HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Dislike of Christianity
Date: 6 Apr 92 05:32:52 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <Apr.1.03.41.01.1992.11467@dartagnan.rutgers.edu>,
gchin@ssf.Eng.Sun.COM (Gary Chin) writes:
> 
> In article <Mar.30.00.35.59.1992.26518@dartagnan.rutgers.edu> DGRAHAM@bnr.ca
(D.A.) writes:
> >
> >So I ask you sir:  why should I not dislike your religion?  Remember
> >that I have no first hand knowledge of the subjective benefits that
> >you receive from your religion.  I can only evaluate it by the
> >effects that it has on believers.  What can you show me to make
> >me feel more at ease about Christianity?
> 
> I believe that you can get the best information about Christianity
> by reading one of the first four books of the New Testiment part
> of the Bible, like the book of John.

I personally think that the first four books described the teachings
of Jesus, and the books written by Paul described modern day
Christianity. He is really the chief designer with the doctrines, while Jesus 
provided the religious teachings.

Regards,
Kent Sandvik

[You're certainly not alone in this, however you might want to look
a bit more carefully.  There are several kinds of things attributed
to Paul.  The most important seem to me
  - Christ's role as savior
  - his analysis of faith vs. the Law

The second seems peculiar to him, though Acts suggests that the Church
as a whole at least agreed that Gentile Christians weren't bound by
the Law (a viewpoint with which most Jews would have agreed, and
there's some evidence that Jesus did as well).  It's from this that
some of the Reformation concepts like "justification by faith" came.
But the Church by and large lost Paul's radical anti-Legal position
very quickly.

The first is not peculiar to Paul.  You can find talk of Jesus as Lord
and similar things in all the major strains of NT thought.  John is at
leasst as strong as Paul, though their imagery tends to be different.
Assuming you believe Peter wrote 1 Peter, you'll find similar concepts
there.  Also in Acts, which represents the Synoptic tradition. In fact
for the Trinity and Incarnation, I think in many ways John and Hebrew
are more important than Paul.  The "highest" Christology in Paul is
probably from Col. 1, which is typically considered a hymn that he
didn't write.  I'm afraid the evidence suggests that the idea of Jesus
as savior is present quite widely, even in groups (e.g. John and
Peter) where it's unlikely that Paul had any serious influence.

--clh]
From: paulk@shock.engin.umich.edu (paul kominsky)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: some musings on theodicy
Date: 13 Apr 92 05:33:11 GMT
Organization: Rarely

hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu writes:
> The common picture is that heaven is a sort of boring place.  

The perspective of the Catholic Church is that, when one dies,
one enters into eternity.  What is eternity?  Well, it's not
time without end.  Time is a created entity; God, having created
time, sees all time as one eternal instant.  There is no succession
of events in eternity.

When one dies, one becomes in a sense outside of time, and it is
no longer possible for the state of one's soul to succeed to a
different state.  One's will is fixed--it is either united to
the Divine Will, or it is not.  One lives an eternal instant,
which for those who have attained the use of reason during life
is either the action of the union with God that is the Beatific
Vision, or the eternal action of hating God.

I don't see why people tend to complain about this, and say such
things as "God is so merciful that he shouldn't send anyone to
hell."  The time of mercy is now.  We have this life to bring
our wills into conformity with God's will, and if we do not, it
isn't His fault, it's ours.

pjk
From: rlwinter@taco.ucdavis.edu (Richard Lee Winterstein)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: REQUEST: Greek alphabet font
Date: 8 Apr 92 08:38:39 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering - University of California - Davis

I asked this over in comp.fonts, but I'll also ask here since I'm certain at
least a few people here would have some helpful information:

  Can anyone recommend a good Greek font (for the Macintosh) which includes
all the diacriticals (breathing marks, accents, etc.) -- note this rules out
Symbol.  I would prefer TrueType but Type 1 is acceptable.  And as long as
I'm wishing, I would prefer shareware or freeware to keep the cost down.

