HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Christianity and economics
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:21:15 GMT

Rob Peglar writes:

>CLH mentioned that he'd like to keep the economics discussion centered
>around aspects of Christianity.  I tend to agree; perhaps the parable of the
>dishonest manager would be worth (re-)reading in regards to the topic.

Another that comes to mind as having particular relevance to the current
drift is the parable of the talents.  I would note that Jesus does not
recommend simply collecting the interest as the best course.....
-- 
C. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
                  +    but strife closed in the sod.
mangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
tove!mangoe       +    the marv'lous peace of God."
From: jte@psi.com (John Eldredge)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Submission in Relationships
Date: 16 Oct 92 08:19:57 GMT
Organization: Performance Systems International, Inc. Reston Virginia.

Lauren Crawford makes many outstanding points.

Can we paint a broader context?  Orthodox Christianity accepts the Trinity
as one God, yet three Persons:  Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  Each is equally
and fully God.

In addition is the concept of the "economic Trinity."  That is, while 
intrinsicly equal, each Person of the Godhead submitted in order for God's 
plan of salvation to be implemented.  Christ repeatedly refers to submitting 
to the Father's will (the sweating of blood in the Garden of Gethsemane is 
likely the best illustration).  The Holy Spirit's role or action plan for 
this time period is bringing glory to the Son.  The question of equality
is never considered - only how the Godhead conducts itself in order to 
work out God's plan of salvation.

The analogy is then extended in Ephesians 5 to human relationships:  men to 
Christ, women to their husbands, children to their parents, slaves to their
masters.  The intrinsic value or equality of each individual is never 
questioned - only how the individual functions in his or her God-given
roles and relationships.  To what end?  That Christ is glorified and made 
known.  If submission is not present in such a human relationship, Christ
is not manifested.

While there are many practical breakdowns or interesting examples, like my
wife of ten years being quite wise to the point where I am a fool to
blatantly contradict her veto of a decision of mine, I am still responsible
to lead my family.  My wife is still responsible to "submit" to me.  My
children are still responsible to "submit" to their parents.  I am still
responsible to "submit" to my master (aka employer).  Not doing so brings
consequences.

So the question revolves around the word "submit," since it is impossible
to discount God's requirement for each of us to submit (except, of course,
those who conveniently use errancy to dismiss this truth). 

"Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ."  Eph 5:21  Is it 
possible to consider others needs ahead of our own?  Is it possible
that our self-centerdness and stubborness is a result of sin?  Is it
possible that God expects more from His children than what the modern
thinkers conclude apart from God and His revelation?

"To the woman he said,...Your desire will be for your husband, and he will
rule over you."  Gen 3:16  Is submission part of how God wishes us to 
operate after the fall and before His return?  Is submission a "mean"
penalty for sin, or a needed imposition of structure to curb our
rebellion during this age?  I talk in terms of transient truths, since
in eternity such relationships and genders will be no more.

Submission to ANYONE runs counter to our rebellious sin natures.  But it 
is clearly an exercise both commanded by God and indicative of our walk
with Him.  "If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as
I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love."  Jn 15:10

John
From: klopfer@natinst.com (Mike Klopfer)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Relationship presumes existence
Date: 17 Oct 92 02:36:17 GMT
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX

In the three articles  :

ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
>You cannot possibly have a relationship, when you are willing
>to consider the non-existence of one party to the relationship.

seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson)
>This seems to suggest that Christians are forbidden to doubt.  I can not
>accept this prohibition of logic applied to faith.  

cole@maverick ( Cole Keirsey)
>So, it would be absurd to say that I had to believe there was a second
>article before I searched for it.  Yet, when you search for something,
>you have a certain relationship to it.

there is a discussion of our relationship to God and what place doubts 
do and should have in this. The problem I find with doubts in my life 
is that most of the time they are more like an excuse than a real seeking 
after God. We can pose them in terms of philosophy or science but at 
bottom are they an attempt to avoid the real question that we are 
confronted by in Jesus? The thing I am most helped by in this activity 
is when God helps me to see through my smoke screen.

