HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nlt@gboro.glassboro.edu (N. L. Tinkham)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Dear Abby Column
Date: 26 Jul 92 19:59:30 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Glassboro State College


     David Cruz-Uribe quotes from a Dear Abby column and asks what argument
"Abby" intends to make, since it sounds like the commonly used argument that
God does not exist because of the evil in the world.

> Dear Abby:  Since God alone can create life, and since God 
> alone knows what tomorrow brings, HE alone is truly qualified
> as a family planner.
[...]
> 
> Dear Admirer:  I read the figures on the population explosion
> and saw pictures of thousands of starving children born of 
> parents who did not want them and could not feed them.  I
> then concluded that a just God could not possibly have given
> life to innocent children only to doom them to death by
> starvation in their infancy.

     Both the letter and the reply are abbreviated arguments, but I think
the details may be filled in as follows:

     Letter:  God is the creator, and God (being omniscient) knows the quality
of life that a newly-conceived child will have.  Therefore, we should not do
anything to stand in the way of God's creating new life -- in particular, we
should not use artificial birth control; if God sees that the creation of a
new life in a given setting will lead to terrible suffering, then he himself
will prevent conception, without human assistance.

     Abby's Reply:  Agreed, God is the creator, and God knows a child's future
quality of life.  However, it is not true that God will prevent conception
whenever he sees that terrible suffering will result.  As evidence of this
claim, consider the suffering endured by children born where local resources
cannot support them.  God does not desire such suffering.  Therefore, it
must be that God has delegated to husbands and wives the responsibility to
use contraceptives to limit family size to the number of children that can
be provided for with the family's resources.

_____________________________________________________________________________

                                              Nancy Tinkham
                                              nlt@gboro.glassboro.edu
From: rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ralph Reid III)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: thought for the day (7-20)
Date: 21 Jul 92 07:10:24 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

Monday, July 20:

     God is a God, not of disorder, but of peace.  <1 Corinthians 14: 33>

-- 
Ralph.  N6BNO.
Compuserve - 72250.3521@compuserve.com.  Phone 1-916-345-9155.
lectromail- rreid@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu.
I do not waste time expressing others' opinions!
From: mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Mike Warnke Statement - Part 1
Date: 31 Jul 92 05:59:50 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

pearsodc@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (D) writes:
>Brian Devilbiss writes in rec.music.christian

[Reply of Mike Warnke to the charges in _Cornerstone_]

I don't know anything about Mike Warnke, but several of the people who he 
cites as references for his claims about Satanism are familiar names to 
the pagan community.  They are also people who have been accused 
of concocting evidence against those they believe to be Satanists or
witches.  The accounts I have heard are from pagans, and obviously we're
biassed, but in a couple of cases our complaints have been backed up by 
outside researchers.
 
> 	For example, Mr. Patrick Matrisciana, president of Jeremiah Films, 
> Inc., tells of working on a film in 1972 which featured Hal Lindsey and 
> contained interviews and rituals with prominent occultists from the 
> Berkeley/San Francisco area.
 
Several of the occultists interviewed were bitterly unhappy about this
film, saying that their words were quoted out of context and
superimposed on images of ritual practices which they did not do.

> 	Bob Larson of Bob Larson Ministries writes: 
 
Bob Larson Ministeries was involved in the spectacular
public 'conversion' of Eric Pryor, who claimed to have been a Wiccan
High Priest in the Bay Area and then to have become a Born-Again
Christian due to his meeting with Larson.  Leaders of the covens to
which Pryor claimed to belong stated publicly that he had never been a
member or initiated by them.

The Bay Area pagan community will no longer respond to Larson's attempts
to set up Christian/pagan dialogs, because it feels he uses them only to
promote hatred of pagans and to push his own brand of Christianity.

I can't judge the specifics of the claims and counterclaims against
Warnke, but I am dubious of those he chooses to support him.  A book
I'll recommend in this connection is _The Satan Scare_ (unfortunately
I've forgotten the editor's name), a collection of essays on the
perception of Satanism in America.  Most of them are very dry reading;
it is not an expose by any means.  But it raises some interesting
points.

