HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: louns@cs.washington.edu (Michael Lounsbery)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The Lord's Table (Part 1 of 2)
Date: 20 Aug 92 06:09:06 GMT
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle

>I have searched far and wide to obtain a further investigation of these
>manuscripts, however, even the library of congress refused me to see some of
>them, stating that they don't exist even though I found them listed in the
>index catalogues.  But they are quoted at length in other works, though some
>are rather diatribical, nevertheless the text is quoted.  

...list of unfound titles deleted...

>I recently
>Ran across several books at the L of C on Roman antiquities that also spoke
>about the early days of Rome and their two primary religions of Saturn and
>Christ worship and how the state had married them into a state religion which
>evolved into the RCC. [I apologize if this strikes any RC as heresy, but the
>historical record is there for any who want to read it.] 

Well, I'm Catholic, and if you're implying that the beliefs of the Church
are based in large part on Saturn-worship, it doesn't strike me so much as
grand heresy as it does run-of-the-mill baseless pseudo-history.  I tried
looking up all of your books (even the ones from 1750, 1856, and 1867) in my
school's 5-million volume library, but none of them were carried, for some
reason.  If you have any more widely available references, I'd love to look
them over and critique them.  Most of the 1800's books (the age of the
virulently anti-Catholic "Know-Nothing" party) with titles similar to
"Handbook of Popery" are, as you say, quite heavy on diatribe. I personally
find them appallingly ignorant of true Catholic beliefs, and rather light on
any factual information at all.  If you have one that you think is an
improvement, and that libraries think is worth carrying, I'd be happy to
look at it. Until then, I remain unimpressed.

>Study either early Rome, or if you're more
>adventurous, study the ancient mystery religions back from Rome, to Greece, to
>Egypt, to Assyria, back to Egypt, the far East, and of course ending in
>Babylon.  

I've done quite a bit of studies on early Rome, some of it spent studying
archaeology and Latin-author history in Rome itself (with the University of
Washington).  While there was indeed considerable traffic in mystery
religions throughout the Roman Empire, I have found nothing to show that the
Roman Catholic Church is a descendant of Mithraic, Isis, Babylonian, or any
other posited pagan belief system. My best guess for its beliefs and customs
is a strange offshoot of 1st-century Jews who called themselves
"Christians."

Regards,

Michael Lounsbery
louns@cs.washington.edu
From: diarmuid@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Diarmuid Pigott)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Jehovah's Wintnesses
Date: 18 Aug 92 06:29:16 GMT
Organization: University of Western Australia

Thank you for the information: I shall follow up the references.
However, the nub of the problem remains - these books are written by a
"disfellowshipped" witness, and so are not permitted to be read. 

I suppose what would be best would be an anthropological-fashion review of
the organization and it's history, documenting crises in their history,
listing all the major events that led to changes in doctrine etc.
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Catechisms
Date: 18 Aug 92 06:25:02 GMT

David Cruz-Uribe asks about catechism.  The 1979 BCP has a catechism, the
first american BCP to have one.  (The english book has never had one, unless
you want to count the 39 articles, which I wouldn't.)  It is an extremely
middle-of-the-road document, and as such has not really attracted a lot of
attention.
-- 
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: mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: And what *is* a Christian?
Date: 16 Aug 92 04:26:48 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <Aug.14.05.12.20.1992.607@athos.rutgers.edu> smayo@wang.com (Scott Mayo) writes:
>What is a Christian? What does the term mean? I think I have a pretty good
>idea, but in discussions with non-Christians it has become apparent
>that the definition I thought was universal and accepted by everyone
>is now in fact open to question, at least by these non-Christians.
>--
>I have always believed that a Christian is a person who has taken Jesus as
>his personal saviour. 
>--
>smayo@wang.com

I remember a quote by a Catholic priest who was asked, by his seatmate
on a plane flight, whether he had accepted Jesus as his personal savior.
He said that his reluctance to answer with an unequivocal Yes was due to
a suspicion that 'personal' was being used to deny the necessity of the
Church.  This may be the problem word for many; it's not present in
clh's alternative phrasing, which might therefore be better.