Our relationship to God isn't like the realtionship of a physicist or 
philosopher to his theory or an inventor to his invention. This model is 
too limited to even deal with human realtionships. The example that Seanna 
sites about her relationship to her husband is an example. First of all I 
don't know that these other philosophies are really a doubt for her but I 
wager they don't in anyway compete with her relationship to her husband. Why 
is that? Is it because she has some reasonable explanation for her relationship
with her husband? If we mean by reason a logical process on the level of 
mathematical or scientific reasoning the answer has to be no.
At any rate Seanna apparently finds herself devoting much to this relationship.
Thought and reasoning are no doubt part of this relationship and maybe even
doubt at times but don't we usually find that the reasons for that doubt are
really insignificant and a result of stupidity and meanness? Whether this
is true or not for Seanna I find it to be true in my relationship to God.
The basis for that relationship isn't in my ability or even desire to understand
Him. It is totally based on the fact that He loved me in the form of His son
Jesus. Furthermore as I encounter His love there, I find Him loving me in that
same way every day. Still I let stupid and trivial doubts destract me and
lead me to deny that love. But that only demonstrates how wrong I am to follow
after such unimportant things in the face of such love as His. There is plenty
of room for me to reason, discover and act within the vastness of that love
and to let my life be directed by it but instead I choose the impossible 
objective of looking outside of it.
From: billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Government Subsidizing Religion?
Date: 16 Oct 92 08:23:22 GMT
Organization: LA&W RR

In article <Oct.13.01.23.22.1992.21971@geneva.rutgers.edu> cnc405@bnr.ca (Charles (C.F.) Board) writes:

>As an atheist this disturbs me. It looks like we DO have government
>subsidies for religious proslytizing.  True, this is not a direct government
>expenditure - but every time this man gives money to to further Christian
>propaganda, money that would have gone to the US treasury doesn't. So someone
>else (all of us, actually) must pay more. I'm curious what the Christian
>viewpoints are on forcing non-believers to support your religion through
>charitable deduction laws, property tax exemptions,etc?

All Americans end up subsidizing things we don't agree with.
That is one of the prices we pay for our freedom.

I believe Abortion is murder.  Yet the government twists my arm into
subsidizing abortion.  If I were to withhold that portion of my taxes
which support abortion, Mr IRS would be at my door.

I don't believe in free rides (i.e. welfare).  The Bible says (loosely)
if you don't work you don't eat.  Does that mean I don't believe in
helping the unemployed, unfortunates, etc?  No.  I believe in Workfare.
Let the people who can't get a job do something constructive for their
assistance.  I helps society in general by accomplishing tasks (let them
paint roads, or clean city streets, etc) and it builds character and
self confidence in the recipients.  During the depression my grandfather
had to take a WPA job to get by, there was no welfare then.  From what
my grandparents told me, it wasn't so terrible.  Why should people today
have "free" handouts?  But again, my arm is twisted by the government
into supporting something I don't believe in.

Those who didn't believe in VietNam War/Korean War/WW II/etc.  have been
forced to pay for it.


Contributions to a host of charitable organizations with no religious
affiliation, to any recognized religious organization (whether Christian,
Jewish, Islamic, etc.), etc all result in reduced government revenues.
Some of use believe that our money is more efficiently spent by the
private sector than the government.  If the deductions for contributions
were eliminated, contributions would decrease and the government would
have to take up the slack.  That Salvation Army soup kitchen means one
less government welfare program to feed the hungry.  Do you honestly
believe that each $1 spent by the Salvation Army (or some other
religious or non-sectarian group) could be spent AS efficiently (never
mind more efficiently) by the government?
From: entropy@world.std.com (The Entropic one)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Oregon hate has come full circle
Date: 8 Oct 92 05:07:30 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

Currently the OCA (Oregon Citizens Alliance) a group sponsored by CBN is
trying to pass an anti gay constitutional admendment in Oregon.

In the past few months there have been hundreds of anti gay attacks
in Oregon. A number attacking opposition offices and stealing mailing
lists, others attacks on people and property. Last week two people where
finally killed in these attacks when a molotov cocktail was thrown into
a basement apartment.

At this point the catholic church finally took a stand again #9 (the measure
being proposed by the OCA). The most recent attacks by the pro OCA terrorists
have now been turned on churchs. The MCC church was vandalized and had its
mailing list stolen, apparently a catholic church was also attacked for its
opposition to OCA, and a methodist church carrying an exhibit about the
Ann Frank diary was also vandalized.

So lets say you get your way and destroy us (homosexuals), will you be prepared
to pay the consequences of making a pact with the devil to do it?