There was also one paragraph in Warnke's statement which set off my
personal warning bells: 

> Untold numbers of high schoolers, college students, and other 
> individuals are now routinely involved in many of the activites I 
> described -- but they are totally ignored by law enforcement
> unless a criminal act can be proven to have taken place during the 
> course of the satanic activity.

I don't think any of us, Christian, pagan or otherwise, would profit
from having law enforcement groups which were willing to take action
when no criminal acts could be proven.  Practice of Satanism, like
Christianity, is protected by the Constitution.  If you erode the law's
protection for any religion, you will eventually erode it for your own.

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu
Covenant of Unitarian Universalist Pagans
(but I speak only for myself)
From: schnaufe@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Bernard A Schnaufer)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and the so-called "Christian biblical stance."
Date: 29 Jul 92 07:47:31 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

shrum@hpfcso.fc.hp.com (Ken Shrum) writes:

>The point, then, is whether homosexual inclinations, like lustful
>inclinations, are sinful.  I'm going to ignore homosexual practice for
>the moment, since it's beside the point;  if to lust after someone
>in your heart is to commit adultery, then to have homosexual inclinations
>is to engage in homosexual practices.

A point of distinction is worth mentioning here.  The homosexual inclinations
may or may not be voluntary.  A person who is troubled by reoccuring illicit
thoughts, despite his desire otherwise, is probably not responsible for them
as is the person who of his own will entertains similar thoughts.  Thus, I 
think it is wrong to say simply that to have a sinful thought is equivalent to
committing that sin.  It depends on our response to that thought.

>My best argument is that I believe that God provided us with our sexual
>nature, and that in some people this has taken the form of homosexuality.
>I cannot back up this belief, but I think that it is more likely than
>homosexuality being a perversion of our sexual nature.  God made our
>bodies, and called them good.  I cannot believe that He would restrict
>how we may take pleasure in that creation, as long as responsible
>sapients are involved (yes, I draw the line at children and animals,
>since I don't believe that sexual relations are appropriate for those
>placed in our care).  Acts 10:15 (this is toward the beginning of Peter
>being sent to baptize the Gentile household) reads "What God has made
>clean, do not call unclean."

It must be pointed out that your above argument would make such sexual sins as
fornication and adultery permissible.  Fornication and adultery are usually
engaged in by responsible sapients taking pleasure in God's creation.  Now,
to be consistent, either your argument is not correct, or fornication and 
adultery should no longer be considered grave sins.


>    Ken Shrum

May God bless and keep you,
Bernard A. Schnaufer
From: REXLEX@fnalf.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Scofield Courses from MBI
Date: 29 Jul 92 08:17:30 GMT
Organization: Fermilab

In article <Jul.28.03.21.06.1992.25338@dartagnan.rutgers.edu>
bobc@hrcce.att.com (Robert V Kemp) writes:
>Does anyone have knowledge about the Scofield Bible study
>courses offered by the Moody Bible Institute?

Moody Bible Institue
820 No. LaSalle
Chicago, IL 60610

Main desk:  312-329-4000
Book store:  312-329-4352

call the main desk and they will connect you with the correspondence secretary.
 They will tell you descriptions of the courses available.

Rex MBI'78
From: eng30148@nusunix2.nus.sg (_)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Sins-of-flesh
Date: 28 Jul 92 07:35:53 GMT
Organization: National University of Singapore


	I know of many christians,including myself who are still weak in
this area.At times doubts about own salvation come into an christian's
mind as he keeps going back to his bad habbits.....lust in the mind.

	What is your views about Musturbation?Sometimes, it does help
curbing our mind from straying too much.

	Please pray for strength to resist such temptation.
From: baresson@cbnewsi.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: LOVE IS GOD? The Greek says 'no' (WAS:into the highways and hedges)
Date: 26 Jul 92 19:37:44 GMT
Organization: AT&T

A couple of points on Mike's reply.

REX>2) You state that God is Love (I Jn) but understand that you can not say "Love
REX>is God." God's love is holy love.... 
Mike>
Mike>Certainly I can, Love is God!  There I have said it.  

