HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Monks & Nuns?
Date: 27 Aug 92 06:41:16 GMT
Organization: none

In article <Aug.26.02.01.40.1992.7609@athos.rutgers.edu> marlatt@spot.Colorado.EDU (Stuart W. Marlatt) writes:

   My wife has been reading a book describing life in a convent,
   and asked me which Christian sects have a history of supporting
   various forms of religious orders, specifically nuns, but also
   monks, etc. As I couldn't answer with any certainty, I thought
   I'd ask the net...

Here's some info on the history of the phenomenon in the Catholic
Church.

Christian monasticism dates from the late 3rd century.  The Catholic
liturgical calendar commemorates St. Anthony the hermit from this time
period, for example.  He is regarded by the Catholic Encyclopedia as
the founder of Christian monasticism.  His life was written by that
pillar of the Faith, St. Athanasius.

The first monks were hermits, sometimes forming loose communities
(i.e., a number of monks, living each in his own cell, separated from
the others by a good distance).  Some of these early monks were
greatly gifted by God, being able to miraculously heal the sick, etc.

Monasticism of the monastery sort was a somewhat later development.
In the West, St. Benedict of Nursia is looked upon as the father of
Western monasticism of this type.  In the East, I think it's St.
Pachomius, but I'm not sure.  You can still buy copies of St.
Benedict's monastic "rule" (as it is called) in bookstores, and it is
still used as the rule of life in numerous Benedictine monasteries
today.  St. Benedict flourished around 500.  The famous Monte Cassino
monastery in Italy was originally founded by St. Benedict.  I think
the Benedictines have the most canonized Saints of any order in the
Catholic Church.

St. Benedict's sister, St. Scholastica, was a nun.  So I suppose that
convents date from at least then.  There were Christian women living
as consecrated virgins much before that, though.  I think St. Jerome
corresponded with such a community of women, for example, and he was
4th century.

Religious orders as they exist today in the Catholic Church were a
medieval development, I believe.  The Benedictines are a sort of loose
confederation of monasteries under different heads.  Religious orders
tend to have a superior general who is in charge of everyone in the
order.
From: uswsp@mathcs.emory.edu (William S. Pittard {EUCC})
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: The Way Ministry
Date: 31 Aug 92 06:35:20 GMT
Organization: Emory University

I would be interested in corresponding with individuals who were/are
associated with the "The Way Ministry". This organization was/is
based in New Knoxville, Ohio and its founder was Dr. Victor Paul
Weirwille. 

P.S.  Please make sure you clearly specify your preferred e-mail 
      address

			Thanks, Steve 


Steve Pittard {EUCC}
Emory University, Atlanta, GA 
Internet: uswsp@mathcs.emory.edu   BITNET (non-domain): uswsp@emory
UUCP: { sun!sunatl, gatech }!emory!uswsp
From: jmrg9881@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon Reid)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The problem of pain - query
Date: 30 Aug 92 06:57:09 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

ptfarre@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Peter Farrell) writes:

>There is still the additional consideration about pain and suffering
>yet to be explored, that of a world at war - spiritual, unseen war.

>What (and I am serious) of the possibility raised by statements in
>scripture which indicate that there was war in Heaven, that there is
>now still war under way on earth itself, that thus are forces at
>work perpetually attempting to influence as much evil as possible
>in the closing rounds of a long but doomed campaign?

John Wimber's book _Power Evangelism_ opens by putting forth this very
idea.  The war between kingdoms is often preached about at my church (the
Champaign Vineyard) in the context of living in the kingdom of God in spite
of its not being here in its fullness.
-- 
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: cawa@css.itd.umich.edu (Chris Pugh)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: A question about Jesus...
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:14:36 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan ITD Consulting and Support Services

In article <Aug.27.03.32.50.1992.5696@athos.rutgers.edu> davidson@ccrs.emr.ca (David Davidson) writes:
>If anyone would know, I suppose it would be one of you.
>So what does the "H" stand for anyway? Just curious. 
>
Probably, the usage of H as Jesus' middle initial ccame from a misunderstanding
of a common monogram for Jesus.  In Greek, Jesus' name is Iota-Eta-Sigma-
Omicron-Upsilon-Sigma.  A Stylized mongram of this name looks like IHC
(Iota-Eta-Sigma in Greek), and people may have mistaken this as a monogram
for Jesus H Christ.  

Actually a funny version that I have heard is that the H stands for 
Hallmark, because the Father cared enough to send the very best.

Chris

-- 
___________________________________________________________________________
Christopher A. Pugh             e-mail: cawa@css.itd.umich.edu
					Christopher_Pugh@um.cc.umich.edu
					USERW58U@umichum.bitnet
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Infallibility
Date: 31 Aug 92 07:33:23 GMT
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <Aug.30.03.13.15.1992.12759@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes:
>A seminary rector I know once put it this way.  When presented with
>some bizarre new heresy, say, for example, the rejection of incense in
>the liturgy, the Catholic Church's response is usually to HEAP ON the
>incense.

