HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: GEC100F@oduvm.cc.odu.edu (Dr. Gary Copeland)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: HELP - Atheism FAQ ?
Date: 13 Sep 92 03:32:50 GMT

[This message was submitted to soc.religion.christian, presumably
because the author can't post to alt.atheism.  I've forwarded it here,
since it's the obvious place.  Please respond to it via email.  C.
Hedrick, moderator of soc.religion.christian]

I have to give a talk Sunday morning at Church school on Athism.
I wanted to use as a basis of discussion the FAQ (Frequently Asked
Questions) from the Newsgroup  alt.atheism.....

I had a copy - but was deleted and Now my institution no longer
allows access to alt groups.....

So if you can get it --- send me a copy - e mail
If you can give me an address that I can FTP to it,  I can capture a
file myself.....

Thanks

Gary Copeland
From: christian@cs.rutgers.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: moderatorial policy w.r.t. Moslem postings
Date: 5 Sep 92 21:11:53 GMT

I've rejected several postings today that I thought I should at least
mention, in case readers of the group would like me to adopt a
different policy.  I get a steady stream of postings from Moslems,
ranging from detailed expositions of the Koran to refutations of
various Christian doctrines using secular sources.  I do sometimes
accept postings from Moslems, as from other non-Christians.  However
normally I do not accept postings that appear to be simply missionary
efforts, as opposed to a real attempt to talk to Christians.  Some of
these postings do raise real issues for Christian theology, which have
been the subject of past discussions here.  However postings that show
not the slightest sign of interest in seeing whether perhaps they have
misunderstood what Christians are saying do not seem likely to lead to
productive discussion.
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The problem of pain - query
Date: 5 Sep 92 21:20:56 GMT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <Sep.4.02.58.18.1992.29482@athos.rutgers.edu>, 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?

Two issues here: (a) If a Being created space-time, that Being *must*
transcend the creation.  (b) The second part of your question is just
what I hoped, in my original posting, to stave off by admitting that
some theologians would dispute the rather off-the-cuff proposition
that I made.  Your question is right on target!  And I do not have an
answer -- other than to suggest that religious language is necessarily
as metaphorical as, ultimately, scientific language has to be, perhaps
more so, depending on your metaphysics.

What I was focussing on, though, was the ending of the Book of Job,
which is not often discussed.  Everything was restored to Job, as if
the evil that befell him had been a dream.  Evil is a fact.  But as
Abraham Herschel wrote, "All facts are parables; their object is God."

********************************** +.............................+
*- Ken <miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>* :All opinions expressed herein:
*There is no privileged position.* :are my own and are not to be :
*	-God, Derrida, others    * : attributed to my employer   :
********************************** +.............................+
From: jfb@macsch.com (John Baskette)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Date: 15 Sep 92 08:19:13 GMT

[As with one other posting, I'm permitting this after having
generally closed the discussion because it is one of the few postings
that actually tells us the basis on which the prediction was made.
--clh]

In Acts 1:6-7 the disciples ask Jesus:

   "Will Thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?"

to which Jesus answers:

   "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father
    hath put in his own power..."

I listened Harold Camping on the radio a few nights ago for a short while.
Some of what he said was:

* The creation occurred in 11,013 B.C.
* 1988 was the 13,000th birthday of the world.
* The flood occurred in 4990 B.C.
* The pre-flood earth lasted 6023 years.
* The world was planned to last 7000 years after the flood.
* This means that the world was to end in 2011 A.D.
* The final tribulation began 23 years before 2011 A.D. in 1988.
* God cuts the final tributation short for the elects sake! (Matt 24:22)
  from 23 years to 2300 days.
* This is 17 years short of 7000 years.  17 symbolizes heaven.  The number of
  fish caught in John 21 is 153 or 9 X 17.  9 is 3 x 3.  Three symbolizes the
  purposes of God.  The number 153 represents the elect of God.
* The tribulation is to last 2300 days (the number 23 symbolizes judgement).
* The final tribulation is a period of testing for the church.
* The world and tribulation will end when the last of God's elect is saved.
* The final tribulation and world will end 6+ years after 1988.
* Or in September of 1994.
* His 1988 date is not connected with Israel.  A period of testing from
  2007 B.C. and lasting until 1994 (or exactly 4000 years) has been taking
  place between Isreal and the Arabs.  2007 B.C. is the year when Jacob and
  Esau were born.  Esau and Ishmael were the progenitors of the Arabs.
  Israel has failed the testings of God.  40 or 400 or 4000 numbers
  are symbolic of testing.