I will note, Scott, that in private debate you have not been willing to
stick with this definition, but have invariably added "and confesses
that there is no other means to salvation" (or sentiments to that effect)
to it.  This makes a large difference in which individuals are excluded.

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu
From: nlt@gboro.glassboro.edu (N. L. Tinkham)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Episcopal pre-nuptual document?
Date: 17 Aug 92 06:57:48 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Glassboro State College


     I'm reading the book _If_You_Marry_Outside_Your_Faith_, by James Pike,
and I ran across a reference by the author to "the promise which the
Episcopal Church requires a prospective couple to sign before marriage".
I hadn't heard about such a document before.  Does anyone know

	- if such a document is still required from couples married by
	  an Episcopal priest?  (The book is dated 1954, and many things
	  have changed since then.)

	- what the content of the document is/was?

	- the name and publisher of a book containing the document, if the
	  document is still in use?  (I assume that a priest would have to
	  look in some reference book for the text of the agreement.)

     Even though I'm Episcopalian, Darren and I were counselled and married
by a Baptist clergyman, so the issue never came up.  (It may be just as well;
I'd want to take my blue editing pencil to the document and change anything
I disagreed with, and the church might frown upon that. :-) )
_____________________________________________________________________________

                                              Nancy Tinkham
                                              nlt@gboro.glassboro.edu
From: mayo@cs.utk.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: prayer
Date: 18 Aug 92 06:17:34 GMT

I already know what to pray for, and I will be glad to expand the list.
I EXPECT great things!!  

				In Christ;
				Jane Wallace Mayo

Jesus, Redeemer, have mercy on me and set me free.
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Episcopal pre-nuptual document?
Date: 18 Aug 92 06:28:16 GMT

Such a document was required at least two years ago when I got married.  The
content of the document is (as I recall) that the couple has been counselled
as to the nature of christian marriage and that they agree to live a
christian marriage.  (No requirement to raise the kids piscop.)
-- 
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: keiner@earthview.cms.udel.edu (Louis Keiner)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Does God Exist? And proof of existence!
Date: 20 Aug 92 06:17:40 GMT

bandor@byerley.rdt.monash.edu.au (Tony McGregor) writes:

>The predominant view, by far, amongst the authors I read is that it
>did begin from a kind of singularity at a particular time in the past.
>Many used the term creation (although I think most did not mean it in
>a religious sense).  There is some experimental evidence to support
>this view (based on background microwave radiation present in the
>universe).
>
> [etc]
>
>[I haven't studied cosmology for 28 years, and even then I didn't
>understand it.  So don't take this as informed scientific comment.
>But there may be some question as to what is meant by the beginning of
>the universe.  If you follow your model backwards and come to a
>singularity, strictly speaking it only means that that's as far back
>as your model can go.  It doesn't necessarily mean that there was
>nothing before that time.  It does suggest that something very strange
>and interesting happened then however.  --clh]


One of the things that needs to be mentioned here (forgive me if it has been
already) is that time as well as space is a property of the universe. Any
creation, whether we talk about a singularity or whatnot, created time also.
There is no use in talking about what happened BEFORE creation because anything
outside the spacial and temporal bounds of this universe cannot be thought of
in terms of our linear time system. In my view, God created time as a dimension
for this universe, but God is outside of time, or our conception of it. 

This makes very interesting naming God as "I am", for that I suppose is the
best way to describe a being for whom all times are NOW. It also makes inter-
esting our theories on predestination, free will, and other ideas that make
assumptions about whether or not God knows our future. For me, a discussion
of God's omnicience and omnipotence starts there.........

Peace,

Louis

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louis E. Keiner - College of Marine Studies        "Let be damned for eternity
University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716            only those who would make
keiner@earthview.cms.udel.edu                       themselves gods." Voltaire
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: eje@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com (Eric James Ewanco)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Jehovah's Wintnesses
Date: 18 Aug 92 05:57:56 GMT
Reply-To: ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

> I have a friend who became a member of the Watchtower Society, which as
> I am sure you are aware of has some very odd ideas indeed.

