HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Steve Hayes)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Clinton & Gore
Date: 9 Sep 92 08:26:11 GMT

On <05 Sep 1992 14:21> Shih-Tung Ngiam said to All :

 SN>  Going back in time, President Carter described himself as a  born-again
 SN>Christian, if my memory serves me right.  His policies would not have
 SN>been approved of by today's Fundamentalist Christians.

From some distance away from the US, I seem to remember that Jimmy Carter was 
the only US president in recent times who made no secret of his Christian 
faith and tried to apply that faith to his policies when he was President.

It didn't get him very far. It seems that Christian politicans tend to get 
crucified, which is only to be expected, since a disciple is not above his 
teacher, and a servant is not above his master. 

I may have missed something, of course. I may have read distorted press 
reports - who can believe what we read in the press? and in South Africa 
that's all we get. 

But from what I read, it seemed to me that Jimmy Carter tried to do what he 
believed was right according to his Christian convictions, whether or not it 
would lose friends and alienate voters (which it did, as he wasn't reelected). 
And I would say that Jimmy Carter must go down in history as one of the better 
presidents - from a Christian point of view, not as the world sees it.

Other presidents and would-be presidents have sometimes made soothing noises 
towards Christians, mainly because they didn't want to alienate voters. 

As for the present candidates - neither Bush nor Clinton seem to be 
particularly Christian. They may or may not "go to church", but if they do, 
they seem to keep that in a separate compartment labelled "private life". 

Steve Hayes
Department of Missiology
University of South Africa
--  
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: rhw@chaser.co.uk (RolandH.Watson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: news article
Date: 11 Sep 92 04:10:24 GMT

This September 1993 EOW date seems to me to be based on two things.

1993 - 
	I agree with those who see it as the old seven-day -> seven-millenia
	interpretation with the seventh millenium (~2000AD onwards) as the
	eternal sabbath rest. Since the date of the first advent is a few years
	out of sync with the Christian Calendar, 7BC could be the date of the
	conception/birth of Christ. Two millenia + 7BC = 1993.

September - 
	I thought this month for the first advent was derived from the
	account in Luke of the meeting between Elisabeth and Mary. Elisabeth
	was 6 months pregnant when she met Mary and Mary conceived about that
	time. The date of Elisabeth's conception was about the time of her
	husband's angelic vision which we know was about June/July because it
	was during the priestly course of Abijah which can be calculated from 
	the beginning of the religious year. So, the month of Christ's birth is

		month of Abijah + 6 months + 9 months ~= september

	Two assumptions are involved:

	1/ Elisabeth conceived about the time of Zachariah's vision.
	2/ Mary conceived about the time of her visit to Elisabeth.

Whether Mr.Camping is using any of this, I don't know. What's more, I agree that
date fixing is a waste of time.


Regards,



Roland H. Watson
From: armstrng@cs.dal.ca (Stan Armstrong)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The problem of pain - query
Date: 16 Sep 92 04:09:28 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In article <Sep.15.04.16.06.1992.25737@athos.rutgers.edu> jonh@david.wheaton.edu (Jonathan Hayward) writes:
>
>Here on earth, given the existence of Satan (how he became a being of darkness
>is something I do not completely comprehend), evil is only done when temptation
>is accepted.  The option of doing evil is available when a temptation is not
>present, but that option would not be taken because the evil is seen as the
>complete destructiveness and counterproductiveness that it is.
>
>When I'm in Heaven, Satan will be unable to tempt me - after the beginning of
>the eternity I am waiting for, he will be residing in a lake of fire.  So the
>option of sin would be open to me, at least as far as I can tell from my rather
>murky vantage point here, but there is no way that I would take that option.
>
This line of reasoning is promising, but don't we still have a problem, as
Jonathan himself suggested? If it is enough to remove Satan from the scene,
why didn't God do that in the first place, or, if we can find an answer to
that, how did Satan himself become corrupt?

I know the tradition says Satan was the glorious angel Lucifer,\ who fell
because he wanted to be equal to God, but why would a perfect creature
want such a thing. We have pushed the question back from Adam and Eve to
Lucifer, but it is the same question. How can a perfect creature living in
the presence of God be tempted to do evil? Doesn't a corrupt act presuppose
a corrupt influence? Where did that corruption come from? Did God create
it? Was it somehow independent of God? (That would entail dualism, wouldn't
it?)

Again--evil is real, but a rational explanation of its origin is not
available.
-- 
Stan Armstrong. Religious Studies Dept, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, N.S.
Armstrong@husky1.stmarys.ca | att!clyde!watmath!water!dalcs!armstrng
From: hartley@maths.uwa.oz.au (Mike Hartley)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The problem of pain - query
Date: 11 Sep 92 04:09:01 GMT
Organization: The University of Westrn Australia

autodesk!mickw@uunet.uu.net (Mick Washbrook) writes:

>In article <Aug.26.01.43.22.1992.7454@athos.rutgers.edu>, miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>> 
>> He who created space-time has the power to alter it.  Specifically, if
>> God stands outside of time (He must, if He created the continuum), He
>> is able to remove "events" that to us seem to have "occurred" and
>> literally cause them "never to have happened."  This is of course
>> incomprehensible to us, but so is the creation of space-time in the
>> first place.