This is all I know of what he said.  He has a book he is promoting, but I
have no plans on sending him any money for it.  The number games are
entertaining.  I would get a good laugh out of this stuff except for one
reason.  There are folks out there who really believe this stuff.
One listener called in asking what she should say to her children in order
to get them to study.  Why should they study if everything is going be
over in two years?

Harold Camping is an amillenial five point Calvinist.  In my experience
this kind of date setting is much more common amoung dispensationalists.
That is why it is surprising to me.  He runs a network of radio stations out
of Oakland, California which is why I thought he might be having an impact
out there.

John
From: crittend@cs.unc.edu (bac)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Southern Baptists Ensuring Orthodoxy
Date: 16 Sep 92 03:35:54 GMT
Reply-To: crittend@cs.unc.edu
Organization: Worldwide Pants Incorporated

In article <Sep.15.02.25.54.1992.23970@athos.rutgers.edu>, kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:

|In reply to an earlier article on this topic, Richard Pitts wrote a 230-line
|article, most of which appears to be my own text.  I waded through some of it,
|so here are comments on the central question:
|
|> I ask, what do the moderates want to teach/do that is so precious to them 
|> that they put up the fight to keep doing it?
|
|The same thing that Martin Luther wanted to do: think.

a while back my cousin was trying to decide which SBC seminary to
attend.  although it would have been much easier logistically and
financially to attend Southwestern in Fort Worth he was leaning
heavily towards another.  when i asked him why he was opposed to SWBTS
he replied that it was too "liberal".  not all the professors believed
exactly like he did, he explained, and he wanted to go to a school
where he could just take everything the professors said as the *truth*
because he didn't have time to constantly *think* about all of the
implications to decide whether he believed it or not.

i offer this only as an anecdote and explicitly do not wish to imply
all, or many, SBC seminarians, preachers, or church members share this
view of scholarship.

--brad

______________________________crittend@cs.unc.edu____________________________

  		        To err is human, to moo bovine.
_____________________________________________________________________________
From: whheydt@pbhya.pacbell.com (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: End predictor
Date: 10 Sep 92 07:40:47 GMT
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

I find the discussion about end of time/world predictions very
interesting.  (Indeed--I look forward to the discussions that should
take place in November of this year and October 1994.)

For the Sept. 1994 prediction, I have a question . . .  How old is
Camping?

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare
From: Malachi.Robertson@lambada.oit.unc.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: End of the World?
Date: 6 Sep 92 19:43:11 GMT

Recently I have heard from three people from varying locations speak of
some Christian group advertising that the world is to somehow end (or
something along these lines) on October 28 (I believe that was the date).

I was curious to know if anyone knows anything about this?  

"Malachi Robertson" better known as Ian Robertson Brown
From: REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Inerrancy/VanTil
Date: 16 Sep 92 04:08:44 GMT
Organization: FNAL

If there are enough of you out there that will send me EMail asking for it, I
will publish the following 13 page apologetic in 3-4 postings.  If there aren't
enough, I'll Email it in mass to those who have requested it.  -Rex


Taken from: In Defense of the Faith, Vol 5.  "An Introduction to Systematic
Theology,"  Ch. 12, "The Inspiration of Scripture."  Pp. 146-158.  Cornelius
VanTil.  Copyright, 1974, den Dulk Christian Foundation.  Presbyterian & Reform
Publishing Co. Used by permission.


       THE INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE

   I.The Orthodox Doctrine of Inspiration.
    A. With respect to Personal Inspiration.
    B. With Respect to Scriptural Inspiration.
      1.  For the Old Testament.
      2.  For the New Testament.
    C. With Respect to Verbal Inspiration.

  II. Forms of Inspiration.
    A. Lyrical Inspiration.
    B. Chokmatical Inspiration.
    C. Prohetical Inspiration.
    D. Christ's Inspiration.
    E. Apostles Inspiration.

 III. Scriptural Inspiration & Phenomea Outside Scripture
From: Scottl@mot.com (Scott Lindsey)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: on smoking and other health hazards
Date: 13 Sep 92 02:21:32 GMT
Organization: Motorola Land Mobile Products Sector

I heard this statement from a somewhat off the wall evangelist at Cal Poly
in the early 80's. I liked it at the time. I still sort of like it.

