HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Amy.M.Marshall.1@nd.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Christianity and economics
Date: 8 Oct 92 05:11:15 GMT
Organization: University of Notre Dame

>As for Chris Boswell's comments on Larry Burkett, I agree. I have
>persoannly spoken with people who were crushed by the declarations in The
>Coming Economic Earthquake.  When a Christian who is an economist writes
>for the general public, he should temper his decalarations with love and
>encourage others to seek God's will for themselves and their communities. 
>This IS a fallen world, and terrible things continue to happen, but God is
>omnipotent and omnipresent and will guide those who seek Him.  Larry
>Burkett's advice cannot transcend this Truth.

Our local Christian radio station (WMHK, Columbia, SC) has Larry Burkett on
daily.  I will confess that I have not yet read any of Mr. Burkett's books
though I would like to.  However, I do listen to his 5 min. program daily
and probably agree with his advice about 50% of the time.  Mr. Burkett, I
believe, tries his best to give concise, accurate advice to solve many
problems on a wide scale with a minimum amount of one-sided background.  One
has to listen to what is said, consider all sides of it, then act.  Hopefully,
one is responsible and mature enough to filter what is good and bad of a 
suggested solution.  If I were to take to heart all of the many different
things he has adviced folks writing in to do, I would insist that our church
collect all the money it needed for major rebuilding (in excess of $450,000)
prior to starting.  Re: Larry Burkett's insisting that basically, if you don't
have the money now, you shouldn't borrow the money unless you can get it given
to you (as in: NO Interest).  We don't have that kind of money in our church,
but the last 200 years of financial history states that we have always paid
off loans early.

Mr. Burkett's concepts have to apply to folks who are struggling and live from
paycheck to paycheck.  It is the rare person who has enough financial responsi-
bility to take care of bills each month in full or without pushing the limits
on financial margin for emergencies.  And Mr. Burkett cannot address an audienceunless he goes for the lowest common denominator.  My finances would be strainedif I were to have two car payments AND use credit cards.  But we drive two old
cars, pay our credit cards in full each month and hope that we don't have any
extra expenses.  Getting rid of credit cards would force me to stop getting
interest on the cash I'm not spending immediately, would keep me from travelling
on business, and would wipe out reserving rental cars, flights, and motel rooms.And I guess I would be living in a tent because I couldn't have a mortgage...

Take Mr. Burkett's advice with all the same spirit you accept what the Bible
means, what a preacher says, and what you have contentment in your heart
as to what the Lord wants you to do.
-- 
Kershner Wyatt
kwyatt@ccscola.ColumbiaSC.ncr.com

My opinions are my own and aren't necessarily my employer's.
From: wagner@grace.math.uh.edu (David Wagner)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Men's/Women's roles in Marriage (Christian Leadership)
Date: 17 Oct 92 02:29:01 GMT
Organization: UH Dept of Math

"Tracy" == Tracy L. Hughes <thughes@ug.cs.dal.ca> writes:

Tracy> Secondly one should remember that woman's submission to their
Tracy> husbands is A CONDITION OF THE FALL.  Prior to the fall husband
Tracy> and wife were helpmates...there was no leadership/submission
Tracy> relationship defined (anyone who postulates one before the fall
Tracy> is doing so outside of the scriptures).  

I have to disagree with you here.  Eve was created as a helper 
corresponding to the man.  Paul makes explicit reference to this
fact in explaining the principle of male headship and female
submission in 1 Cor 11 and 1 Tim. 2.

The result of the fall, described in Gen 3:16 is that the
husband's leadership, being contaminated by sin, will be
unpleasant, "he will rule over you."  

We have little real knowledge of what marriage was like before the
fall, but we can be confident that the sins that contaminate
and spoil marriage today, were not present then.  So I 
believe that before the fall, the husband's headship, or
leadership, was pleasant and agreeable for both parties, and
did not take the form of `ruling over' (some translations `Lording
it over') the wife.

David H. Wagner			"All mankind fell in Adam's fall,
a confessional Lutheran		One common sin infects us all;
				From sire to son the bane descends,
				And over all the curse impends.
	