>If god (Jehovah, presumably) stands outside structures as all
>encompassing as space and time, does this also mean that god
>also stands outside of good and evil, surveying and encompass-
>ing both equally?

No. As another person noted, God did not create evil. When He created
the universe, it was all good. Evil came about as a deliberate choice
on the part of some of His created beings. 

All understanding of God must come from scripture, and only from
scripture. God's attitude to evil - essentially to disobedience 
to Him, is quite clear throughout the whole Bible. If it happens
that someone can't fit this understanding into a philosophical 
framework, then so be it. Abandon the framework, and seek to
know God.

Yours, Mike H...



>--
--
Michael Hartley 		    _-_|\  | "All things works for good to
hartley@madvax.maths.uwa.oz.au     /	 \ |  them that love God - them that
University of WA ----------------> *_.-._/ |  are the called according to His
					v  |  purpose" - Romans 8:28
From: jonh@david.wheaton.edu (Jonathan Hayward)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The problem of pain - query
Date: 15 Sep 92 08:16:07 GMT
Organization: Wheaton College, IL

In article <Sep.12.23.17.28.1992.12768@athos.rutgers.edu> armstrng@cs.dal.ca (Stan Armstrong) writes:
>If you respond with the old chestnut that freedom necessitates the real
>possibility of choosing evil (a doubtful proposition), then the saints
>in heaven are either not free or not safe, since if they are free, they
>must have the real possibility of choosing evil. If there is something
>in heaven that can keep them from actual evil while leaving them free, 
>why could not God have put that same something on earth?

I would reccomend C.S. Lewis's space trilogy on this topic.

Here on earth, given the existence of Satan (how he became a being of darkness
is something I do not completely comprehend), evil is only done when temptation
is accepted.  The option of doing evil is available when a temptation is not
present, but that option would not be taken because the evil is seen as the
complete destructiveness and counterproductiveness that it is.

When I'm in Heaven, Satan will be unable to tempt me - after the beginning of
the eternity I am waiting for, he will be residing in a lake of fire.  So the
option of sin would be open to me, at least as far as I can tell from my rather
murky vantage point here, but there is no way that I would take that option.

################################################################################
# "God, give me mountains # "But the greatest   # Jonathan Hayward             #
# to climb and the        # of these is love."  # Jonathan_Hayward@wheaton.edu #
# strength for climbing." # I Corinthians 13:13 # jhayward@imsa.edu            #
################################################################################
From: jmrg9881@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon Reid)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Salvation and the purpose of evangelization
Date: 5 Sep 92 20:46:25 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

hp-col!smithw@kd4nc.ampr.org (Walter Smith) writes:

>markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen) writes:
>> Those who have not heard the word, cannot believe.  Therefore they
>> shall perish.  This is why missionary work is so crucial....
>> Salvation is ONLY possible through faith..

>...  If a person lives by those principles,
>but never even hears of the religion "Christianity" or the name
>Jesus, is God going to cast him away?  Or, does he, by his actions,
>show that he knew Christ in his heart without knowing the Name?

Justification through "principles", huh?  Christianity is not a set of
principles -- it's a person, Jesus Christ.  This is a terribly important
distinction, so important that everything stands or falls on it.  We are
never called to "principles" or to a cause -- we are called to a Person.

The phrase, "a personal relationship with Jesus Christ" is overused and has
become trite, so trite that even Christians don't understand what it means
anymore.  But a living, vital, intimate relationship with the living God is
what life is all about.  In fact, it _is_ life.  It is _the_ life.

BTW, I'm a missionary kid, have been a missionary myself, and plan to be a
missionary for life in a few years.  Any missionary that tries to "impose
Christianity as a religion on others" doesn't understand the life of the
Father.
-- 
Jon Reid    j-reid@uiuc.edu    GEnie: THE.REIDS
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."
From: asjrn@acad2.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: *******an idea, a truth*******
Date: 9 Sep 92 08:46:35 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska

this is for all of you who have a hard time understanding the
gift of god.
    the gift of god is given freely to all who are called  to
be part of and in turn written in the lamb,s book of life.......
  
      for the lord jesus christ will confess us as his to the 
father in heaven, if we will confess him "jesus as lord".......
   there is no secret ritual just this. don't be deceived by
 manmade ideologies that distort the truth of how freely this can be 
 given.......for who ever adds to or takes away from his promises
will surely not want to be judged so hard upon by the father in heaven.......
    
