HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Problem of pain - summary & response
Date: 20 Aug 92 05:46:59 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney, Australia

miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:

>My query did not come from personal suffering; I had in mind the
>age-old question of how an all-powerful God who is also entirely good
>could have brought into existence the suffering of innocents.  Even
>animals.  Many of you seem to respond to suffering by building on your
>already-existing faith.  I am troubled by the problem of pain as an
>apparently very powerful argument against God's existence, at least as
>an all-powerful Being.

I don't know if anyone mentioned this already, but pain is in part due
to the "hardness" of the universe. 

If I kick a brick, I feel pain and am made very aware that the brick is 
just as real as my foot, and that my senses convey this reality to 
me adequately. Presumably God could have made a soft universe
(or given us soft feet), but he didn't.

In a soft universe I couldn't be sure of an external reality: if it
was not as real as me, or obeyed my will, or whatever, I would have
to convince myself it existed. This of course makes decisions about
whether Jesus is God etc very difficult.

But because the universe is hard, I don't need to wonder if it's real
or not: all my knowledge is founded on that fact. And because I
know the universe is real, the analogies God has placed in it
to demonstrate himself are also knowable.

So the existence of physical pain in the universe needn't be seen as 
an argument against God, but in fact is good in-as-far-as it is
part of what lets us know. So we are better off having this type
of pain: not having it would rob us of external reality.

I think the evil that an animal is subject to when, say, eaten by a lion,
is of this type. Its not moral evil, and it didn't stop God from
declaring Creation good. But evil which is due to man's imorality
is different, and God does not declare it good.

-ricko
From: wagner@spinoza.math.uh.edu (David Wagner)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Papacy (was Re: The Lord's Table (Part 1 of 2))
Date: 20 Aug 92 06:08:21 GMT
Organization: UH Dept of Math

"Eric" == Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com> writes:

Eric> In article <Aug.18.02.19.13.1992.27210@aramis.rutgers.edu>,
Eric> wagner@spinoza.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) writes: 

> I think the Greek (and all we have is the Greek) is `Petros' (Peter)
> and `petra' (rock).  The church is built on the foundation of the
> confession of faith that Peter made, speaking for the disciples:
> "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God".  That is the rock
> to which Christ referred.

Eric> I see no reason, grammatically, to believe that "rock" refers to
Eric> the confession except as a means to satisfy oneself that the
Eric> papacy doesn't exist.  It is merely a standard explanation used
Eric> in anti-Catholic manuals designed to confound any Catholic who
Eric> actually knows Scripture and brings up Matthew 16:18, but in
Eric> reality the interpretation cannot stand, because grammatically
Eric> it makes no sense.

Melancthon's `Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope' cites the
following `anti-Catholic sources' as giving a similar interpretation.
It will take me some time to check these myself, but I thought you
might like to have the references:

1.  Origen, `Commentary on Matthew', XII, 11.
2.  Ambrose, `Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, II, 20.
3.  Cyprian, `The Unity of the Catholic Church', IV
4.  Hilary,  `The Trinity', VI, 36, 37.
5.  Bede,    `Exposition of the Gospel of Matthew, III, 16.

Melancthon's precise statement (translated to English):

As to the statement, "On this rock I will build my church"
(Matt 16:18), it is certain that the church is not built on 
the authority of a man but on the ministry of the confession which 
Peter made when he declared Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of
God.  Therefore Christ addresses Peter as a minister and says,
"On this rock", that is, on this ministry.  Besides, the ministry
of the New Testament is not bound to places and persons, as the 
Levitical priesthood is, but is spread abroad through the whole
world and exists wherever God gives his gifts, apostles, prophets,
pastors, teachers.  Nor is this ministry valid because of any 
individual's authority but because of the Word given by Christ.
**Most of the holy Fathers** (such as Origen, Ambrose, Cyprian,
Hilary, and Bede) interpret the statement "on this rock" in
this way and not as applying to the person or superiority
of Peter....**Hilary declares: "The Father revealed to Peter
that he should say, `You are the Son of the living God.'
On this rock of confession, therefore, the church is built.
This faith is the foundation of the church."**

Regards,

David H. Wagner		"Built on the Rock the Church doth stand,		
a confessional 		Even when steeples are falling;
Lutheran		Crumbled have spires in ev'ry land,
			Bells still are chiming and calling.
			Calling the young and old to rest,
			But above all, the soul distrest,
			Longing for rest everlasting."
			--Nicolai F. S. Grundtvig, 1837
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Catechisms
Date: 20 Aug 92 05:54:44 GMT

Michael Seimon writes, concerning the 1979 BCP catechism:

>It is also extremely brief, and deliberately nonspecific about anything but
>the most "generic" statements of doctrine possible.  It is a context that
>can be (helpfully) used as a framework by a cathechist, but is in itself
>nothing at all like the Roman documents that can almost serve by themselves
>as sufficient material for an introductory study course in doctrine.