I'd like to know what liturgy of which Catholic Church Joe has been going to.
"Incense?  What's that?" is more typical of most Catholic parishes these
days.  :-) :-)

But seriously, I would restrict the term "heresy" to describe serious
breaches in matters of faith, and not simply heterodox practice.  (Whether
the "rejection of incense" constitutes evidence of such a breach strikes
me as a different matter.)

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer

[Surely Joe's point is about how people react to challenges, not
about the importance of incense.  Perhaps a better example would
be Mary as mother of God.  I think the phrase "Mary mother of
God" should be seen as intentionally provocative.  There was a
dispute, and the Church chose to deal with it be asserting its
view in the most aggressive possible way.  --clh]
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Pointer to Biblical history quiz.
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:23:41 GMT
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin

-*----
Some of you may want to know that I have reposted my (in)famous
Biblical history quiz to talk.religion.misc.  If you search the
article headers, it will be the first post with the word "turpin".

Russell
From: cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The problem of pain - query
Date: 26 Aug 92 06:31:54 GMT
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

In article <Aug.25.02.11.19.1992.18957@athos.rutgers.edu>, mpaul@unlinfo.unl.edu (marxhausen paul) writes:
> ptfarre@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Peter Farrell) writes:
>>If we say
>>it is all God's permission, then what is His purpose and how fair can it
>>be? If we say it is Satan, then can Satan defy God in something God does
>>not want to happen? Not according to scripture.
>>Not all suffering (as far my limited mind can understand) is man-caused,
>>intentional, deserved.

>I find, too, that while most of us can find
>Bible verses discussing how the righteous are established and the
>wicked perish, I find in my reading of both Job and Ecclesiastes persons
>saying, "Hey!  It _isn't_ true that the righteous always flourish and the 
>wicked always perish - just as often the wicked are fat and sassy and the 
>righteous are without help!" The answers aren't given in either place.  

As you are probably well aware, there are two answers to why there is
suffering in the world. One is the garden of Eden answer, which is;
its all man's fault. The other is the Job approach, that is; it is all
God's fault.

When God confronted Adam with his wrong doing, Adam could have
said, ``Now looky here God, you made this place and gave us all
free wills, now if you don't like the result, then you should have
made things different! So don't blame *me* for the mess you've made!!
Its all your fault.'' And Adam would have a point. The book of Job isn't
so forthright as that, but the basic accusation remains. 

I wouldn't write off Job, the book has a very complex structure and
answers to specific accusations are given if you can remember what
accusations were made 30 chapters earlier. I haven't studied the book
properly yet but I hope to. One thing I am tempted to try is to
match up the chiastic sections so that I am studying the relevant
sections together. (A simple example of a chiastic structure is
a document with four sections in a ABBA pattern, where the A's are
related to each other and the B's are related to each other.)
Maybe if I ever get finished with Genesis I will take a look at Job.

>paul marxhausen                              \/               grace 
-- 
                                                                      ___
Bill Rea                                                             (o o)
--------------------------------------------------------------------w--U--w---
| Bill Rea, Computer Services Centre| E-Mail       b.rea@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| University of Canterbury          | or         cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| Christchurch, New Zealand         | Phone +64 3 364-2331 Fax +64 3 364-2332 |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Qumran finding
Date: 3 Sep 92 03:42:36 GMT
Organization: none

In article <Sep.1.03.40.03.1992.13576@athos.rutgers.edu> jwindley@asylum.cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:

   What is more interesting is that these results have been available and
   published for nearly twenty years.  That O'Callaghan should be debated
   upon today is rather odd.  His ideas are essentially dead and buried
   in mainstream Dead Sea Scroll research.

The O'Callaghan fragments seem to be resurfacing.  Here are some
tidbits from the Catholic press in the last year or so.

There are two fragments.  7Q4 is a possible I Timothy fragment.  7Q5
is a possible fragment of Mark.

7Q4 now has some support from Professor Emil Puech, a scholar of
international repute, one of the five people in charge of the team
supervising all work at Qumran.  7Q4 has some advantages when compared
to the difficulties of 7Q5; it has certain rare papyrological
peculiarities, like an intact right margin.

There was an international conference in Bavaria last October on
O'Callaghan's findings regarding 7Q5.

Dr. Thiede, a leading light in the push for the recognition of 7Q5's
authenticity, had the 7Q5 fragment analyzed by the forensic laboratory
of the Israeli national police last April 12.  This resulted in the
elimination of one of the principal objections to the authenticity of
the fragment.  There had been some scholarly debate regarding whether
one of the letters on the papyrus was an iota (contra authenticity) or
a nu (pro).  The Israeli examination demonstrated that it was a nu.