    for the prayer's of the beleiver's are with you.......
             this is not promised by me or implied.......
     though is promised by god.......
            and through his son jesus christ.......
     for it is what your heart feels, knowing that you want to
do what is right, don't give up.......
     the promises are true, persevere, for those who do,
      the bounties are endless....... pray that the truth will
be in your heart...... not a distorted man made falsehood......
   love be with you , and the truth within your heart be of god,
   follow the narrow path , for many have tried though few find.......
       you willbe one of those ,through god's will,
               and only his will can this be acheived.......
              persevere.......his will bring's you closer to him,
      this is how you know his will....... does what you are doing
   bring you closer to him or distort his word.......
From: mpaul@unlinfo.unl.edu (marxhausen paul)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Problem of pain/evil/existence of God, etc.
Date: 9 Sep 92 08:08:42 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln

A reading recommendation for everyone following the "problem of pain and
evil" threads here, as I have been:

Disappointment With God: Three Questions No One Asks Aloud
Phillip Yancy, Zondervan 1988

This book may have already been discussed here, so let me just say that 
this has been a subject I've been especially reflecting on for the last
couple of years: and this book is one of the most direct discussions of
it I've run across.  Excellent writing, clear examples, a lot of great
quotes, not at all a dry doctrinale treatise.  Check it out.  (I found it
in our public library while browsing one day.)  Not that the author
establishes the final and satisfying answers we crave, but he provides
some perspectives that are very useful in grappling with the questions.

--
===============================================================================
paul marxhausen                              \/               grace 
university of nebraska - lincoln             /\              happens           
===============================================================================
From: jmrg9881@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon Reid)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: cell group churches
Date: 13 Sep 92 03:37:40 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

>I have for some time been interested in the idea of cellgroup churches.
>A group that I am in a bible study with has discussed it from time to time.
>One problem that has occurred to us, and has not been dealt with in any
>information that I have seen is, What do you do about children?

This is a very good question.  Ralph Neighbour considers it so important
that he devotes 5 chapters (out of 28) to it in _Where Do We Go From
Here?_.  Again, this is a *must read* book for anyone interested in cell
group churches.

Our church is pondering 3 different ways of dealing with kids.  The
following is from Strategy Memo #17 of North Star Strategies, a new
ministry of our church to assist other churches in becoming cell group
churches:

  Following are three options for developing Small Groups for [kids]:

  Kids in Adult Small Groups
   - Keeps families together
   - Parents model lifestyle of evangelism and discipleship
   - Worship and ministry flows well for all ages
   - Message needs to be developed for kids
   - Adults need to rotate for training kids
   - Takes planning and commitment of adults in Small Group

  Kid's Groups during Sunday Celebration
   - Ideal for younger kids (no transportation problems)
   - Age integrated groups work well
   - One VCF puts kids ages 5-11 into groups
   - Eliminates rowdy behavior
   - Groups an be organized by schools or neighborhoods,
     fostering penetration of schools

  Kid's Groups during the week
   - Ideal for Jr. & Sr. High
   - Meet in schools or at homes
   - Foster penetration of schools
   - Probably needs adult leaders to start
   - Perhaps train students to lead

Our church is starting 5 Junior High and 5 Senior High small groups in a
couple weeks.  We're still not sure how best to proceed with the younger
kids.  Our Senior Pastor and Executive Pastor are making a trip to
Singapore this fall to learn more about cell group church dynamics from
Ralph Neighbour and Lawrence Khong at the Faith Community Baptist Church.  
They're particularly interested to see how FCBC deals with kids.
-- 
Jon Reid    j-reid@uiuc.edu    GEnie: THE.REIDS
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."
From: christian@geneva.rutgers.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: The politics discussion seems finished, the end is nearly finished
Date: 10 Sep 92 07:47:14 GMT

Postings on politics have mostly died down, and were getting 
repetitive.  I think that discussion has come to an end.

The discussion on date-setting seems nearly finished.  I've started
rejecting some postings as duplicates, though I accepted a few (in
fact probably a few too many) today.
From: rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ralph Reid III)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: thought for the day (9-10)
Date: 11 Sep 92 04:27:24 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

Thursday, September 10:

     [God's] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's 
creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even 
his eternal power and Godship.  <Romans 1: 20>

-- 
Ralph.  N6BNO.
Phone 1-916-345-9155.
lectromail- rreid@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu.
I do not waste time expressing others' opinions!
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Date: 11 Sep 92 04:11:20 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <Sep.10.01.47.14.1992.22048@athos.rutgers.edu> kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
}Some fellow has cooked up Yet Another Apocalyptic Timetable, and we have had
}quite a bit of discussion.  Steven Stovall wrote:
}
}> Bro Camping is betting the farm that he is right.  Either we're outta here
}> or his ministry is finished.
}
}Then why is he charging for the book?
}
}Why doesn't he take out a big loan to be paid back in 1995, and give the book
}away for free?  Or sell his home/farm/whatever to fund distributing copies of
}his book?