When you say this, you are taking one characteristic of God and saying that 
the characteristic IS God - you can equally say "omnipresence is God" 
or "sovreignity is God" (?)

And you certainly cannot say that the Greek text can be made out to say
this. In Greek this is:

	O 	THEOS 	AGAPE	ESTIN
    (article)    God     love   (from the verb: 'to be')

Colwell's Rule states that in this construction 
the word with the article ALWAYS comes before the verb and the word without 
the article after the verb. (Note that in Greek the word order does not
have the same meaning as in English.)
A man by the name of Colwell looked up every case of this construction
of the verb 'to be' in the Ancient Greek that he could lay his hands on
and found this to be the case without exception.
So, according to this rule, and as far as I known every version of the
Bible renders this "God is love" (1 John 4.8,16). The article just shows
the word order, in EVERY case.
{Incidently this also applies to John 1.1 "and the Word was God", which the
New World Translation (JW Bible) mistranslates "the Word was a god" on the
basis that there is no article before the word for God. If that is applied
in 1Jn 4.8 it would be the unintelligible "God is a love" }

REX>     This (relating to gays and lesbians)I have done in Atlanta and in Chicago, both of which are major hubs. 
REX>But this is what I have found to be experientially true.  They want you (the
REX>church) to accept them as they are.  

Mike>Why not, God does.  

Luke 5.32 states "I have not called the righteous but sinners to
REPENTANCE". That is the basis that God deals with us. I do not say
that homosexuality is a greater or worse sin than another but rather 
that our heart attitude must be right with God - for man looks at the 
outward appearance, but God looks at the heart.

Barney Resson
"Many shall run to and fro, & knowledge shall increase" (Daniel)

Disclaimer - I came across Colwell's Rule while studying other things, and
claim only "little latin and less greek".

[I am not enthusiastic about bringing in John 1 into this discussion.
There are issues there other than this rule.  As far as I can tell
from reading commentaries, there is no English that gets the same
precise implications as the original.  I.e. it's somewhere between God
and a god.  --clh]
From: NU169273@vm1.nodak.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The Lord's Table (Part 2 of 2)
Date: 30 Jul 92 08:04:07 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network

Here's my apology for what it is worth ... also please note I didn't
write the original.  A Hebrew Christian friend (Christian Jew) wrote this
message.  Yes, there are Christian Jews no matter what you think
that have been Born-Again the Bible way.


K. Paulson
1109 16th Street North #1
Fargo, ND  58102
From: pearsodc@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Douglas C. Pearson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Mike Warnke Controversy in Cornerstone magasine
Date: 21 Jul 92 07:10:35 GMT
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology

I have crossposted DLEIBOLD@yorkvm1.bitnet's post to rec.music.christian,  
where there are a lot more people who would have reason to read  
Cornerstone magazine, in order to see if we can get some more information.

Please pray for Mike and Rose (Mike's current wife) and their family, as  
well as all of those affiliated with Warnke Ministries...whether this is  
true or not, they have quite a storm to go through..

I would hate to find out that this is true, because Mike is one of my  
heroes and his stories and ministry have touched my life and the lives of  
my friends...

clueless chuck
PearsoDC@NeXTWork.Rose-Hulman.Edu
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: angels
Date: 21 Jul 92 07:16:47 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
>The perspective of the Rev. Robert Williams is interesting here.  He
>tries to come to terms with why God permits AIDS to wreak havoc.  He
>describes things in terms of the freedom God gives to the creature.
>But that doesn't only include us.  Rather than saying "God doesn't
>intervene so we can predict the universe and thus be more free," he
>says that God gives even HIV its freedom at the same time, and in the
>same way, that we get our freedom.

The frequent criticism of Christianity "why doesn't God
intervene when bad things happen" reminds me of a posting a
while back to which I never got round to replying, but with
which I strongly agreed, concerned with the way there is a
tendency these days to overemphasise the joyful side of Christianity
and to avoid the side which concerns suffering. It seems to me
that Christianity is all about coming to terms with suffering in
the world, since its principle theme is God becoming man and
suffering with us. If we suppose that the existence of suffering is
an argument against Christianity which must be carefully argued around,
it seems to indicate that we have forgotten what Christianity is
all about.