If 7Q4 and 7Q5 are really authentic, there is going to be a lot of
opposition, because, as Jay Windley hints at, a lot of scholars' work
is going to collapse like a house of cards...
From: anonymous@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Liz Broadwell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Who is Campus Advance?
Date: 3 Sep 92 04:08:14 GMT
Organization: Society of Independent Newswaifs

A friend of mine ran into a young man claiming to be from a Christian group
called Campus Advance.  She'd never heard of them, and is curious to know who
they are.  (So am I, for the matter of that.)  Anybody know anything about
these people?


~Liz Broadwell~~~(by643@cleveland.freenet.edu)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~Department of English~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Cor ad Cor Loquitur~
~The University of Pennsylvania~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                    
Newman Centenary Celebration * 1893-1993 * 100 Years of Campus Ministry!
From: rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ralph Reid III)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: thought for the day (8-27)
Date: 28 Aug 92 06:38:32 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

Thursday, August 27:

     Jehovah is righteous in all his ways and loyal in all his works.  
Jehovah is near to all those calling upon him, to all those who call 
upon him in trueness.  <Psalm 145: 17, 18>

-- 
Ralph.  N6BNO.
Phone 1-916-345-9155.
lectromail- rreid@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu.
I do not waste time expressing others' opinions!
From: 441495@acadvm1.uottawa.ca (MICHAEL STRANGELOVE)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: no title given
Date: 30 Aug 92 07:05:02 GMT

I am compiling a handbook of networked resources for Religious Studies
(and related areas). This bibiography is freely available on the Net
from listserv@uottawa or listserv@acadvm1.uottawa.ca as
COMPLETE BIBLIO.

Can you send me information on  soc.religion.christian
to be included in the bibliography?

Thank you kindly,

Michael Strangelove
Department of Religious Studies
University of Ottawa

         BITNET: 441495@Uottawa
         Internet: 441495@Acadvm1.Uottawa.CA
         S-Mail: 177 Waller, Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N5 CANADA
         Voice:  (613) 747-0642
         FAX:    (613) 564-6641
From: dlhpfm!dlh@ncoast.org (daniel lance herrick)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: "Christian politics"??
Date: 1 Sep 92 07:47:47 GMT
Organization: dlh Performance Marketing

ptfarre@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Peter Farrell) writes:

> One of them has its Presidential candidate OPENLY vying for
> the support of lesbians and sodomizers; he intends to bestow special 
> political status upon them if he gets his way. (IMHO, the implications
> of that are themselves worth deadly serious thought before one merely
> votes the party line next election day.) 

The other has a presidential candidate who is proud of his
accomplishments toward the establishment of a New World Order.

"And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.  And it
came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain
in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.  And they said one to
another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly.  And they
had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.  And they said, Go
to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto
heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the
face of the whole earth."

This New World Order thing sounds quite familiar.  The quotation is
from Genesis 11.

The lesser of two evils is evil.

dan
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Problem of pain - summary & response
Date: 28 Aug 92 06:38:16 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney, Australia

J.Hale@latrobe.edu.au writes:

>In article <Aug.20.01.46.58.1992.20282@athos.rutgers.edu>, 
>	ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe) writes:
>> 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. 

>This only proves that your foot's reality [as determined by your senses] is 
>of the same order as the brick. It doesn't does tell you anything else. So
>for all your know [again as determined by your senses] they, and the pain
>that ensues from the kicking could all share the same illusion.

Someone who actually doesn't believe their senses is strictly mad. (With the
obvious exception of recognising when sickness of tiredness makes
you disregard some particular sense data as hallucinatory.)

Something is not unreal just because it is transitory. Certainly as far as
both having being, the brick and the eternal God share the same order
of reality.

>> 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.
>This is the problem. How do you know? If all the "senses" that tell you of
>its reality are part and parcel of its reality then the argument becomes a
>little circular to say the least ;-)

The problem isn't "how do I know": how can anyone credibly deny they know?
Any knowledge we have is founded on sense data: whatever we have came in
from the outside. Even "faith comes by hearing". To deny sense-able reality
is a ridiculous armchair speculation IMHO: sense-able reality needs no proof.