I think this is due almost entirely to the difference in perspective between
anglicans and romans concerning the place of doctrine.  The anglican
tendency is to explain only what is absolutely necessary; the roman tendency
is to elaborate and define.  (Also, if I may be permitted a cranky note:
there is a certain tendency, as for instance in the Baltimore Catechism, for
roman documents look for differences between the RC church and other
churches.  On the other hand, the anglican counter tendency is to try and
obscure these issues....)

My apologies concerning the 1928 book.  We're moving in a few days and all
my reference works are boxed up, so I have nothing to check my faulty memory
against.
-- 
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: ptfarre@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Peter Farrell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Prove it to me! New question!
Date: 18 Aug 92 06:24:33 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

In article <Aug.17.02.57.08.1992.14792@athos.rutgers.edu> studman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Daniel Tseng) writes:
>
>... I believe that what you're telling me is the truth.  Now what?  Now that
>I've "accepted" Jesus as my Savior, what is that supposed to do to me?  I
>haven't noticed a change in myself, nor what I believe, nor what I wish to
>believe or do. I understand about God's love and everything, and many of you
>all want to be a part of that as much as possible, why?  I mean, it might be
>great for all of you, but I'm doing just fine right now, knowing God loves me,
>and not following the Bible word for word.  I think I'm supposed to change the
>way I act now, but I don't feel like it.  I basically do everything the Bible
>has said anyways, but don't WANT to follow it by the letter...   
>
Dan,
I think clh has said it right. Yours is to take the next step. I hope that
the Lord will now guide you into fellowship with a loving group of believers
with whom you can begin to fellowship a bit. 
If you are at all like I was, then you are/were very serious about finding
out whether God is real and whether He is there because your own mess has
finally begun to scare you.  I suspect something is stirring inside you that
won't let you go, and I also think along with clh that maybe you have come
across a group or teaching that portrays Christianity as much like being
under strict military discipline rather than under the care and authority of
a Lord who loves you enough to be killed on your behalf for something He did
not do.
You are right in that your intellectual search has now taken you as far as it
can be reasonably expected to. You are now at the issue of commitment and so
far, you are apparently not convinced enough of your own "badness", as it
were, to surrender to Him.  This is why I agree with clh that probably you
have not examined your life very well so far. I think you will find (as we
all did) that you're a lot less okay than you think. No one really is very
okay when it comes to this sort of examination.
It isn't okay to just disobey God at will; that still counts as sin. 
We can accept one another as we are, faults and all, but we all ought to
because we are all, morally speaking, short of the mark.  But remember:
this guy is GOD. His requirement is absolute righteousness in every way.
You might be a really okay fellow to eat lunch with, Dan, but there is
no way you'll make THIS grade by your own efforts.  That's the whole deal
right there: He fixes you up (wonderfully), but you give Him ownership. 
It's not so fierce and awesome as having to kill your own child, Dan.
I seriously, seriously doubt you will be asked to do anything like that
at all. Keep seeking. He will answer you if you're serious.
						Pete
From: baresson@cbnewsi.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Faith and Works
Date: 21 Aug 92 04:17:52 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <Aug.19.00.15.54.1992.14490@athos.rutgers.edu> jte@psi.com (John Eldredge) writes:
>Works unto salvation would lead to 
>boasting and is clearly denounced (Rom 3:24-30; Eph 2:10).  Works as a 
>logical result of our faith is encouraged.
>

It should be pointed out that Luther referred to the book of
James as "a book of straw" - the central revelation that Luther
received was that our justification does not depend upon
anything we do but upon the finished work of Christ. 
This slightly distorted Luther's perspective of James.

Yet, to use a neat phrase - 'it is faith alone that saves, but faith 
that saves can never be alone'. Christ says that we have been
chosen to bear fruits, and active participation on our part
is called for.