Thanks,
Rick
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: A not-often discussed heresy
Date: 7 Apr 92 02:38:06 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: jnorris@milton.u.washington.edu (Joel Norris)
>Perhaps I'm a Bibliolater, but I don't understand how I can have a certain
>sight of God except through the window of the Bible. Or perhaps I'm not a
>Bibliolater because I am unable to view the Bible as "God's Handbook on
>Christianity". I suppose now that I've gotten to the end of this, I have
>to admit that I'm not exactly sure what is meant by the "heresy of
>bibliolatry".

The orthodox view of Christianity, held by all Christians until
the 15th century, is that Christianity is not a religion of a
book, but a religion of a church - a living organisation,
founded by Jesus and guided by the Holy Spirit. At some time in
the 4th century, various writings which it could definitely be
said were inspired by God were gathered together into what we
now know as "the Bible", but it is important to note that it
was the Church which decided these were inspired writings, and
not the writings which formed the foundation of the Church.

If Christ had wanted His religion to be a religion of the book,
He could certainly have written down clear instructions, as
Muslims believe God gave the Quran to Mohammed. He did not do
this, but He did clearly set up Peter as the head of the
Church, and the apostles as its leaders, with a promise that
the Holy Spirit would always be with them.

Matthew Huntbach
From: HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: A not-often discussed heresy
Date: 10 Apr 92 03:35:08 GMT
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering

In article <Apr.3.03.14.32.1992.9537@dartagnan.rutgers.edu>
jon@mitre.org (J. E. Shum) writes:
 
>
>Anyone have any thoughts about the heresy of bibliolatry?
>
>I'm talking about the worship of the bible rather than God.  It
>seems to me that there are groups out there that are so focused
>on what we call the bible as the "Word of God" that they lose
>sight of God.
>
>Anyone feel this way?
 
The reason I am an un-orthodox thinker is I try to understand the
message behind the words--the intent of the writer--I seek to have
the same spirit the writer had at the time he wrote the words.
 
 +-----------------------------------------------------+
 | Roger Holfeltz   -  The truth can be made up,       |
 |                     if you know how                 |
 |                                                     |
 |  My mind IS a terrible, terrible thing              |
 +-----------------------------------------------------+
 | Disclaimer: Not my employer's opinion; probably     |
 |             not your's either!                      |
 +-----------------------------------------------------+
From: billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: ARMAGEDDON NOW!
Date: 14 Apr 92 07:32:06 GMT
Organization: LA&W RR

In article <Apr.9.23.37.17.1992.25255@dumas.rutgers.edu> ceb@dbrus.unify.com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:

>2.  Jesus also says that "no man shall know the day nor the hour", that He
>Himself doesn't know when He will return, only the Father knows.  I take that
>to mean that every single prophecy of Armageddon is by definition wrong.
>Let's say God decides (in defiance of point 1) that Armageddon will be on
>Good Friday, 3 PM Jerusalem time, 2000 A.D.  Some human (like me, just now)
>comes up with a prediction that that date and time is "the day (and) the
>hour".  To conform with what He Himself said, He changes the schedule, making
>me wrong and leaving the day and the hour still unknown.

Except based upon your reasoning, if God is omniscient, then He would
have known that you would make that prediction and would not have
scheduled Christ's second coming for that time in the first place.  =8^)

BTW, predicting an event and having it come to pass does not prove you
knew the day and the hour.  There is such a thing as a lucky guess.
From: djn20624@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Danielson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Campus Advance?
Date: 8 Apr 92 07:52:31 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

Dear Paul:

'Campus Advance' is another name for the Boston Church of Christ and umbrella
churches, with the Boston church being head.  The group is very sectic and
because I was personally involved, I can safely warn anyone of the abuses
that one receives there.  I am aware of the Cult Awareness Network and it's
a fine organization that can provide excellent information about the group 
(and others alike).  I would seriously urge anyone (even if they were my
enemy) to stay away from that group.  They are extremely misled and decieved.
I would like to recommnd some book is you are interested:

	Combatting Cult Mind Control by Steven Hassan
	The Discipling Dilemma by Flavil Yakley
	What The Boston Church Teaches by Jerry Jones
	The Discipling Movement (forgot author)


These are just a few.  CAN can refer you to others.
Please. if you know of anyone in this group and is willing to talk, or 
someone who is getting indoctrinated, present them with legetimate information
or if worse comes to worse, inform their parents just to make them aware of
what type of group their son/dauther is joining.
I and many others are happy survivors of the Boston meat grinder.  After
much praying, support and counseling, we're leading happy and healthy
lives for the Lord, Christ Jesus.