> (ie blood transfusions are bad, Jesus was actually the archangel
> Michael, God gets upset when we don't call him by his first name, only
> 144,000 people can be redeemed, the end of the world is nigh (and Christ
> returned in 1870,71,72,73,85,93,1913,1914,1925,1975...) )

> I know they have dubious theology, and a murky past, but these things
> don't seem to matter to him. My problem is that information about the
> JW's is mostly written by ex-JW's, and so is inadmissable as evidence
> since they are not allowed to "converse with apostates".

> I would like some form of history of the JW's written by someone
> mainstream and unimpeachable. Are there any suggestions? Also I would
> like a lsit of the twistings of truth in their rather unusual
> translation of the bible. 

> Thank you in advance

While I cannot offer modern books, I can say that many of their beliefs operate
under the assumption that the Church fell into error in 325 A.D. at the Council
of Nicaea when it rejected the beliefs of one Arius who said that Christ was a
created being and not God.  They claim that the early church always believed
this, and that the trinity was "invented" at that date.

I can provide numerous quotes from church Fathers before that time that show
that they are in fact wrong: the Trinity was first mentioned in 180 A.D., and
it can be shown even in the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch in 110 A.D.
that the early church most unquestionably believed that Jesus was in fact God.
Many other writings much earlier than 325 show that the early church did not
believe that Christ was a created being.

Would you like me to post some of these citations?

Eric
--
/=============================================================================\
| Eric Ewanco - Software Engineer     For the rash and outrageous opinions ex-|
| Digital Equipment Corp, Maynard MA  pressed herein I alone am responsible;  |
| ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com          they do not belong to DIGITAL(TM).      |
\==============================- 2 Th 2:15 -==================================/
From: conan@durban.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Question about St. Laurence
Date: 19 Aug 92 04:11:14 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.

In article <Aug.18.02.27.08.1992.27353@aramis.rutgers.edu> SEANNA@bnr.ca (S.M.) writes:

>My name is Trevyn Watson and I am 7 1/2.  I was wondering
>if there was a saint named St. Laurence.  Was the river
>named after a real person?  And if it was, why did they
>pick that name?

Yes there was a St. Laurence (or St. Lawrence as I know him).  The
breviary (a daily Catholic prayer book) has the following note on
his feast day, August 10:  "Saint Lawrence was a deacon of the Church
of Rome.  He became a martyr during the persecution of Valerian
four days after the martyrdom of Pope Sixtus II and his four
companions.  Lawrence's tomb is located in the field of Verano near
the Via Tiburtina where subsequently Constantine the Great built a
basilica.  Devotion to St. Lawrence was widespread by the 4th
century."

I don't know for sure, but I presume that early French explorers
named the river after St. Lawrence.  It was the custom at that
time for Catholic explorers to name locales after saints found in
the calender of saints--thus California has Los Angeles (the angels),
San Francisco (St. Francis), etc.

Yours in Christ,

David Cruz-Uribe, SFO
From: diarmuid@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Diarmuid Pigott)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Differing translations of the bible sought
Date: 16 Aug 92 04:05:52 GMT
Organization: University of Western Australia

I am interested in two versions of the bible I have heard of:

	- The King James Version with the mistakes removed - BUT WITH 
		THE LANGUAGE OTHERWISE INTACT. ie a modified Wycliffe.

	- A bible where the purported D,E,J,R etc texts are delineated	
		with typeface/colour etc.

The former I want because I have written some Christian classical music,
and find that only the KJV has sufficient lyrical quality to work. I
would however like to avoid any contraversial documents. 

I also would like this because I grew up with the AV, and can quote
large amounts of it (and probably shall continue to do so) but would
like to check the quotes for "howlers".