				"But Christ, the second Adam, came
				To bear our sin and woe and shame,
				To be our Life, our Light, our Way,
				Our only Hope, our only Stay."

				--"Durch Adam's Fall ist ganz
				verderbt", v. 1,4
				--Lazarus Spengler, 1524

The opinions and beliefs expressed in the article are disclaimed by
The University of Houston.
From: jte@psi.com (John Eldredge)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Christ vs. chronic depression?
Date: 17 Oct 92 02:21:29 GMT
Organization: Performance Systems International, Inc. Reston Virginia.

In article <Oct.14.22.21.03.1992.25271@geneva.rutgers.edu> aslt@acad2.alaska.edu writes:
>Listened in on an interesting ad hoc discussion which boiled down to whether 
>'Christian' and 'chronically depressed' were mutually exclusive terms.
>What's the net.opinion on this?

Since many cases of chronic depression are caused by physiological problems
(MS, for example, causes chronic depression in about 50% of its participants)
I think it quite cruel to suggest that there is some promise in Scriptures
saying that such a condition is caused by a lack of faith.  There are examples
of Godly men in Scripture with long-term health problems ATTRIBUTED TO GOD
and allowed for the individual's spiritual refining.  The Apostle Paul is
a good example of this.

There is still much mysticism surrounding the organ called the brain.  
Injecting insulin in lieu of a properly functioning pancreas is fine;
injecting Prozac for a brain's imbalance, however, is questionable?

There are many mental maladies that come as a result of our behavior
and manner of handling life.  There are others, however, that are 
physiologocal and require treatment.

Christian does not have to equate to a perfect physical specimen.

John
From: klopfer@natinst.com (Mike Klopfer)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Damnation
Date: 7 Oct 92 05:12:01 GMT
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX

I'm responding to posts from two threads hoping the punishment will not
be to sever (possibly only the removal of a arm, leg other appendage).

the first post is #15260 julian responds:

"I find it very, very difficult
 to take christians seriously who believe that a loving God will send
 little children who were born in the wrong country or at the wrong time,
 so that they did not hear the Gospel, or that people born into abusive
 homes, who live a violent life because they were treated badly, into hell
 for the simple reason that they refused his invitation.
 If someone responds that we all have a free choice *in this life* to
 follow God then I will disagree: we do not. Tell this to a kid born in
 a black family in a porr area of New York and say that they have as free
 a choice as I did born into a christian home in London, UK."

second post #15171 

"The idea of God making people, knowing that they're fallible, and
 nevertheless damning them seems to me the most monstrous absurdity. 
 ...
 --
 Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems                      brown@Ncoast.ORG
 Cleveland, Ohio, USA "


The difficulty I have here is that when we find such excuses for
ourselves or others, (in either case they tend to result practically
in the former) for whatever reasons we don't take seriously the
price Jesus paid for our sin. This leads us to, or more
likely derives from the assumption that what Jesus did wasn't
really as significant as heaven and hell. After all we might conclude,
it was only a consequence of our fallibility or our environment.
Likewise when we look at how Jesus was treated we can easily conclude
that it wasn't really those people's fault or even that bad, after all. 
The fact that we stubbornly excuse and cling to this attitude only shows
how close we are to that same attitude. From God's view however it 
wasn't that trite. He saw our sin as something in need of a radical 
sacrifice. Thus He took this hate, it's painful consequences and the 
way we wash our hands of it all; upon Himself.

We still won't see how powerful and important Jesus is for us unless
we see that that same God confronts us every day with the same depth
of love and that I repond with the same cynicism, hate and denial of
those people on that day. If we do really see this then we'll find
ourselves beside the publican admitting that it is primarily me who
needs that love, and recognizing how impossible it is that that love
could reach through all my hate and self sufficiency and yet finding
that it indeed has.
From: tbc@col.hp.com (Tim Chambers)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Questions that trouble me
Date: 8 Oct 92 05:20:41 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division (PL 17)

clh writes:
> Point 3 applies specifically to Catholics only...