"Smoking won't send you to hell, but it will make you smell like you've been 
there" 

I suppose you could also say 

"Drinking won't send you to hell, but it will make you act like you've been 
there" or 
"Cussing won't send you to hell, but it will make you sound like you've been 
there" or 
"Gluttony won't send you to hell, but it will make you feel like you've been 
there"
From: rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ralph Reid III)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: thought for the day (9-15)
Date: 16 Sep 92 03:35:29 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

Tuesday, September 15:

     The woman said to him: "I know that Messiah is coming, who is 
called Christ."  ... Jesus said to her: "I who am speaking to you am 
he."  <John 4: 25, 26>

-- 
Ralph.  N6BNO.
Phone 1-916-345-9155.
lectromail- rreid@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu.
I do not waste time expressing others' opinions!
From: 91babik@gw.wmich.edu (Lisamarie Gemma Babik)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Wandering Catechist?
Date: 14 Sep 92 02:00:18 GMT
Organization: Western Michigan University

Today at mass we had a "wandering catechist" speak after the homily.  Does 
anyone know exactly what a wandering catechist is?  As near as I could tell
(from what he was saying), it is the RC equivalent of an evangelist, but in
a milder sort of way....  This guy came from Rome, Italy and was part of a 
group of 3 young (under 40 as best as I could tell) men.  He spoke of his 
life before Christ and how it has all changed....

Anyone know for sure what a "wandering catechist" is?  Since I'm new to the 
church (received 4/18/92), I figured this was just something I didn't learn 
about...

-- 
_______________________________________________________________________________
         "On rare occaisions I find a little meaning in my life,
                      and wonder how it got there..."

________Lisamarie "Rifa the Insane" Babik_________91babik@gw.wmich.edu_________
From: stovall@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Steven Stovall)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Hal Camping prediction for Second Coming, Sept. '94!!
Date: 9 Sep 92 08:42:15 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department

laura@catfish.ocpt.ccur.com (Laura Gillespie) writes:

>I don't know if all of you are aware of it yet, but a big event just
>happened last night on the radio.  One of the most respected, humble,
>and trusted servants of God, Mr. Harold Camping of Family Radio,
>headquartered out of Oakland, Calif., actually gave a prediction for
>the end of the world, that is, for the Second Coming, for September
>1994.  Now, this is a REALLY SERIOUS matter, since Mr. Camping is
>just about the most conservative Bible commentator on the air.

I like Bro Camping a lot, and have listened to Family Radio off and on
since the mid-80's. He has bothered me a little lately with his dogmatic
insistence that he had discovered a clue in the Greek regarding the
transition from the 7th day Sabbath to the Lord's Day. But I still
believe that he knows more about the Lord than any other radio teacher
that I know of. I am astonished that he would make such a claim, when
the prevailing wisdom is that even predicting a year is unscriptural.
I had for instance heard of a major prediction coming out of the
Korean church of Feast of Trumpets, 1992 (maybe 1993). Of course
almost everyone from ultra-fundamentalist to charasmatic believes
this is the last decade. I will be tuning in tonight.

	there is a hope for a tree
	cut down to the ground
	its roots growing old in the earth
	yet at the scent of water
	it might bring forth buds
	and bloom blossoms
	and yield almonds
	like the rod of Aaron
	in the tabernacle of the wilderness

_______________________________________________________________________________

steven stovall
stovall@exeter.cs.ucla.edu
(310) 825-7307
From: julian@sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The problem of pain - query
Date: 15 Sep 92 08:14:51 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

hartley@maths.uwa.oz.au (Mike Hartley) writes:

>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.

>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


This is not sufficient. If I present you with a copy of the Bible in
a language you do not know it is of no use to you. As soon as you find
someone who knows the language, or learn it yourself, you are bringing
in a cultural background that will influence your understanding of
scripture. You cannot equate your understanding of scripture with
a (presumably) culture-free God-written text.
I believe God expects us to work out for ourselves what scripture means.
When a scribe asked Jesus what was the greatest commandment, Jesus
asked him for his view first and then commented on it. He did not
expound an infallible sermon for him. Hence the man's understanding of
scripture was what Jesus was wanting to hear.
If I cannot fit something I read in the Bible into my world-view then
it is not necessarily the world-view that must change but my reading of
scripture.
If you abandson the framework as you call it you have no means for
understanding anything.
julian
From: armstrng@cs.dal.ca (Stan Armstrong)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The problem of pain - query
Date: 13 Sep 92 03:17:29 GMT
Organization: Rel. Dept., Saint Marys University, Halifax, NS, Canada

In article <Sep.11.00.09.00.1992.16163@athos.rutgers.edu> hartley@maths.uwa.oz.au (Mike Hartley) writes:
>autodesk!mickw@uunet.uu.net (Mick Washbrook) writes:
>
>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. 