Now, THAT'S a good reasoning, Darren.  It would seem that Bro Camping not
only doesn't believe it himself, but values future money 
(probability of it being there* face value) higher than the good it would do
(probability of end happening * value of saved soul)

Who are we to argue with his displayed evaluation of the probabilities?  Or
perhaps he simply values cash more than people.
From: walton@odie.ee.wits.ac.za (Michael Walton)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Liberal vs. Conservative
Date: 9 Sep 92 07:46:11 GMT
Organization: Wits Electrical Engineering (Novell Users).

[This is a response to one of my postings on my (liberal)
approach to Scripture.  --clh]

Hi! I've just picked up on this thread so I hope I'm not missing the point, 
but it seems that this sort of philisophical debate on the Bible is denying 
the understanding gained by reading the Word in the light of the Holy 
Spirit.  Surely just as we need to make the choice, the step of faith before 
God begins to reveal himself to us, we need faith in the Word to gain 
spiritual understanding of it?  If this is true then despite all the 
intellectual difficulties and problems we might have with it (I have many), 
the spiritual power of the Word (as a "double-edged sword") goes way beyond 
mere words and human intellectual/physical understanding, and is hidden 
unless we put complete faith in the Word.

In His love
 
Mike (another one)

[The reason for a philosophical debate is that one of our
correspondents has been claiming we have to accept his model of how
Scripture was composed (inerrancy), or all of Christianity falls
apart.  I certainly believe that Faith is the primary thing, but
in some cases theoretical issues do have important practical
implications.  This seems to be one.  --clh]
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Biblical Inerrancy
Date: 15 Sep 92 08:02:37 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <Sep.12.23.15.48.1992.12723@athos.rutgers.edu>, mussack@innerdoor.austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack) writes:

> I will give a (I hope bad) example: I was listening to a call-in
> radio show hosted by Bob George. . . . Bob George's answer was that
> Jesus said these things before the crucifixion and therefore they
> didn't apply anymore. Booiiinnnnnggggg!! I couldn't believe it. Do
> people really think that Paul supercedes Jesus? I suddenly
> understood the line from "Jesus Christ Superstar": "You've begun to
> matter more than the things you say."

Bob George, one of my pet peeves, often does say 'well that was before the
cross' and so discounts the point of the Scripture - I'm not sure exactly
how he reconciles this with 'all Scripture is inspired by God and is 
profitable for doctrine, correction, and instruction in righteousness.'
I haven't asked him that, but I have written him a couple of times and he
admits that on the topic of grace people often misunderstand him.

I think he often just says things without thinking - Mr. George does have
some very good points, but the cloud of logic he uses confuses me most of
the time.  Someone said he sounded like a ultra-dispensationalist, which
means, I think, that the cross was the beginning of new teachings - it
did begin a new era in the way one accesses the Father, but it doesn't
discount all previous writings and teachings, either.

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: taking care of your body (was Re: where does the bible mention about smoking?)
Date: 9 Sep 92 05:12:02 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <Sep.6.15.43.21.1992.7818@athos.rutgers.edu> Malachi.Robertson@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Malachi Robertson) writes:
>
>Consideration 3:  Jesus and wine, particularly the wedding at Cana.  The
>best wine meant the sweetest wine.  The sweetest wine was unfermented. 
>Also, could Jesus still be our sinless savior leaving the door open for
>people to thoroughly intoxicate themselves?

If you spent a little more time in pubs (as Jesus did - you with the
sinners), then you would know that a standard practice was/is to give
people the best beer/wine first BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT DRUNK AND CAN TELL
THE DIFFERENCE.  Now, when they are sufficiently drunk that they can't
tell the difference, you pull out the skunky beer/wine that no sober
person would ever set their lips to.

>Consideration 4:  Certain NT texts point to the Christian as abstinent
>from wine when viewed from the Greek (I Thess. 5:6-8; I Pet. 1:13; 4:7;
>5:8; 2 Tim. 4:5; 1 Tim. 3:2, 11; Titus 2:2).  The words are nepho which
>means "to abstain from wine" and nephalios which means "abstinent, without
>wine."

You forgot I Tim 5:23.

Paul
From: rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ralph Reid III)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: thought for the day (9-5)
Date: 5 Sep 92 21:40:28 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

Saturday, September 5:

     An overseer must be ... hospitable, a lover of goodness, sound in 
mind, righteous, loyal, self-controlled.  <Titus 1: 7, 8>

-- 
Ralph.  N6BNO.
Phone 1-916-345-9155.
lectromail- rreid@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu.
I do not waste time expressing others' opinions!