Can anyone help?
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Infallibility
Date: 21 Aug 92 04:41:37 GMT
Organization: none

In article <Aug.16.01.48.03.1992.1382@athos.rutgers.edu> conan@durban.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) writes:

   This, if my sources are correct, is an open question in need of 
   refinement.  One way for all bishops to teach collectively is in an
   ecumenical council.  However, bishops can theoretically all teach
   something without coming together in a council.  I wish I had an
   example from history, but I don't have a good one.  However, I 
   strongly suspect that anyone familiar with the history of doctrine
   can come up with something which is universally held but was never
   part of the canons of a council.

Here's a good one: the perpetual virginity of our Lady.  It has been
held since at least the 4th century, but was never the subject of any
decree of a general council.

I think the basic idea of the collective infallibility of the
hierarchy is that they cannot *all* go astray.  God always ensures
that someone sees clearly.  One of the best examples here is St.
Athanasius, during the Arian heresy.
From: smayo@wang.com (Scott Mayo)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: And what *is* a Christian?
Date: 14 Aug 92 09:12:21 GMT
Organization: Wang Labs, Lowell MA, USA

What is a Christian? What does the term mean? I think I have a pretty good
idea, but in discussions with non-Christians it has become apparent
that the definition I thought was universal and accepted by everyone
is now in fact open to question, at least by these non-Christians.

I'm posting the question here because there is a spectrum of believers
here. If there isn't even agreement here, I can hardly blame non-Christians
for not agreeing with my definition. If there is agreement here, among
a wide spectrum of believers, I'll be a bit less worried about my use of the
word.
--
I have always believed that a Christian is a person who has taken Jesus as
his personal saviour. 
--
When I proposed this definition, I was informed that 1) it was a
protestant-only definition - I'd like to hear the opinions of the Catholics
in the audience on that, and 2) it was an evangelical/fundamentalist
definition - I'd like to hear the non-evangelicals here comment on that, and,
especially, that my definition was a *recent* definition, that had no
analogy in most of Christian history (for example, the claim was that such
a statement would be unrecognisable to the apostles or middle ages
believers.) I'd like folk with a stronger grasp of Christian writings to
comment on that. It seems to *me* that Augustine, Bunyan, Lewis, Schaeffer,
and the biblical writers were all pretty much in agreement on this point.
But there is a great deal of Christian writing I've never heard of, let alone
read.

I *know* that the definition I gave is trite and oversimplified; that there
is more to a Christian's *walk* than a decision to accept Jesus and believe
in him. I don't want to get into the ramifications - I want some reassurance
that the definition I gave above is the *starting* point of Christian
faith - any Christian's faith. Put in the negative, does anyone believe or
know of a writer who believed that one could be a Christian *without* making
such a decision? Have other criteria been proposed?

As extra credit, I'd be curious to hear what people here mean by "accept"
Jesus and "believe on" Jesus, since these terms are in danger of becoming
buzzwords without content. This is not an invitation to a flamefest - I
just want to make sure that my dictionary has not gone out of date. :-)
--
These are only my opinions.  You should hear my convictions.
smayo@wang.com

[The Presbyterian Church (USA) -- which is hardly evangelical/fundamentalist --
accepts into membership anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord
and Savior, and trust in him.  I think that's substantially the same
as your proposed definition.  --clh]
From: jte@psi.com (John Eldredge)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: And what *is* a Christian?
Date: 19 Aug 92 04:17:28 GMT
Organization: Performance Systems International, Inc. Reston Virginia.

Hmm.  A way to integrate these thoughts may be by considering Ephesians 2 and 3.

1. In Ephesians 2:8-10 we learn that the path for individual salvation is:
   a.  an individual's salvation is the gift of God
   b.  an individual's salvation is received by faith
   c.  an individual's salvation is not received through works of man
   d.  an individual's salvation is to result in good works by saved men
   e.  an individual's salvation is to result in showing "God's workmanship" 
       - a trophy for Him to show off or point to.

2. In Ephesians 2:11 - 3:12 we learn that the "mystery" of the local church is:
   a.  God would break down barriers (jew/gentile) and unify a group into
       one body - the local church
   b.  In bringing about this unity, God would create an unduplicateable
       "peace" between individuals and groups unable to meet and work 
       together in any other context
   c.  In bringing about this unity and peace, God will display His "wisdom"
       - (Eph 3:10).
 