-ricko
From: altheimm@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Murray Altheim)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Does God Exist?  And proof of existence!
Date: 30 Aug 92 06:30:50 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <Aug.27.03.24.41.1992.4903@athos.rutgers.edu> whheydt@pbhya.pacbell.com (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>In article <Aug.26.02.26.19.1992.8323@athos.rutgers.edu>, altheimm@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Murray Altheim) writes:
>> In any system of a given complexity, the
>> information required to describe that complexity is many more orders of 
>> magnitude greater than the system itself. 
>
>This is a disproof by counter example . . .
>
>The descriptors for the Mandelbrot Set are *much* smaller than the Set
>itself.  The same is true for Julia Sets and many other mathematical
>constructs.
>
>	--Hal

Which is exactly why these type of arguments are so specious. If you want
to describe mathematical and abstract concepts, remember that that is NOT
the real world. I challenge ANY scientist to chemically describe any one
cubic foot of my backyard in enough detail to accurately reconstruct it
again. It can't be done. Mathematical rules cannot do it, any more than
abstract concepts can be used to describe reality, other than as generalized
principles, which is not what I was talking about. If you look at my post,
you'll notice it had no reference to a rule-based system. Describing a 
complexity involves KNOWING enough about it to reconstruct it for someone
else. We know so very little about reality; just the rules for many of its
phenomena. Existing in a rule-based world abstracts one from the true 
reality, and deludes one into believing one's understanding is complete.

Murray

-- 
Murray M. Altheim      "Ils ont l'orteil de Bouc, & d'un Chevreil l'oreille,
Instructional Consultant    La corne d'un Chamois, & la face vermeille
CSU, Sacramento          Comme un rouge Croissant: & dancent toute nuict
altheimm@csus.edu       Dedans un carrefour, ou pres d'une eau qui bruict."
From: crs@milton.u.washington.edu (Cliff Slaughterbeck)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Things to think about!
Date: 24 Aug 92 00:00:25 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

s.ryan@trl.oz.au writes:

>     Essentially  everything  is reducable to  science.  Likewise 
>everything  is  reducable to the physical.  There are  those  who 
>believe  in  a  distinction  between  physical  and  metaphysical 
>worlds.  This  distinction exists primarily because of  the  dual 
>aspect of religious truth,  as viewed by most humans.

Even in physics, it is FUNDAMENTALLY impossible to know everything.
The laws which govern our physical presence in the universe make it
impossible to know both the exact position and momentum of any object.
Do not be deluded into thinking that if scientists were given a big
enough computer and the correct starting conditions that they could
predict exactly the future of everything in the universe.

>     All  things  are reducable to components.  [after dividing
objection until we reduce indivisible components] we have
>uncovered the only unchanging objects in the universe.  There may 
>be an almost infinite number of different types of unit particles 
>similar only in their unchangibility.
>     The  human organism can be analysed in this same manner.  It 
>is  infinitly changeable.  Any human can be made into  any  other 
>human,  given the right set of circumstances. If we could, over a 
>period  of  six months gradually replace human A's components  so 
>that at the end of six months A had become B,  then we would find 
>that there is no difference between A and B

I believe you are pursuing a fallacy here.  It is often true that
by breaking apart an object (especially a physical one), you can
learn more about the way that it works.  A car, for example, is
quite a magical object when taken as a whole, but if broken down
piece by piece, it is much easier to comprehend.  The same, however,
does not seem to be true of humans.  According to a report that I
heard once, 96% of the atoms in a person's body are replaced every
year by other atoms by eating, and breathing, etc.  Yet, fundamentally
the person stays the same.  The human soul is not attached to the
physical structure of the body, but rather to the spiritual structure.

****************************************************************************
Cliff Slaughterbeck           * 
Dept. of Physics, FM-15       *   Hey Matt!  The diffusion pump is full of
University of Washington      *   water again!
Seattle, WA 98195             *
****************************************************************************
From: eje@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com (Eric James Ewanco)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Papacy
Date: 27 Aug 92 07:09:44 GMT
Reply-To: ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

> On <23 Aug 1992 08:48> Joseph H. Buehler (5:7104/2) said to All :
>  JHB>The Papacy -- the See of Peter -- and the Faith are inseparable.

Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Steve Hayes) writes:

> I would question the grounds of your identification of "the papacy" with the 
> "see of Peter". The bishop of Alexandria was called "pope" long before the 
> bishop of Rome was, and his title is still today "Pope and Patriarch of 
> Alexandria and All Africa". 

The reason for this is that Pope used to be a general title of honor for
various bishops; it did not always refer exclusively to the bishop of Rome.
However, over time the use of the term for just any bishop died out (in the
Catholic church) and it came to be applied exclusively to the Bishop of Rome. 

I imagine that the Pope of Alexandria you mention is not the pope of a Catholic
church, but of a/the Coptic church or some other oriental church not in
communion with Rome.

> Steve Hayes
> Department of Missiology

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 -==================================/
From: phantom@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (James Choi)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: where does the bible mention about smoking?
Date: 31 Aug 92 07:20:05 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.

I have been curious about non-smoking policy of some christians.  From my
limited experience, catholics seems to smoke openly while protestants
either don't smoke or downplay the fact that they smoke.

I did a text search through the entire bible and I could not find anything
that dictates against smoking.  Where did this policy come from?

James Choi