I assume you are referring to Roman Catholics.  The official term is
"transubstantiation."  My priest says this doctrine is becoming less
widespread but is still official.  He gave me a copy of the definition from _A
Dictionary of Christian Theology_ -- see that source for more
technical/historical details.  I'd like to comment from my own Catholic
(Episcopalian/Anglican) experience (influenced by my priest, no doubt).

I see the body and blood as symbols of Christ's essense.  By taking Holy
Communion, one is conducting a memorial to Christ ("Do this often in
remembrance of me.")  Our services also often reference the metaphor of Christ
as the head of the Church with us mortals as the body of the Church.

I had some trouble with the cannibalistic metaphor, too, but it is absurd when
taken literally.  As an example, I offer Robert Heinlein's treatment in
_Stranger in a Strange Land_.  Michael Valentine Smith represents the second
coming of Christ.  Now, it's impossible to interpret Heinlein's work to be
anything but unflattering of Christianity -- at least he despises _organized_
religion.  But when I read the passage where Michael is being serenely cooked
after his death to be served to his followers it completely fell apart for me.
The cannibalism symbol, that is.  Heinlein's twisted imagination showed such
an interpretation for the absurdity that it is.  During a sermon, my priest
explained Christ's use of the cannibalism reference as His way of shocking His
believers into remembering the faith -- it was a way of saying, wake up and
pay attention to what I've been teaching you!

memco@wotan.cns.nyu.edu writes:
>           ... Considering the human aspect of his body,
> why shouldn't this be considered as cannibalism?

To summarize, the body and blood are simply (powerful) symbols, not to be
taken literally.  And it can't be considered literal cannibalism if one
doesn't believe the doctrine of transubstantiation (which the vast majority of
Christians do not).

                   . 
-- Tim Chambers	  ( )
		   X
From: jcarroll@ferris.cray.com (Jeff Carroll)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: opinions on the big bang needing a external cause
Date: 8 Oct 92 05:19:52 GMT

>Stephen Hawking's _A_Brief_History_of_Time_ is an excellent book to read on
>the subject, but a warning: it's presented from an agnostic point of view.
>Hawking basically brings up some of these same issues from a standpoint of
>questioning whether a Creator was necessary.  He presented some of these
>proposed arguments about the non-singularity of the big bang, but later in
>the chapter he seems (IMO) dissatisfied with this notion.  In particular, if
>we were to completely eliminate singularities from our universal model, that
>would also of necessity eliminate black holes, a phenomenon the study of which
>Hawking himself has been a pioneer, and one which certainly seems to have
>increasing evidence of support.

No. Eliminating singularities from the model would *describe* black holes,
presumably more completely than is now the case.

Richard Dawkins takes essentially the same tack in _The_Blind_Watchmaker_.
His purpose is to demonstrate the plausibility of Darwinism, something which
he does convincingly but not conclusively (because somewhat emotionally).

When he's all finished, though, all he's done is demonstrate that the universe
exists by itself. He hasn't taken on the question of *why* it exists.

It's been awhile since I read Hawking, but it seemed to me that at least he
realized that his physics was not an argument against the existence of God.

Jeff Carroll
carroll@lemon.cray.com
From: mls@cbnewsm.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Questions that trouble me
Date: 10 Oct 92 06:24:22 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <Oct.9.04.12.39.1992.14637@geneva.rutgers.edu>, ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:

>> The Anglican Church does not accept transubstantiation.

and the moderator notes:

> Anglicans seem to hold a more general "real presence", and to regard
> transsubstantiation as one allowable explanation (probably not the
> most common) for how the real presence works.

Correct.  I would say that only the most "Anglo-Catholic" would be
likely to hold the doctrine, but it is not excluded.  I am fond of
the formulation used a generation ago by the British comedy group
Beyond the Fringe: "If you want to have transsubstantiation, you
can have it; if you don't want it you don't have to have it."

