HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ptfarre@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Peter Farrell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Giving if your Heart
Date: 2 Sep 92 02:24:54 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

In article <Aug.30.01.36.25.1992.11811@athos.rutgers.edu> ccla@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Lee Askew) writes:
>As a not-yet-a-christian, but feeling the power/conviction of Jesus, I
>find it VERY VERY VERY hard to go that last step and 'GIVE' my heart to
>the Lord.
>
>Infact I am finding it probably the hardest thing that I have ever done.
>I would like to know how other people went about this last step and what they
>felt??
>
>I know it is different for each and everyone of us, but any help would
>be most gratefull.
>
Hi, Lee.

Here is what happened to me. On the night of my conversion, I was afraid,
too. But you know what I was scared of? That I was going nowhere and would
end up a suicide by age 21. Life scared me almost as much as anything I
had ever heard about the pains of eternal damnation or hell.

God sneaked up on me. How an argument over a pair of borrowed boots
became my confession to my room-mate that I was afraid and adrift I
will never fully recall. But when the whole mess and confusion of my
existence finally crashed in on me, I broke down altogether.

What my room-mate did surprised me completely; we were not having a 
religious discussion at all prior to that. When I chokingly told him
what I seriously thought, he paused for a moment and then said:
"Well then, why don't you turn it over to God?"

I was so broken up and scared by that time I was no longer interested
in debate or resistance and I asked him how to do a thing like that.

Here is the deal he outlined to me (with nary a word of scripture or
anything from a church building):
You admit to Him that you can't handle it, you've screwed it up beyond
repair and you're wasted without Him. You give that useless mess of
your life to Him - completely. It's His, now. He fixes you all up
and gives you a brand-new start, a brand-new life.  What you get is
a clean slate, no cracks or chips, what He gets is ownership. He is
Boss, you are all straightened up and happy.

A little simplistic perhaps, but it made sense. I was ready to go over
the edge anyway - and I hadn't even gotten out of college! At a time when
most kids were partying hearty and laughing and playing around, I was on my
last legs.

Praise His holy name, I'll never forget that chilly October night as
long as I live. Lee, I can't tell you how marvelous it is when you
come through the veil and meet Him. The first big surprise you will
get is that He's not mad or stern or fierce with you, but gentle,
alive, and overjoyed to see you. Don't worry. You won't be disappointed,
I promise you that. Let that old life go and just see if your new Boss
isn't the wonderful person I am describing.

You'll have your ups and downs later, that's true; but oh, will you
ever be filled up inside with joy at your new life. He is a wonderful
Lord. That's been my experience, and I'd bet it all that you are in
for a wonderful surprise.

					God Is Waiting For You
						Pete
From: mayo@cs.utk.edu (Wallace Mayo)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: prayer
Date: 26 Aug 92 06:23:31 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville - CS Department

I would never suggest that the way I pray is the best way, or the only way,
or even an acceptable way for others;  it does work for me.  I do not consider
myself an expert on prayer or anything spiritual, and while it certainly is
not beneath me to post this, I suspect most readers are far more advanced
spiritually than I and would be far better resources.  

For starters, I pray that I am open to every grace and blessing the Lord 
wants me to have.  I pray for the gifts, the fruits, and the beatitudes of 
the Holy Spirit.  I pray for the gift of praising God.

  Often I am asked for prayer and don't know enough about the person or
  the situation to formulate a specific prayer.  In that case I ask that
  the person or group I am praying for 
      - have true repentance of all sin,
      - know the Love and Mercy of the Lord Jesus Christ, and
      - experience the Power of the Holy Spirit.

I am fortunate in that I am able to attend Mass every day, and that is the
basis for my prayer life.  In addition, I spend 30 minutes or more each
morning in prayer before I come to work.  My goal is to allocate a full
hour each day, at the same time each day, to prayer, but so far I have
been too weak to do it.  (I would have to get up at 6:00 am, which seems
*more* than an hour earlier than my current rising time of 7:00.)  