God does not just call us to a state of "having been saved" and
whisk us off to heaven but works in us to produce
holiness and the fruit of the Spirit in our lives.
It can be pointed out that each of the fruit of the Spirit that
results from the fact that the Holy Spirit dwells within us,
as listed in Gal 5.22-23, is commanded of Christians - it makes
an interesting Bible study to find a reference for each. I give
an example list below. (I have heard the 9 fruit divided into
3x3 Godward, Manward and Inward, and will use this division)

love - joy - peace
LOVE one another (Jn 15.12)
REJOICE in the Lord always (Phil 4.4)
Let the PEACE of Christ rule in your hearts (Col 3.15)

patience - kindness - goodness
with PATIENCE, forbearing with one another in LOVE (Eph 4.2)
be KIND to one another, tender-hearted (Eph 4.31)
Put on then, as God's chosen ones,holy and beloved, KINDNESS,
lowliness, meekness and PATIENCE, forebearing one another and if
anyone has a complaint against another, forgiving each other
(Col 3.12-13)
Seek GOOD and not evil ... hate evil and love GOOD (Amos 5.14-15)

faithfulness - gentleness - self-control
Be FAITHFUL unto death, and I will give you the crown of life (Rev 2.10)
to be GENTLE, and to show perfect courtesy to all men (Titus 3.2)
hospitable, a lover of GOODNESS, master of himself, upright,
holy, and SELF-CONTROLLED (Titus 1.8)
if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other
also (Mt 5.39)

Barney Resson
"Many shall run to and fro, & knowledge shall increase" (Daniel)
From: conan@durban.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Matthew Fox
Date: 20 Aug 92 06:21:05 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.

According to an article appearing in Monday's San Francisco
Chronicle, the controversial theologian Matthew Fox has been
expelled from the Dominicans on the order of the Minister General
at the request of Fox's Provincial in Chicago.  While Fox
remains a priest he has been suspended from all exercise of
his priestly faculties.  

Those are the facts.  From the rumor mill:  Fox's Institute of
Creation Spirituality, which is associated with the Catholic
Holy Names College, may be asked to move.  Rumor has it that
the Holy Names sisters are trying to distance themselves from
him.  Another rumor has it that Bishop Cummins of Oakland will
not incardinate Fox, thereby granting him the right to exercise
his priestly faculties.  I repeat that these last two are
just rumors at this stage.

Yours in Christ,

David Cruz-Uribe, SFO
From: mls@cbnewsm.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Catechisms
Date: 19 Aug 92 04:16:11 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <Aug.18.02.25.02.1992.27326@aramis.rutgers.edu>, mangoe@cs.umd.edu
(Charley Wingate) writes:

> 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.

It is also extremely brief, and deliberately nonspecific about anything but
the most "generic" statements of doctrine possible.  It is a context that
can be (helpfully) used as a framework by a cathechist, but is in itself
nothing at all like the Roman documents that can almost serve by themselves
as sufficient material for an introductory study course in doctrine.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		The Son of Man has come eating and drinking;
				and you say "Behold, a glutton and a drunkard,
mls@usl.com			a friend of tax collectors and sinners."  And
standard disclaimer		yet, Wisdom is justified by all her children.
From: stevenst@iaserv.b1.ingr.com (Todd Stevens)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Fasting
Date: 20 Aug 92 05:55:58 GMT

I am very interested in hearing the experiences of other Christians who have 
used fasting to somehow enhance their walk with Christ.  I have always 
fellowshipped with believers who do not encourage (and sometimes downright 
discourage) the practice of this discipline.

Thanks,

Todd Stevens
stevenst@iaserv.b1.ingr.com
From: REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Catechisms
Date: 20 Aug 92 06:21:38 GMT
Organization: Fermi Lab

In article <Aug.18.02.25.02.1992.27326@aramis.rutgers.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu
(Charley Wingate) writes:
>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."
>
The best catechism I have read to date is the Westminster Standards Larger
Catechism.  I use it to teach from in SS and at home.  I have a series of tapes
of Francis Schaeffer going through the Confession and the Catechism item by
item in full discussion.  Though they are over 20 yrs old, and though I don't
agree with all points, it has been quite enlightening.  If you're interested in
the tapes, contact me for where to order, but for the standards, contact Great
Commission Publications,  7401 Old York Road, Philadelphia, Penn ZC 19126
From: conan@durban.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: freedom of speech
Date: 14 Aug 92 07:20:58 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.

At his audience on June 24, the Pope was giving a talk on Charism
in the Church (part of a series of talks he has been giving on the
mystery of the Church).  At the end, he suddenly veered off onto
the following tangent on freedom of speech in the Church.  In light
of the controversies of the past decade about the "silencing" of
theologians, I think these remarks are important, since they seem
to reflect a change in attitude.