					Sincerely:
					Dan & Maurice (cult squad at U of I)

[We've had a discussion on the Boston Church of Christ in the past.  I
don't know that we want a replay at the moment -- but I thought the
poster would want to know about the connection given here.  If
people don't know the issues with the Boston Church of Christ, I've
got an FAQ on the subject.  --clh]
From: kmm@cs.purdue.edu (Kevin Megill)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Christian Poverty
Date: 8 Apr 92 08:04:00 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University

In article <Apr.6.22.54.47.1992.13036@dartagnan.rutgers.edu> conan@wheatena.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) writes:

>* Phil and Robert responded by asserting that I am misreading
>  scripture and creating a virtue where none exists.  They 
>  say that I might _personally_ be called to poverty, but that
>  there is no universal injunction to seek it.
>
>My purpose in this post is to again assert, and this time in
>detail, that poverty is a Christian virtue to which we are all
>called by the Gospel of Christ.
>

My "two cents" worth (is that an inappropriate phrase for this subject? :-)

What was the injunction given to all rich Christians in the early church?

	"Instruct those who are rich in this present world
	    not to be conceited 
	    or to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches,
	    but on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy.
	Instruct them 
	    to do good, 
	    to be rich in good works,
	    to be generous and ready to share,
	storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation
	for the future ..."

		I Timothy 6:17-19  (NASB)

I see these general instructions for every rich Christian:
-- be humble about your money;
-- trust God, not your money;
-- consider what you have to be God's gift;
-- focus on the more lasting riches of good works;
-- share your money freely;

Conspicuous by its absence is "give away all your wealth".
Perhaps being "generous and ready to share" leads logically
to that conclusion, but that is left as a matter of personal 
judgement, as is the decision about how to avoid the dangers 
of putting money before God.

As a side note, it seems to me that many Christians simultaneously:
  i) have lots of money and  
  ii) feel vaguely guilty about having it. 
My personal opinion is that this is counterproductive.  
To escape the hold of materialism, I'd find it more helpful 
to either 
  i) avoid luxury or 
  ii) enjoy it with unashamed thanks as a gift from God.    
Guilt doesn't stop me from being materialistic, it just 
keeps my spiritual pride from feeling so hurt.  ("After all,
at least I feel bad about it!" :-)


Kevin Megill
kmm@ector.cs.purdue.edu
From: bernard@tourng.enet.dec.com (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Billy Graham carrying message from the Pope
Date: 8 Apr 92 08:14:23 GMT
Reply-To: bernard@tourng.enet.dec.com (Dave Bernard)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

|> dlhanson@nap.amoco.com (David L. Hanson) writes:
|> 
|> > I absolutely detest the horrible Roman Catholic Church which leads so many
|> > to hell.
|> 

	It's interesting that between the time Jesus died, and the first
	Protestant (and we have to admit that Evangelical churches are
	part of the Protestant tradition) churches were established, some
	1500 years passed.  It seems like a cruel joke that the churches
	that existed during that 1500 year period were only those of
	the Catholic tradition, and that the Holy Spirit allowed this
	travesty!

	Incidentally, the Bible did come through the Catholic Church-
	who else was there during that period?

		Dave
From: hamilton@hydra.cs.gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: tear, idle tears
Date: 14 Apr 92 07:49:50 GMT
Reply-To: hamilton@gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50)
Organization: GM Research Labs, Warren, MI

Recently someone on this newsgroup lamented that some churches which
emphasize the positives of Christianity resist using traditional hymns
such as "Oh Sacred Head Now Wounded".  My church, an Evangelical
Presbyterian Church in Rochester, MI, certainly qualifies as a church that
emphasizes the positives of Christianity. And that's what we should be doing:
After all, He defeated Satan and He is with us always. What could be more
positive. But it would be wrong not to acknowledge the terrible burden Jesus
assumed for us, and I'm glad I can report that my church used "Oh Sacred
Head Now Wounded" in its services yesterday. Although I love the upbeat
music we typically use, I also love the hymns from the past, which express
the entire gamut of Christian experience.