  Morning prayer - I offer all my prayers, works, joys, and sufferings
	of the day, in union with all the prayers of the world, to the Lord 
	Jesus, for the love of God, for the conversion of sinners,  that His 
	Holy will be done in all things.

  Evening prayer - I ask God to 
      - forgive my sins of that day and of all my life;
      - purify the good I did poorly that day and during all my life;
      - supply for the good I ought to have done, and that I have 
	neglected that day and all my life.

  In between I pray short prayers often during the day, but as yet have not 
  reached the level where I can pray constantly, as taught by Paul.  I also
  am a devotee of the rosary, both the Marian rosary and the rosary of the
  Holy Wounds.  I frequently meditate on the passion of our Lord and spend
  a fair amount of time in praise and thanksgiving. 

I pray for my family and friends each day, for those who have birthdays
that day, and for those who will die that day.  I also pray for all the
students in the classes I teach and for various other groups.

As you can see, there is nothing new or special in my ways.  I can EXPECT
great things, not because I ask for great things, but because if I ask, God
will give me what I need, which will be far better than what I think I
need.

					In Christ,
					J. Wallace Mayo
From: Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Steve Hayes)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: LXX      the SEPTUAGINT (in english)
Date: 30 Aug 92 07:12:56 GMT

On <26 Aug 1992 20:41> Nichael Cramer (5:7104/2) said to All :

 NC>I, too, have been looking for an English translation of the LXX.  However,
 NC>everyone I've asked have advised me to be somewhat leery of this 
particular
 NC>version.  It's not so much that the translation is almost a 
 NC>century and a
 NC>half old as the fact that the Greek text on which it is based 
 NC>is even older
 NC>(and --apparently-- notoriously buggy).

Well obviously the English, no matter what its age, is a translation of a 
translation. The Greek text itself was translated from Hebrew and Aramaic 
originals. The importance of the LXX is that the translators had access to 
original manuscripts that were far earlier than any we have today. The kind 
of scribal errors that could creep in when copying a greek MS are different 
from those that might occur when copying a Hebrew MS. Where there are variant 
readings, therefore, the LXX could be more accurate than any of the extant 
Hebrew manuscripts. 

In Deut 32:8, for example, the LXX says that God separated the nations 
according to the number of the sons of God. Most extant Hebrew manuscripts 
said he did it according to the number of the sons of Israel (which makes 
very little sense). The Hebrew manuscripts used in most English translations 
until recently were no older than the 9th century AD. But recently some older 
manuscripts were discovered (among the Dead Sea Scrolls, I believe) and they 
confirmed the LXX reading.

Steve Hayes
Department of Missiology
University of South Africa
P O Box 392
Pretoria
0001 South Africa

Fidonet: 5:7101/22.5
Internet: Steve.Hayes@f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
--  
INTERNET: Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
via:  THE CATALYST BBS in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
       (catpe.alt.za)   +27-41-34-1122 HST or +27-41-34-2859, V32bis & HST.
From: seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: money and mouths
Date: 2 Sep 92 02:48:13 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada

In article <Sep.1.03.38.33.1992.13542@athos.rutgers.edu> ptfarre@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Peter Farrell) writes:
>
>Now if we make the whole deal voluntary, then THERE would be a really
>interesting comparison: the socialist minded can donate their
>dollars to the government, trusting it to wisely distribute, and the
>Christians and conservatives can donate their dollars to any non-
>governmental charities of their own choice, with the same intention.
>It'll never happen. But if it did, I think our opponents would be in
>for some major surprises (provided they had the guts to look at the
>honest numbers).
>
I don't know much about the US tax system, but here in Canada, when I  
donate money to a church or registered charity, I get a tax credit for
29% of my donation.  This in effect means that I am redirecting this
money (the 29%) from the government tax revenues.  