[While I'm generally not enthusiastic about discussions of the basic
issue of homosexuality -- one can only exegete Rom 1 so many times --
the situation in Oregon seems to worth looking at.  I don't know
anything personally, but the discussions I've seen in other Christian
sources suggest that this is a movement that even people who believe
homosexuality is improper might want to think twice about
participating in.  --clh]
From: sngoetze@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Sebastian Goetze)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Suggestions about 1Cor.14:22-25
Date: 13 Oct 92 05:08:59 GMT
Organization: CSD., University of Erlangen

It seems to me, that these verses are indeed a statement of fact (like
Peter says below) but we shouldn't forget the counsel Paul gives 
afterwards (V. 26-33).

 pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White) writes:
>An additional thought about v23 is that we aren't always to govern our
>actions by what others think.

That's what the Corinthians thought...

> (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.

We shouldn't give anybody a cause for stumbling, something that Paul 
elaborates on in the preceeding chapters of the same letter
 (e.g. 1Co 8:13; 10:31-33).

>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.

It doesn't say it right here, but starting V.26 we read : "What is to be 
done, then, brothers?" and he continues to give specific advice, how
to handle this gift of tongues: 

*Only one at a time*, two to three during one meeting at the most, *only*
if a translator is present. Otherwise, keep silent... (V.27,28)

Same thing with prophesies: Two or three, in between discerning and 
explaining of the meaning "that all [including unbelievers and ordinary
people] may *learn* and may be *encouraged*". (V.29,30)

The gifts should be "controlled by the prophets", because "god is a god
of peace, not of disorder". (V.31-33)

So, in my eyes, the whole chapter 14 (dont't forget about the context
when reading the bible!), in line with chapters 8 and 10, rather gives
counsel on how not to stumble anybody, whether christian or "Jew or Greek"
[unbelievers].  - 1Co 10:32

 
Sebastian Goetze
--
grad. stud. of computer science,    sngoetze@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de
From: NANGLE@ac.grin.edu (Edge-Boy (Nangle,Shea))
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Bible On Disk
Date: 17 Oct 92 02:12:44 GMT

Does anyone out there know where I might be able to find a copy of either the 
New Revised Standard Version or The New English Version of The Bible in a 
text file ?  If so, please e-mail me at the address below.

-Shea Nangle
<nangle@ac.grin.edu>

[The major PC bibles have NRSV, but I assume this is asking about a
file that is publically available.  I suspect there isn't any, but
I'll ask anyway.  --clh]
From: seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Christianity and economics
Date: 11 Oct 92 00:52:36 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada

In article <Oct.10.02.16.07.1992.16522@geneva.rutgers.edu> REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov writes:
>
>.....  I have a friend (a VERY close friend)  who is worth
>over $500,000,000.  Even back when he was only worth a measly $2-3 million... 

Perhaps I am nitpicking, but it bothers me when people (and especially
Christians) talk about how much a person is "worth" when they are
describing how much money/assets s/he owns.  It was especially jarring
in the context of a post about stewardship of *God's* money.  I am sure
that Rex does not measure people by their financial assets; nonetheless,
most of our society does, and Christians need to stand against this.

-- 
Seanna Watson   Bell-Northern Research, 
(seanna@bnr.ca) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Opinions, what opinions?  Oh *these* opinions. | It's hard to seize the
No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.           | day when you must first
I knew I'd left them somewhere.                | grapple with the morning.
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: thought for the day (10-9)
Date: 13 Oct 92 05:29:50 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

I was studying in Isaiah recently, and I want to know if there are now
any cities in Egypt which speak "the langauge of the Canaanite" (or any
Northwest Semetic language.)  Isaiah mentions that there will be a certain
number of cities which speak it when Egypt is converted to the Lord.

Link Hudson.
From: mussack@innerdoor.austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: God? (Children's story)
Date: 16 Oct 92 07:50:45 GMT

I wrote this for my children, they thought it was funny.
But now I see it could be used as a parody on attitudes toward God.
If you think people will get a chuckle go ahead and post it.

----------
I was talking to someone once and mentioned how much
I like ice cream.

"Ice cream! I can't stand it," was his unreasonable reply.

I couldn't imagine someone not loving ice cream, let alone not
liking it, let alone hating it.
"Why not," I barely could ask the question.

"It's so cold when I put it down my pants."

"But you don't ..."

Someone else interrupted. "I don't like ice cream either,
I rubbed it in my hair for over six months and I still
turned gray."

"No, no, you eat it," I was trying to stay calm.