Jesus tells us that whenever someone is poor, weak, naked, starving,
or diseased, he is there. When suffering exists, God is
not dispassionately looking on, he is part of the suffering.
The early Christian Church was strengthened by the blood of its
martyrs. When the martyrs died, the early Christians did not
say "well, God didn't intervene to stop it, so our religion cannot
be true", they were strengthened in their faith because they
knew that God was with them.

The happy-clappy variety of Christianity appears to me to be
more a manifestation of American Hollywood culture - a culture which
insists that the good guys never get hurt, there is always a
happy ending, and there is never anything to tax the brain
- than anything to do with Christianity as historically
understood.

Matthew Huntbach

[I agree to a point.  However there should be joy among Christians,
even if it's in the middle of suffering.  I would suggest that a lack
of joy is just as much a sign of problems with our faith as a lack of
coming to terms with the suffering of the world.  As with many other
things, it's a matter of balance.  Joy should not become an end in
itself.  The problem is not people who ocassionally get high on Jesus.
The problem is people who use Jesus as a drug, a way to escape from
their obligation to the world.  As C.S. Lewis said in his
autobiography "Surprised by Joy", joy is something that occurs as a
sideeffect of living life to the fullest.  If you start making it an
end in itself, you get the Christians with the perpetual plastic
smiles.  --clh]
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Into the highways and hedges
Date: 23 Jul 92 07:04:23 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA

In article <Jul.21.03.58.32.1992.12218@dumas.rutgers.edu> masimo@netcom.com (Michael Maas) writes:

>Jesus was reacting to a group of men who were judging Mary for her adultery 

This is a common mistake, but the adulteress is not named.  It simply
says, "this woman."

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
From: wagner@spinoza.math.uh.edu (David Wagner)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Eternal Security? (Was Re: Dispensationalism: Distinctives of Church)
Date: 24 Jul 92 07:13:22 GMT
Organization: UH Dept of Math

"Rex" == REXLEX <REXLEX@fnalf.fnal.gov> writes: Article-I.D.:
Rex> dumas.Jul.21.03.09.37.1992.3486

Rex> In article <Jul.20.02.03.14.1992.5709@dumas.rutgers.edu>
Rex> wagner@spinoza.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) writes:
 
>>Rex>  This indwelling of the Holy Spirit as the seal and earnest of God is
Rex> permanent despite sinful deeds by the indwelt believer (I Cor. 6:19-20) that
Rex> grieve the Spirit (Eph. 4:30). The ascended Lord Jesus Christ also indwells the
Rex> believer

wagner>We do want to stress God's promise, `everyone who believes on him
>[Christ] has eternal life.'  But eternal life can be lost through
>unbelief.  And persistent, unrepented sin can kill faith.

Rex> Wrong.  Again read Rom 8.  "Neither LIFE nor death can separate
Rex> me."  Nothing in this life can separate me, not even myself.

Then please explain Hebrews 6:4-6:

"It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who
have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit,
who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of
the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to
repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son
of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace."

Note that this talks about those `who have shared in the
Holy Spirit.'  Now if they can't fall away at all, then
what is the point of saying that if they fall away, then
it is impossible for them to repent?

Note that to `fall away' here really means to eject the 
Holy Spirit, to harden your heart against God. It is true
that some, even many, have fallen into sin for a while, and
then repented.  But this passage talks about the `Sin against
the Holy Spirit', or the `sin that leads to death' 1 John 5:16,17.

Christ's atonement paid for all sins.  It is still true that 
if a fallen Christian repents, and puts his faith in Christ,
then his sins are forgiven.  But the one who hardens his
heart against God, in the sin against the Holy Spirit, simply
will not repent.  Almost by definition.

David H. Wagner
a confessional Lutheran
From: marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: X...Christ...?...
Date: 30 Jul 92 07:51:17 GMT
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

Just one small question...

Why is an "X" used in place of "Christ"?