== Begin Quote ==

Among the various gifts, St. Paul holds that of prophecy in such high
esteem, as we noted, that he recommends "Stive eagerly for the
spiritual gifts, above all that you may prophesy".  It appears from
the history of the Church and particularly from the lives of the
saints taht frequently the Holy Spirit inspires prophetic words 
meant to foster the development or the  reform of the Christian
community's life.  Sometimes these words are addressed especially to
those who wield authority, as in the case of St. Catherine of Siena,
who intervened with the Pope to obtain his return from Avignon to
Rome. There are many faithful and, above all, many faithful saints who
have given Popes and other Pastors of the Church the light and
strength necessary for fulfilling their mission, especially at
difficult times for the Church.

This fact shows the possibility and usefulness of freedom of speech in
the Church:  a freedom which can also appear in the form of
constructive criticism.  The important thing is that what is said
truly expresses a prophetic inspiration coming from the Spirit.  As
St. Paul says, "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom".
The Holy Spirit fosters in the faithful a manner of acting
characterized by sincerity and mutual trust and enables them "to
admonish one another".

Criticism is useful in the community, which must always be reformed
and must try to correct its own imperfections.  In many cases it helps
the community to take a new step forward.  But if it comes from the
Holy Spirit, criticism must be animated by the desire to advance in
truth and love.  It cannot be given with bitterness; it cannot be
expressed in insults, in acts or judgements which offend the honor of
individuals or groups.  It must be filled with respect and with
fraternal and filial affection, and it should aviod recourse to
inappropriate forms of publicity by always adhering to the directions
given by the Lord about fraternal correction.

If this is the profile of freedom of speech, we can say that there is
no oppositiion between charism and institution, because it is the one
Spirit who enlivens the Church with various charisms.  

== end quote ==

Yours in Christ,

David Cruz-Uribe, SFO
From: mdw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (mark.d.wuest)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Opinions Qualifications for Deacon
Date: 14 Aug 92 06:29:33 GMT
Organization: AT&T

My congregation is about to appoint deacons.  The men were presented
to the congregation a few weeks ago for consideration.  I have read
the passage in I Timothy (and the passage in Titus regarding elders),
and several commentaries.  In addition, I have been at several
congregations where this was done and had the qualifications explained
by many people.

The other evening, my wife noted that a deacon must "manage his
children" well and commented that this would make a man with only
one child ineligible.  I'm not sure that this is what Paul had in
mind.

In addition, the qualifications for elders in I Timothy does not
mention that he had to have believing children, the one in Titus
does.  Since they appointed elders at different places, could it
be that Timothy might have appointed men that Titus would not have?

Are we stretching the intent here?  I am just fishing for some
fresh opinions on these passages.  We will be appointing elders
soon, so that is of interest, also.

Thanks!

Mark
-- 
Mark Wuest
mark.wuest@att.com
mdw@cheshire.att.com (NeXT Mail Welcome!)
From: bandor@byerley.rdt.monash.edu.au (Tony McGregor)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Does God Exist? And proof of existence!
Date: 18 Aug 92 04:24:23 GMT
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.

I'm not at all sure about entering an argument on proving God. The
trouble with proof is that you need to start from axioms. I've never
been able to agree with a non-Christian on the axioms. 

That said I was interested in Wilson's comments on cosmology:

whheydt@pbhya.pacbell.com (Wilson Heydt) writes:

>In article <Aug.10.02.11.16.1992.13915@dartagnan.rutgers.edu>, tjohn@elaine.ee.und.ac.za (THIAGARAJ JOHN : THIRD) writes:
>> Matter itself is not the great first cause, as some seem to think - for
>> there was a time, long, long ago, where matter came into existence. 
>> Something could not bring itself into existence out of nothing.  

>Aside from the anthropomorphizing . . .  Matter *can* come into
>existence 'by itself'.  The author is clearly unfamiliar with modern
>Physics (let alone Cosmology).  The works of Stephen
>Hawking--particularly his work applying Quantum Mechanics to black
>Holes are pertinent.


Well I'm not exactly an expert on cosmology or cosmogony but a year or
so ago I read a few books on the subject. There were several different
views on how the universe `began' (if it did). 

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).

Has current thinking changed? Do most cosmologists now believe that the
universe had no beginning?

Tony
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony McGregor ( Tony.McGregor@fcit.monash.edu.au )  
Department of Robotics and Digital Technology, Monash University
PO Box 197, Caulfield East, Vic 3145, Australia  
Phone: +61 3 5732014  Fax: +61 3 5732345
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[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]