I have a good job, and make a reasonable income, and certainly am living
quite well, even without the 40% I pay in income tax.  I would hope that
if there were no income tax, that I would be generous enough to donate
this 40% for the care of those in less fortunate circumstances.  But I
do not know how many others in my position would do this, let alone wish to.
I live in a country where the "Conservative" party platform is still to the
left of the US Democrats, and have socialist tendencies myself.  But even
without this, I would argue that the actual "cost" of not taking care of
people (crime rates, lack of productivity, etc) is quite significant, 
though it does not show up as dollars removed from the pocket.  It seems
to me that appropriate Christian stewardship of money includes paying for 
things that do not give immediate return, and if the only way to do this is to
ensconce it into the structure of society through income tax, then so be 
it.
-- 
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: rbutera@owlnet.rice.edu (Rob Butera)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Clinton & Gore
Date: 3 Sep 92 03:54:52 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <Sep.1.03.14.19.1992.13353@athos.rutgers.edu>, stngiam@athena.mit.edu (Shih-Tung Ngiam) writes:

|>   As the "Christian Politics" thread develops, there is a question I'd
|> like to ask.  The media reports that Governor Clinton is Baptist.  I'm
|> wondering whether he is Southern Baptist.
|> 
|>   If indeed he is a member of a Southern Baptist church, many of the
|> policies he espouses are contrary to the position of the leadership of
|> the Southern Baptist Convention.  And if that is the case, how has the
|> SBC reacted?  
|> 
|>   How about Sen Gore?
|> 
|>   Going back in time, President Carter described himself as a born-again
|> Christian, if my memory serves me right.  His policies would not have
|> been approved of by today's Fundamentalist Christians.
|> 

Gore and Clinton are both Southern Baptists.  Carter is also a baptist (pretty
sure he's SBC as well).  Yes - the SBC "leadership" may not be big fans of
Gore and Clinton, since the SBC is the closest thing to a denomation that
the fundamentalists wield political control over (I know the SBC is 
technically not a denomination, but I'm calling it that for ease of
reference).

HOWEVER, there seems to be a public perception that all Baptists fit the
mold of "conservative right-wing fundamentalist".  A little study and 
reading of Baptist history in the US will show that this is not the case.
A recent survey (forgot where) estimates that 65% of Southern Baptists
"align themselves" with the conservative-fundamentalist view that is 
represented in the party leadership.  However, that still leaves 35% or
so with another viewpoint.  (I'm also aware that politically conservative
does not equate to theologically conservative, but there's definitely some
correlation there).

So yes - the current leadership is not a big Clinton/Gore fan.  The new
president of the SBC (Ed Young - you can see his picture on billboards
all over Houston) spoke at the Republican Convention.  I'd also like to
add that Jimmy Carter (ignoring his stint as president) has done more for
the cause for human rights worldwide than most other Christians have even
thought about (and he's even a "card carrying" member of the ACLU :)  )

-- 
Rob Butera - ECE grad student   Rice University, Houston, TX   rbutera@rice.edu

Posing nude in _Playboy_ was "probably the best time of my life - except for
when I found God." - Jessica Hahn
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Qumran finding
Date: 3 Sep 92 03:33:54 GMT
Organization: none

In article <Sep.1.03.12.30.1992.13315@athos.rutgers.edu> ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes:

   Even if we concede the --highly unlikely-- point that these claims are true
   the question remains: In what way does the date at which a given book was
   written affect the ultimately validity of these issues, in any meaningful
   sense?

   Simply consider the converse statement.  If the later (and much more
   likely) dates for the origin of the Gospels are correct, does this
   _disprove_ the validity of this "Christian stance"?

The Cardinal who was quoted was coming from the Catholic perspective
on Scripture.  The Catholic Church believes that the Gospels recount
history.

Much of Scripture scholarship nowadays is influenced by a theological
system called Modernism that St. Pius X condemned in his encyclical
letter "Pascendi Gregis".  The widely accepted late dating of the
Gospels (to take an example) stems in great part from Modernist a
priori reasoning.  It goes like this:

1. There are no such things as miracles.

2. Therefore the miracles recounted in the New Testament are pious
inventions of the "faithful", and not true history at all.