Since the doctrine is founded on a specifically Thomist/Aristotelian
exposition of "substance" in terms of essence & accident, I would doubt
that Eastern Christianity takes a dogmatic stance on this -- but I too
would be interested to hear from informed Orthodox readers what kind of
analysis they make of the bread and wine as Christ's body.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		   "Oh, stand, stand at the window,
					As the tears scald and start;
mls@usl.com			   You shall love your crooked neighbor
standard disclaimer			With your crooked heart."
From: dike@rs054.intel.com (Charles Dike)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: 3 days post
Date: 17 Oct 92 02:14:03 GMT
Organization: Intel Corporation, Beaverton, OR


  >andy2@telerama
  >The lamb was to be selected the 10th of Nisan....
  >that would make the 15 on Friday.
  >The domestic observance began at the start of the 14th of 
  >Nisan (Wednesday night - which began Thursday).

Ex. 12:6 says the lamb must die on the evening of the 14th which
in your scenario would would be Thursday evening

  >There is no doubt that the 15th of Nisan in the year A.D. 30
  >was on Friday (beginning Thursday evening).

While you may be right on this point (I don't know for sure) another
possible year is 33 A.D.

  >Find the word in Exodus 12 (and elsewhere) that Dr. James 
  >Strong did not index (and why), remember that Josephus was a 
  >Pharisee...  Finally then, you will see what Jesus meant as the
  >only sign of His Messiahship actually was.
  >End of hints.

Help me out here, just tell me the word and why it wasn't indexed. 
I am confused by your apparent stress. Also, any references would be 
appreciated.

  >[As far as I know, the idea of two passover dates in only a
  >hypothesis.  I haven't seen anyone claim that there's clear
  >evidence for it.  Do you know of any?  --clh]

Edersheim might have mentioned it in "The Life and Times of Jesus
the Messiah". I've seen the idea before. I seem to recall Edersheim
discussing Farrar's idea of a possible Thursday crucifixion where 
this idea was broached. I'll try to find it. If I do I will post you. 

Cordially,
Charles Dike
dike@scic.intel.com  <- the correct e-mail
From: ljh655@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (ljh655)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Conversions and reasons for them
Date: 17 Oct 92 02:10:26 GMT
Organization: Australian National University

I am glad seeing the new reader (Amy L Cavender) asking to
share our experiences with conversions. I quite believe
every genuine Christian must have passed a conversion one
way or another - as Jesus said in John 3,3... There are
people finding some reasons to move from one religion to
another, or to move to another Christian denomination. But
I suppose the most common way is to discover the presence
of the Holy Spirit in one's own Church. I was born and
raised as a Catholic, but didn't live the religion until
my heart was touched by the Holy Spirit at the age of 18.
Anyway, my life didn't change overnight, and the most
important thing for me was to maintain a firm confidence
in Eucharist, attending the mass every day even in the
most difficult times, and it did carry me through. Even
today I do everything I can to attend the mass every day,
and I still consider it to be the most important thing.
But it is sad that many people are carried away by all
different liberal approaches to the Communion and the
celebration of mass, ... There are some very liberal and
very conservative approaches, so it's difficult to find
the right way. But I believe that when Jesus was leaving
his apostles He wanted to say something very important, so
the last supper and the last words of Jesus (acc.to
Matthew's gospel) shouldn't be taken just as something
purely symbolical.
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Government Subsidizing Religion?
Date: 17 Oct 92 02:11:53 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <Oct.14.22.38.29.1992.25417@geneva.rutgers.edu> cnc405@bnr.ca (Charles (C.F.) Board) writes:

>I personally think that an institution whose primary goal is the 
>propogation of a belief system (as opposed to demonstratably materialistic
>charity) should not be a deductible contribution. 

>"Catholics (Atheists) To Feed The Poor" should be deductible. American 
>Atheists and the Southern Baptist's Cooperative Program shouldn't be 
>as bad form (forced paym,ent to spread other's belief). 

Drawing the dividing line is very difficult, if not impossible.  You
ask that those who are helping people be given charitable status.
Christian missionaries (as well as any other missionaries, for that 
matter) believe that they are helping people.  The effects are as 
measurable as materialistic only helping.  But lets ignore this issue.

The real question that arises is, how do you know that materialistic
helping is good?  Libetarians believe that the choice should be up to 
them whether or not to give.  You desire choice, and not to give to 
religious orginizations; should they not also have the choice not to 
give to materialistic charities?  You have simply replaced one standard
with another.