The church has the mission of proclaiming Christ to the world, and that is
best done using music and language understandable to the people in
our communities. In Rochester, MI 70% of the adults are not church attenders, 
and that means that a similar percentage of the children may have almost
no church experience. So our music and worship are modern, avoid complicated
theological terminology, and stress the joy that Christ gives us.
But we're shortchanging people if we don't also make available to them the
richness of Christian thought and music of the past 2000 years.

Bill Hamilton
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Dislike of Christianity
Date: 17 Apr 92 02:16:01 GMT
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development

>>...  Also, I find their potential to be
>>turned to tools of evil to be great, at least as great as that of
>>historical Christianity (which I will continue to distinguish from
>>true Christianity).

>This can pose a problem. Since the religion was started by god himself
>(or so we're told), god wanted it to happen. Since he is omniscient
>(or so we're told), god knew what would become of it--all of the atrocities
>that would be done in the name of god. God allowed it to happen, given
>that he knew the consequences; therefore, he wanted all of the evil
>perpetrated by christians to happen.

Let us not forget that this God will not trample on human free will.
Because of this constraint, it may not be possible for God to
accomplish anything perfectly when working through humans.  Even
though he created a religion, the humans involved in it can mess it
up, and God does use his complete power to stop them, for to do so
would destroy their free will.

(As an aside, I wish to note that the Christian book _Revelation_
makes it clear that a time will come when the Christian God will cast
off this constraint.  We are told that he is being patient with us,
that more people might be saved from the wrath that will ensue.)

>Separating the history from Xianity
>is simply an attempt by present day christians to hide from what their
>predecessors did; it is also unjustified.

Having read the Bible and formed *my own* conclusions about the
existence of God, the position of Jesus, and what that means for me,
the only predecessors I have are those who reached the same
conclusions.  Because one of those conclusions is that Jesus calls me
to love my enemy, I am quite justified in saying I have nothing to do
with past or present atrocities done in the name of God.  I would not
have participated then, and I will not now.  In fact, I'll even do
what I can to convince others not to commit atrocities.

Gregg Skinner
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
g-skinner@uiuc.edu    |    "Patriotism is slavery."  (Count Leo Tolstoy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: doug@cc.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: 2 books sought
Date: 8 Apr 92 07:57:26 GMT
Organization: Youngstown State University

I'm searching for the following two books, both out of print:

Serve Him With Mirth, by Leslie Flynn, published by Zondervan in 1960
or 1961.  This book is about humor in religious settings, humor in the
Bible, and a collection of WONDERFUL anecdotes and stories at the end.

My favorite:
Mrs Antwerp, the church busybody, was coming up the walkway.  The pastor
hid in his study, hoping to miss her.

An hour later, he called out of his study "is that horrid gossip gone ?"

The wife responded "Dear, she left hours ago.  Mrs Antwerp is here now".

The other book is "Eternal Retribution".  It's an old book by an author
whose name escapes me, but it's a marvelous book with paragraphs like
this (a photocopy of pastor's copy of the book):

"Sin is an immense river running through secret channels from Hell's 
seething ocean, till it broke out upon this world in the Garden of Eden.
There at the foot of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is its source -
a noisy spring bubbling with the escape of baneful gases, in whose tene-
brious depths a serpent lives.  Ever enlarging, this river flows all round
the world.  Onward it sweeps.  Upon its bank no flowers grow, no foliage
waves, but perpetual desolation pitches its pavilions upon the sterile
strand, relieved here and there by bald and scoriac rocks, upon which 
weeping spirits sit and curse the day that they were born.  In all the
universe there is no river so wide, so swift, so deep as this.  Its floods
are black, its waves are towering, and it goes surging and roaring on
to the bottomless lake, everlasting lightnings pencilling every billowy
crest with angry fire, and Hell's terrific thunders bounding from bank
to bank and bursting with awful crash and strewing dread ruin all around.