Are we too lazy to type out Christ's name?

Any info would be good.


Thanks in Him,
Evan Marshall
marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu

[Some people connect it with old Christian symbolism, such as XP (chi
rho).  X is the first letter of Christ is Greek.  It also reminds some
people of the cross.  Use of this abbreviation is controversial.  Many
Christians think it shows a lack of respect.  Others do not.  --clh]
From: cla04@seq1.cc.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Jesus' favorite Disciple
Date: 30 Jul 92 07:22:09 GMT
Organization: University of Keele, England

From article <Jul.29.04.06.02.1992.25732@dartagnan.rutgers.edu>, by cho@wdl1.wdl.loral.com (Il Hyung Cho):
> Going through the book of the Christ never states who is favorite
> disciple is? 

Usually thought to be St.John from John 21.23-4 I think.

Andy Fear, cla04@uk.ac.Keele
From: amadeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Dear Abby Column
Date: 31 Jul 92 07:53:06 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at Austin

I said:
>> Abigail Van Buren, who was born Pauline Esther Friedman, is Jewish.
>> So whatever God she believes in, I don't think it's the Christian
>> one... :)
>
>[question about "Aren't they the same thing?" deleted]
>
>[I hope Susan meant to contrast the Jewish view of God with the
>Christian view of God, and not to suggest that there are somehow two
>separate gods involved.
>--clh]

Yep.  My choice of words was based on Dave's in the original post,
when he said people using a certain argument usually end it with "And
that's why I don't believe in (the Christian) God."  Using that, I
said that Abby was a Jew and wouldn't be someone who would believe in
"the Christian" God.  

But then again, since I'm a polytheist, maybe that's a Freudian slip
giving away the way I think... :)

-- 
-----Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik-------------------------------*<:-)-------------
"Queens never make bargains."  -- The Red Queen, _Through the Looking Glass_
-----amadeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu--------------The University of Texas @Austin---
From: portland!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Qualifications for Elder
Date: 22 Jul 92 06:13:29 GMT
Organization: Unisys - Applied Technology

In article <Jul.16.01.13.58.1992.29828@dartagnan.rutgers.edu> anachem@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (mark gilstrap) writes:
>>Yes, the title is "elder", but we appoint children of 25 or 30 to the
>>office.  
>
>	Obviously this is a protestant interpretation of "elder". I Tim
>	is talking about the offices of bishop and deacon (the priests
>	coming somewhat later that the Epistle to Timothy).

In the New Testament the Greek words for elder and bishop are sometimes
used interchangeably. The apostle Paul seems to do this in his letters (cf.
Titus 1:5ff).

The priesthood tradition, as practiced by Roman Catholics and the Orthodox,
is not found in the New Testament.  It is simply tradition.

>	Bishop, priest and deacon are the three offices of the
>	priesthood. Since protestantism lacks any apostolic succession
>	of bishops, it is not surprizing that they also lack true 
>	deacons. 

Again, from the perspective of the New Testament, bishops/elders are not
priests, and neither are deacons.  Neither are deacons and elder/bishops
treated as the same office.  Apostolic succession is not a biblical
concept, but an extra-biblical tradition of those church which practice
apostolic succession.  Many protestant churches do practice, mine included,
ordination by the laying on of the hands of the elders (presbytery) in
keeping with the biblical injunction (I Tim. 4:14; 5;22).

Some of the protestant reformers attempted to strip away some of the
extra-biblical tradition which had become part of the Roman
Catholic/Orthodox Church with regard to the clerical priesthood.

>	There is no spiritual similarity between the traditional
>	deaconate and the "deacons" and "elders" of modernity. To
>	see the meaning of these references in I Timothy you must
>	visit an Orthodox Church (although Roman Catholics have begun
>	to reinstitute the office of deacon).

And some of us would suggest that there is little similarity between this
traditional deaconate and the New Testament.

And as one who has had the privilege to serve as both a deacon and an elder
in my congregation, I would respectfully suggest that you may want to visit
us and see how we carry out those offices.

>	fr. deacon mark     

elder tom


-- 
Tom Albrecht