"Eat it?" a third person joined the opposition. "No way,
I hate getting nuts stuck in my teeth."

"Not all ice cream ...," but it was too late. 

"Some people even force it on their kids." They all tisked.
The three walked away laughing at me, the poor fool who liked
ice cream.

Someone else was listening. "We have an ice cream club, want to
join?"

"Sure." He led me to a building and we went inside. There was
a big room, in the middle was a table with a huge barrel full
of pistachio ice cream. Now pistachio is not my favorite,
but I was willing to partake.

"First, you must make a pledge to eat only pistachio flavor
ice cream, forsaking all others, because pistachio is the best."

"Well, it's not exactly my favorite, but I like it all right."

A collective gasp from the devotees filled the room. I decided
to exit.

Well, I still like ice cream. My wife likes it too.
I buy it for my kids. When I have friends over I serve it in 
little bowls. Most people do like it. If you don't I can't
make you.
From: eje@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com (Eric James Ewanco)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Jerome questioned Rev canonicity?
Date: 16 Oct 92 08:12:20 GMT
Reply-To: ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <Oct.14.22.20.53.1992.25259@geneva.rutgers.edu>, aslt@acad2.alaska.edu writes:

> Did Jerome question the inclusion of Revelation into the NT canon?  If so,
> where does he say so, and why?

> thanks.  E-mail replies welcome.

> Lee

Revelation was held in great suspicion by many churches for a long period of
time.  It was used by some heretics to justify their apocolyptic views 
(sound familiar?) and was probably the last NT book to be accepted.

Since the canon of the NT was closed by the start of the 5th century, and
since Jerome did most of his work in the 5th century, I doubt that he would
have questioned it outright, though he may have been uncomfortable with it
and wondered about it.  But since they church had closed the canon and made
the decision, I would be surprised if he had challenged it directly, unless
my dates are wrong.  However I will add that it did take a long time even after
the canon was closed for many churches to accept Revelation.

Eric
--
/===========================================================================\
| 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.

[Athanasius' festal letter was in 367, and the list given there was
reaffirmed at a council in 382.  Jerome started work on the Vulgate in
382.  So he certainly could have been involved in the discussions,
though I agree that it seems a bit late.  Both the NJB notes and the
Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church say that Rev was still
controversial in the East into the 5th Cent.  It was rejected by
Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia
and Theodoret.  It was omited from the first editions of the Peshitta
(Syriac) and Amenian versions.  At least one argument was its
difference in style and content from the Gospel, and its apocalyptic
character tends to make it look heretical.  --clh]
From: wills@mik.uky.edu (will s young)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: The subject of music within religion
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:09:17 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences


	Hello,

This is my first post here, and I guess I'm a bit nervous about writing
this or so.  I am writing to find out if there is anyone in the world that
has felt like God was telling them that they needed to involve themselves
with music in their life and to share the experiences so that others may
live and learn?  This may sound like a strange question to put up, but
recently I feel that more and more that the Lord is saying something to me
all the time about this, its just rather hard to really talk to people
about these things I guess.  BTW, I'm baptist also.  Well, anyone wanting
to reply to this, please do so, but serrious inquieries (spell?) only.

Sincerely,

Will  
Young
--
wills@mik.uky.edu     : The ever willing and the ever wanting to learn musical
wsyoun00@graphsun.cc.uky.edu : instruments, flautist, and kayaker extrodinare.  
wsyoun00@ukpr.uky.edu
From: ryanr@beethoven.CS.ColoState.EDU (richard ryan)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: The printing press owners
Date: 11 Oct 92 01:21:29 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Colorado State University

Hi,

It's been a while since I've read this newsgroup and I was wondering
if anyone knows what happened to the owners of the printing press who
refused to print pro-choice material.  The last I read in this
newsgroup, they were sued and lost.  They were still having law
problems the last I heard.  This was a subject discussed several
months ago.  Does anyone know what the outcome of the whole thing was?

I guess it's always really bothered me because they were only making
decisions about what they did not want to print as the moderator of
newsgroups (such as this one) decide what not to post.  In either
case, those decisions are subjective, no matter how "educated" they
might be, no matter how large and established the institution behind
those decisions might be.  It seems really unfair that someone
associated with a large institution would have rights denied to small
business entrepreneurs.  Before anyone says that the similarities are
superficial, I'd really kind of want them to think about why the
differences might be superficial instead.

Richard.