"Surely such a river might roll on forever unvisited by mortal man.  But...
its shores are lined from source to mouth with human wretches.  They crowd 
to gain its edges... The mother decks her daughter's brow, and side by
side they jump into the boisterous flood..."  (p50-51).

If anyone has a copy of either of these books they're willing to part
with, let me know via e-mail.  I've had no luck so far with out-of-print
book searches.

Doug
-- 
Doug Sewell, Tech Support, Computer Center, Youngstown State University
doug@cc.ysu.edu	   doug@ysub.bitnet	<internet>!cc.ysu.edu!doug
We've had 4 years of domestic policy failure.  Fire Bush this November.
From: chesky@squirrel.austin.ibm.com (Bill Chesky)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: The Way, International
Date: 10 Apr 92 03:13:39 GMT
Organization: IBM, Austin

Hello,

A friend of mine is a member of a group called "The Way, 
International" (or just "The Way").  The little I know about this 
group is that they are a Christian-based group (although I don't 
know if they are associated with any specific denomination), and 
that they have somewhat of a "cultish" reputation.  The group she 
is involved with is in Michigan, though I gather from the name of 
the group that they are in other parts of the US/world as well.

I am worried about this person because she is very vulnerable and
at times naive.  I do not wish her to be taken advantage of, manipulated
or be brainwashed into believing anything that would be psychologically
harmful to her in the long run.

Does anybody out there know anything about this group?  Any information
would be greatly appreciated.

thanks,
--
Bill Chesky | IBM internal: chesky@squirrel
IBM         | ibmpa!chesky%squirrel.austin.ibm.com@ibminet.awdpa.austin.ibm.com
Austin, TX  | ibmpa!squirrel.austin.ibm.com!chesky@ibminet.awdpa.austin.ibm.com
            | (512)838-4174

[The Dictionary of Christianity in America says the following: The
founder, Victor Paul Wierwille, believed that God spoke to him
audibly, and gave him the only true interpretation of Scripture since
the 1st Cent.  He denies the deity of Jesus (considering him a perfect
man), the separate personhood of the Holy Spirit, and the Trinity.  He
considers speaking in tongues necessary.  They are conduct aggressive
friendship evangelism.  Wierwille died in 1985, and at least when the
Dictionary was written, it appeared that The Way was going into
decline.  They reference a book J. L. Williams, "Victor Paul Wierwille
and The Way International", for more details.  You'll also find them
mentioned in many anti-Cult reference books, though I have qualms
about the accuracy of many of them. --clh]
From: vek@allegra.att.com (Van Kelly)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Evangelism Statitics (was Re: Billy Graham and Catholics etc)
Date: 11 Apr 92 06:47:42 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ, USA

There's an old "rule of two thirds" used in mass-evangelism:

The "response rate" of inquiries at an evangelistic crusade will
typically range from 6% to 20% depending on the evangelist and the
audience demographics.  From there on, everything happens independent
of evangelist and demographics.  Beginning with the population of all
the self-identified "unchurched" people who respond to to the
invitation of an evangelist on a given day (go forward, sign cards,
whatever):

a. two thirds (66.7%) will deny any particular significance of their action 
   if contacted within twenty-four hours.

b. two thirds of the remaining one third (22.2%) will never attend church
   even once within the next year (even if invited).

c. two thirds of the remaining one third (7.5%) will not be regular church
   attenders at the end of one year.

The ones who derive some evident permanent change after a year are thus
about 3-4% of the original group.  That's the old rule of thumb anyway.

There is one major exception to this pattern: an "unchurched" person
who has an ongoing social relationships with a group of Christians
before the crusade and is both (a.)  brought to the crusade and (b.)
followed up after the crusade through the same group.  I vaguely
recall reading a study circa 1975 which verified the 96% one-year
"dropout" rate for a general crusade populations, but also showed only
a 25% "dropout" rate for "unchurched" who had attended a neighborhood
Bible study shortly prior to the exposure to the evangelist.  But this
result begged another question: how much did the select group really
"need" the evangelist at all?

Cheers,

Van Kelly