3. Therefore the New Testament is of late date and does not recount
history reliably.

This started about a century ago and has more or less taken over
"mainstream" biblical scholarship.  Including, unfortunately, Catholic
biblical scholarship.
From: rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Mother of God
Date: 2 Sep 92 02:26:03 GMT

If memory serves, the title "Mother of God" (theotokos) actually goes back
to the Christological dispute on whether Jesus was God.
--
                                              --- Tim Rolfe
                                           rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu
                                            ROLFE@SDNET.BITNET
[Yes]
From: u-lchoqu%peruvian@hellgate.utah.edu (Lee Choquette)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Smoking, health, risk, life...
Date: 3 Sep 92 04:08:07 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <Sep.1.22.25.33.1992.23215@athos.rutgers.edu>
phantom@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (James Choi) writes:
 > One further question.  It is a recent discovery that smoking can kill.[...]
 > What was the church's position before this medical discovery?

As for one church that I know about, the prophet Joseph Smith received a
revelation in the 1830s prescribing against the use of tobacco, as well as
other substances.  At first this instruction was couched as ``a word to the
wise,'' but later it became part of the requirements for good standing in the
LDS church, i.e., a commandment.

 > If non-smoking was the policy, what was the reason then?

Some people were concerned with the mess made by chewing tobacco, but as with
the medical argument, why single out this particular activity?  I presume most
people followed the revelation as a commandment from God.

 > If the respect for one's life is the reason for non-smoking, does the
 > church equally strongly discourage motorcycle riding and other high risk
 > activities, sports, etc.?  [soccer, boxing]  Are these acceptable Christian
 > games?

Good point.  I guess it's up to our own God-given intelligence and listening to
the Spirit.  Maybe, and this is pure speculation on my part, the restrictions
against smoking came about because the risks aren't as obvious there, or at
least they weren't until recently.  With the other activities you mentioned
it's easier for us to see the inherent dangers.  I would imagine it's also
easier to indulge in a little motorcycling, and then give it up if we decide
it's not compatible with our beliefs about the sanctity of life, than it is to
stop smoking when faced with the same crisis.
  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
   . . . . Lee Choquette . . . . . . . . . . I love work . . . . . . . . . .
  . . u-lchoqu@peruvian.utah.edu. . . . I could watch it all day. . . . . .
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[This answer is clearly specific to LDS.  It's unlikely that most
Christian opposition to smoking is based on authoritative prophecy
such as LDS believe in. --clh]
From: alisonjw@spider.co.uk (Alison J Wyld)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Salvation and the purpose of evangelization
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:00:14 GMT
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK.

In article <Aug.27.02.37.42.1992.934@athos.rutgers.edu> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au (Derek Abbott) writes:
>There is a tension between the concepts of who qualifies for salvation
>and the purpose of evangelization.
>

My primary motive for sharing my faith is that I want
to share the peace, and joy that I
receive by God's grace.

Salvation (for me) is a secondary motivation.

A good definition I once heard of conversion is "submitting all that
you know of yourself, to all that you know of God".  I realise that
this def. has its problems, but as my main work is with small children
(under 5s) I find it useful.  I imagine you could apply a similar idea
to the mentally handicapped.  I personally find the Chrisdadelphian
notion that only those capable of full understanding can be saved
(ie. not small children, not the mentally handicapped) vile in the
extreme. 

Alison
From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: defining fundamentalism - query
Date: 24 Aug 92 00:01:12 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <Aug.21.00.40.31.1992.14426@athos.rutgers.edu> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>
>     The term "fundamentalist" is constantly heard in the news
>media.  I am aware of the origin of the term, but what/who is a
>fundamentalist at the present time? 