Given the choice, I would favor no charitable exempt status for any
grouping; with the caveat that the gov't must reduce taxes according
to how much additional they would receive if they did not (ie the move
should be revenue neutral, not a tax grab).  As to Christians who might 
complain about this, is your only purpose in giving to get a tax 
deduction?  I tell you, you have your reward already!
From: aslt@acad2.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Greek Bible
Date: 8 Oct 92 04:52:17 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska

In article <Sep.30.01.26.05.1992.7141@geneva.rutgers.edu>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au (Derek Abbott) writes:
> Does anyone know of a *modern* Greek translation of the Bible?
> I've seen New Testaments about, but not the whole thing.
> A lot of "modern" Greek Bibles are not in today's spoken Greek but in
> Katharevousa    ie. "intellectual" Greek.

Have you tried Wycliffe Translators?  I don't have their number handy (it's
buried on my desk way, WAY down 8^)) but it's pretty readily available 
(try Dallas directory assistance) and they may even be on Internet by now

> PS. BTW, is there a Koine Greek version of the *whole* Bible? If not,
> what did the early Greek Christians use to get Old Testament knowledge?

Early greeks used the Septuagint (probably misspelled) usually abbreviated
as LXX.  

Interestingly, I _think_ (and I hope that the net.gurus will 
correct me if I'm wrong) that it contains (presumably as canon) several books
that the Hebrew canon does not contain; neither are they contained in the
typical protestant canon, but are variously included in the 
Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox canon.  Just a little bit of trivia.

[Yup. --clh]
From: mdw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (mark.d.wuest)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Men's/Women's Roles in Marriage
Date: 7 Oct 92 05:21:12 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <Oct.6.00.36.16.1992.8548@geneva.rutgers.edu> crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:

>Seems to me that a father has lots of responsibilities in the domestic
>department.  He's irreplaceable in the lives of his children, not just
>in their conception.

Absolutely true, IMHO.

>I think an unfortunate number of men have held to this standard over the
>last few generations, and I think it's a contributing factor to family
>breakdown.  

Lots of guys are afraid of babies. I truly believe it stems from some
of our macho stereotypes.

While I don't want to be contentious, I hate to let us guys take the
complete rap on this one.  Very often, so-called "overprotective
mothers" push the fathers away from the child, usually only during
infancy and usually on the first child only.

Mark
-- 
Mark Wuest                            *MY* opinions, not AT&T's!!
mark.wuest@att.com
mdw@cheshire.att.com (NeXT Mail)
From: mdw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (mark.d.wuest)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Dating...
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:19:26 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <Oct.13.01.36.03.1992.22087@geneva.rutgers.edu> ljh655@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (ljh655) writes:
  <stuff deleted about dating>
>This posting reminds me of my good single 33 year old male friend.  He
>has spent so long being a friend of everyone that he has trouble making
>the switch to dating.  He is a good looking, positive, very active
>Christian whose requirements are simple: A woman who shares his faith in
>the Lord.  He works so hard (maybe not so hard - he is a very likeable
>fellow) to be friends first, that he just never gets around to it.

I married my best friend.  ;-)  She's still my best friend (and
more...).  I recommend this highly (but the *best* gal is taken).
;-)

>Naturally, he would prefer that the person have been unmarried, but of
>course, that is getting rarer and rarer.

Why?  I know some pretty cool and really incredible previously-married
(sounds like a euphemism - like "previously owned") people that some
lucky person may get to marry some day, *if* they play their cards right.

>Previously married women seem to be very skittish about even getting
>involved.  In the meantime, he's getting older and watching all of this
>with a concerned eye.  I guess wholesomeness and trust have left us.

Wholesomeness and Trust left us somewhere around the beginning of
Genesis.  ;-)

>But he keeps on trying.

If he loves God way more than anything (including the concept of
marriage...) and keeps building friends with people of both sexes,
things will work themselves out.  Remember, remaining single isn't
a curse.  (I didn't get married until I was almost 34.)

Mark
-- 
Mark Wuest                            *MY* opinions, not AT&T's!!
mark.wuest@att.com
mdw@cheshire.att.com (NeXT Mail)