So, a "Christian" is an individual who places his faith in the person and
work of Jesus Christ, relying on His righteousness being 'swapped' for our 
sin (II Cor 5:21).  A Christian is individually reconciled to God through
this faith in Jesus Christ.   The decision is personal, real, at a certain
point in time and carries tremendous results - too many to list here - by
virtue of the fact that we are a new creation indwelled by God the Holy
Spirit.  This is saving faith:  Faith + nothing = justification.

It is equally clear that God intends to display His "workmanship" and His
"wisdom" through the individual believer's participation and committment
to a local church.  The local church is the place for spiritual gifts
to be exercised, for the "body of Christ" to be enriched - to the end 
that God be manifested.  After all, Christ died for "the church" (Eph 5:25).

To the point, then, a "Christian" is an individual making an individual
choice.  The church, however, is the God-given place for the believer to 
be and function.

John
From: REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Limits to Criticism
Date: 13 Aug 92 07:48:07 GMT
Organization: Fermi Lab


     I have reached the point where I can no longer rely on my own knowledge
base to continue our discussions on the issue of inerrancy.  I have therefore
contacted and received permission from Moody Press to quote from a manuscript
that they still own the rights to.  It is a translation by Helen Needham of
Rene Pache's, (with accents over each of the last "e's") "The Inspiration and
Authority of Scripture."  Rene Pache has been president of Emmaus Bible School
in Lausanne, Switzerland since '47.  He holds a Ph.D. in law from Lausanne
University and a Ph.D. in Theology from Nogent Bible School in Paris.  
     Within this document, he discusses revelation, the Divine Word, the
Written Word and the Incarnate & Inspired Word.  He devotes a full section to
the doctrine of Inspiration including studies on theories of, plenary and
verbal, NT, OT quoted in NT, progression of revelation, unity, difficulties,
canon, transmission -the Variants, and illumination.  He then continues by
giving testimonies from Christ, the Apostles, the early Church, and the early
church fathers up to the 18th century.  The last discussion within the
testimony section is the one that I will largely post from.  It comments on the
limits of criticism and the opposition to plenary inspiration.  He then
finishes by discussing the supernatural characteristics of Scripture and its
preeminence.  
     I have no idea how many copies where ever published, but if you could
tract one down, I assure you it would well be worth the effort.  Also, I have
no idea how different the book would be from this manuscript.  It is thorough
and replete with documentation.  The Bibliography has probably around 150 - 200
references.  
     Here is an outline of what I will try to type and post.  I hope that you
profit by it whether you're in agreement with its conclusions or not.  From the
amount and content of the EMail I have received since we first started these
discussions, I would say that a great many of you really have an interest in
the inerrant/errant, conservative/liberal presuppositional base from which we
interprete the Scriptures.  Hopefully this will help those of you who have
shown to be on the fence post of deciding which school to join.  It is a
significant choosing, so do it carefully and with prayer. -Rex

A.  LIMITS OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM AND OPPOSITION TO 
     PLENARY INSPIRATION

     1)  THE MEANING OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM
     2)  APPEARANCE AND TRIUMPH OF MODERN CRITICISM
     3)  BIBLICAL RENEWAL

B.  THE IMPOSSIBILITY THAT A FALLIBLE MESSAGE COULD
     BECOME THE WORD OF GOD

     1)  CRITERIA FOR DISCERNING THE WORD OF GOD
     2)  ESCAPING THE TRAP OF SUBJECTIVISM
     3)  MYTH-HUNTING
     4)  GOD WITHOUT GOD-GOD Is DEAD-MAN Is GOD
     5)  WHAT FINALLY REMAINS
     6)  ILLOGICALNESS

C.  EVANGELICALS SUPPOSEDLY NONSCIENTIFIC IN REGARD TO
     THE BIBLE

     1)  THE BASIS OF PREACHING
     2)  EXPLAINING SUCCESSIVE THEOLOGICAL FASHIONS
     3)  THE MORAL AND SPIRITUAL POINTS OF VIEW