Please let me answer your question from the perspective of one who
is a fundamentalist Christian.  Yes, the term is misused frequently
by the media.  Non fundamentalists, cultist, extremist, and sometimes
just plain neo-evangelicals are referred to as fundamentalists by the
media.  There is a simple definition for a Christian fundamentalist.
A fundamentalist is someone who believes in the fundamentals of the
faith (salvation through faith, redemption through the blood of Christ,
trinity, divinity of Christ, innerrancy and inspiration of scriptures,
etc.) AND believes in ecclesiastical and personal separation from
the world. This does not mean "physical" separation necessarily (I
can be in the world but not of the world) which is definately necessary
to be a witness for Christ.  That is about it.  A fundamentalist differs
from a new-evangelical on the part of separation and many times on the
inerrancy and inspiration of scripture (but not always).  Standards
(music, dress, etc) tend to be better for fundamentalists but this
isn't really part of the definition.  More likely just a part of
sanctification from Christians who desire not to compromise. Examples:
Billy Grahm and Jerry Falwell are new evangelical and Bob Jones is
fundamentalist. I hope this helps.  There are still quite a few
fundamentalists out there with a few of us here in Massachusetts too.
Mark
From: sam4628@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: On-line bibles - xlating between packages?
Date: 27 Aug 92 07:10:20 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services

Sorry for a computer-oriented question on SOC.RELIGION.CHRISTIAN, but
I'm more likely to find bible info here than on the computer groups...

I'm trying to find out if any software exists which can convert
bible text from BibleMaster format to QuickVerse format -- the
goal is to buy the BibleMaster NASB, but use it with the QuickVerse
program (which doesn't have NASB available).  Thanks!

Steven M.
From: aardvark@ial3.jsc.nasa.gov (Mike Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Qumran finding
Date: 3 Sep 92 04:06:40 GMT

In article <Sep.1.22.38.44.1992.23361@athos.rutgers.edu>,
louns@cs.washington.edu (Michael Lounsbery) wrote:
> 
> jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes:
> 
> >Needless to say, these finds, if they pan out, would make mincemeat of
> >current thoughts in some circles about the late dating of the Gospels.
> >The Catholic Church holds to an early dating, so the finds are most
> >welcome...
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by this.  My copy of the Catholic-written "New
> Jerome Biblical Commentary," tends toward the widely accepted later dates.
> I also don't think the Church itself holds to any date at all, leaving the
> issue, which is out of the domain of faith and morals, to those more
> specifically qualified.  Although the stance of the Church towards Biblical
> scholarship was fairly rigid in the late 1800's, more recent pronouncements
> have relaxed this considerably.  (An excellent exposition of this
> development also appears in the NJBC.)  An early date is in no way an
> article of faith, and I don't think you meant to suggest this.  I just
> wanted to clarify.

Qumran fragment aside for the moment, the authentic RC teachings concerning
the dating of Matthew are not given in the "New Jerome Biblical
Commentary", but rather the Enchridion Biblicum. The "New Jerome Biblical
Commentary" is a summary of what many Catholic scholars think about the
bible. This is not always *consistent* with Catholic teachings. A large
number of these Catholic scholars are in direct conflict with official
Church teachings on such matters as the perpetual viriginity of Mary and
the physical resurrection of Jesus. Indeed, many theories are covered in
the "New Jerome Biblical Commentary" that are definitely non-Catholic and
many (but not all) are stated as such. "New Jerome Biblical Commentary" is
more of a compendium of the research in the field to date. It is an
excellent work, but must be read within the context of Church teachings.

The Enchridion Biblicum is were official Church teachings concerning such
matters are presented. In it, one will find that the Church teaches that
the original Matthew is the Aramaic version mentioned. It is dated rather
early as I recall and, again as far as I recall, the Enchridion Biblicum
does not dispute a later date (nor does it endorse it) for the Greek
Matthew, but it does explicitly state the 'original' Matthew (Aramaic) is
to be dated early.

If you want a good set of books discussing traditional Catholic thought on
the bible, I'd recommend the University of Navarre series (Spain). They
have taken several of the NT books and done a thorough job in presenting
them from the standpoint of 2000 years of RC Church thought and writings.
Numerous authors are quoted, from the 1st century to the 20th. It is an
excellent series, although expensive since each NT Book is treated in a
separate volume.

Mike Martin
aardvark@ial3.jsc.nasa.gov