I am late to enter this thread. Perhaps my point has been made. But here
goes:

If everything that God created was good, how could a good creature choose
evil? There must be something wrong with it already.

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?

My own position is that evil in the form of sin is (to quote Barth)
"the irrational and inexplicable apostasy of man from God and from himself."

In other words, there is and can be no rational answer to the problem
or evil.

But it is not our nature to take no for an answer. We will have an
explanation. If we can't understand something, how can we control it?
-- 
Stan Armstrong. Religious Studies Dept, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, N.S.
Armstrong@husky1.stmarys.ca | att!clyde!watmath!water!dalcs!armstrng
From: jcarroll@ferris.cray.com (Jeff Carroll)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Southern Baptists Ensuring Orthodoxy
Date: 16 Sep 92 03:45:47 GMT


 stephen@archsci.arch.su.oz.au:

>The creeds are not complete systematic theologies.  They were drafted by the
>church to exclude specific errors.  In the case of the inclusion of "born
>of the Virgin Mary" this would appear to be there in order to exclude any 
>view of Jesus in which he was not a true human being.  I can't think of any 
>(protestant) doctrine which is derived from beilief that his mother was a virgin,
>but you loose quite a lot if He wasn't a real human. (btw I beleive she was).

We have as many systematic theologies as we have theologians, but the catholic
church has only one set of creeds. The creeds thus represent the lowest common
denominator of what one must believe in order to be Christian.

If you reject catholic theology in favor of something "Protestant", then you
don't have to be an apologist for those who drafted the creeds, since they were
all unabashedly Roman Catholic.

Jeff Carroll
carroll@reston.cray.com
From: eje@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com (Eric James Ewanco)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Sandy Patti
Date: 16 Sep 92 03:57:34 GMT
Reply-To: ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

Ah, I knew it had to be in here.

This month's Christianity Today: p. 63, People and Events, "DIVORCING: Gospel
singer Sandy Patti, from her husband and former manager, John Helvering,
citing an "irretrievable breakdown" of their 13-year marriage.

Eric
--
/=============================================================================\
| Eric Ewanco - Software Engineer     For the rash and outrageous opinions ex-|
| Digital Equipment Corp, Maynard MA  pressed herein I alone am responsible;  |
| ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com          they do not belong to DIGITAL(TM).      |
\==============================- 2 Th 2:15 -==================================/
    "...[T]he greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and
    organized at Rome by [] Peter and Paul, [is] that Church which has the
    tradition and faith which comes down to us after having been announced
    to men by the Apostles.  For with this Church, because of its superior
    origin, all Churches must agree ...  and it is in her that the
    faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition."
       -- St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, c. 180 A.D., 3,3,3.
From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Science and Faith [was: The O'Callaghan Case, part I]
Date: 13 Sep 92 03:58:45 GMT
Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Interzone Office

jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes:
>  When [modern Biblical scholarship] starts "proving" that
>various Catholic dogmas are contradicted by the scientific evidence of
>Scripture: well, that's where we part company.
>
>Catholics are not rationalists; the understanding of Scripture is
>essentially a matter of grace, not reason.  

And this is a position I have no argument with.  I understand that, at the
bottom, that by approaching these issues from, on one hand, the point of
view of scholarlship and, on the other, from a stance of Faith we are
simply talking about different things.

However, what I do object to is what I see, in arguments by you and by
others, as an effort to have it both ways.

If one wishes to say that Subject X is a matter of Faith, that Science and
Scholarship are simply inappropriate approaches to the topic (or to state
it perhaps more precisely, that the results of Science and Scholarship have
no effect on topics that you have accepted as matters of faith) then fine,
one is certainly free to do that.  And, as I say, I have absolutely no
problem with this, and we shake hands and part company friends, each to our
own road.

What one is not free to do, however, is to abandon all forms of scientific
methodology, dismiss peer-review, neglect uncomfortable data (particularly
when they undermine your pet theory) and then turn around and claim that
"on the other hand, Science does support us" when it is convenient to do so
and after you have ruled all contrary evidence as inadmissable.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this: if scientific scholarship is not
applicable to _disproving_ your particular model of the world, then neither
is it acceptable to use it --or rather to claim to use it-- to support that
view either.

N