly good work in moderating this group.)

I've been following the Sign of Jonah, 3 days and three night's thread
with some interest.  Here are some questions that the various posts
have provoked in my mind.

I'd like to ask those of you who would know better than I how the 
times "6th hour" and "9th hour" mentioned in Mark 15:33 relate to 
time expressed as we would ie. am/pm?  I guess this is probably
a FAQ, sorry, but I would like to know.

Secondly, if Jesus was crucified in the evening, what was the 
significance of the "darkness" since mere heavy cloud cover could 
have caused just such an effect at night?

	At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land till the
	ninth hour.		Mark 15:33

Another puzzling thing for me is that according to the notes
in the NIV Study Bible, the month of Nisan equates to March/April,
yet REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov in article 11005 seems to assume a June 6 
date for the Passover Sabbath in 30AD.  What are the bases for these
two seemingly opposing assumptions?

Finally, and I suppose this is also an FAQ, where does the 30AD as
opposed to 33AD date for the year of Jesus' crucifixion come from?


           *
         *   *
    *       +
*          *
  
      .    +------------------------------------------------------------------+
  _/~\|\,__| John Miller           | Internet Mail - ccjwm@jcu.edu.au         |
 /      \  | Computer Centre       | PSI Mail - PSI%050527372000051::J_MILLER |
 \_/~~\_/  | James Cook University of North Queensland | Phone: +61 77 815447 |
       v   | Townsville, 4811,  AUSTRALIA              | Fax:   +61 77 796371 |
           +------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: teh@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Richie L C TEH)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Prayer Request from SFC Latrobe Uni, Victoria, Australia
Date: 16 Oct 92 05:27:18 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia

Hi everyone,

 Here's a prayer request from SFC in Latrobe uni. SFC stands for
Student For Christ and it's purpose is to spread the previous word of
God to students in university around Australia.SFCs are active in
almost all tertiary institution in the state of Victoria and New South
Wales in Australia. I'm not sure if the other state have SFCs.

 A couple of weeks ago, the SFC in latrobe university in Melbourne
organised a seminar on the topic Sexuality. This was held on two days
during lunch time.  During the seminar, there were interuptions from
people from the Gay & Lesbian group in Latrobe. It got to a point
where these people were shouting obscenity at the people attending the
seminar. Despite these interuptions, the seminar was a success.

 The problem got worse now because the Gay & Lesbian group are trying
to throw SFC out of Latrobe, by filing complain to the Student Union
in latrobe. Please pray for us here that this incident would not seize
the activity that SFC are doing at Latrobe. Believe me, the Gay &
Lesbian group and other left wing group presence in Latrobe is a big
one and they can do anything. Also, please pray that this incident
will touch some of them. Obviously, they felt treaten about all this.
Thanks you.

God Bless!!!!!!

Richie Teh
-- 
Richie   ( that's me....)
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: opinions on the big bang needing a external cause
Date: 7 Oct 92 05:16:23 GMT
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University

In article <Oct.6.00.06.16.1992.8403@geneva.rutgers.edu>, mayne@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne) writes:
>In article <Oct.4.22.02.29.1992.5938@geneva.rutgers.edu> schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel) writes:
>>Could people on this channel post some opinions on whether they think the
>>universe can be self sufficient (i.e. does it have to have a specific cause)
>>or did it have to be externally created (by God).
>
>The argument that God must exist because the universe could not exist
>without a creator is one of the weakest ever presented. If God can be
>self sufficient and capable of producing the universe why can't the
>universe be self sufficient? This is so simple even a child can
>understand it. Who has not asked "Who made God?" So the bottom line
>is that there is not reason to suppose that the universe must have
>been externally created. Postulating a creator only moves the question
>of ultimate origins back one level. 

There is an equally simply response.  All natural phenomena must have a cause.
Thus, the universe (being natural, i.e. constrained by physical laws) must have
a cause.  On the other hand, God is SUPER-natural and therefore not bound by
physical law.  Thus, He need not have a cause.  To say the universe is self
sufficient requires you to cast off the cause-and-effect paradigm that underlies
all of physics.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.
From: bbs.skeezix@tsoft.sf-bay.org (Fred Felli)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: True Faith
Date: 13 Oct 92 05:29:00 GMT
Organization: The TSoft BBS and Public Access Unix, +1 415 969 8238


 In article  <Oct.6.00.39.10.1992.8622@geneva.rutgers.edu> Michael
 Glassey writes:
 
 > D. Bonhoeffer was not American (his Christian brothers and sisters
 > were not volunteers)
 
I am puzzled about the relevancy of this. My reason for uploading the
article was that I thought it was an apt description of what real faith
looks like. I admit some ignorance of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's history, or
even his overall theology for that matter.
 
 >some study of the changing historical meanings of the words faith and
 > belief (from NT Greek to our current "belief" (in spite of all
 > evidence) is quite rewarding.
 
No doubt. But the great thing about the Bible is the myriad examples it
gives of what true faith looks like. Abraham, Paul, Hebrews 11, etc. I
think one can come up with a pretty good working definition of what
faith means without an exhaustive word study.
 
 
 
-Fred (freddy@west.darkside.com) / (bbs.skeezix@tsoft.sf-bay.org)
 
 

--
Fred Felli (bbs.skeezix@tsoft.sf-bay.org)