HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dvp@oasis.icl.co.uk (Dave Parry)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Non-procreative sex (LONG)
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:35:15 GMT
Organization: The Mountains of Madness

maridai@comm.mot.com (Marida Ignacio) writes:
>    
[an interesting article from Marida]

> -Marida (maridai@ecs.comm.mot.com)
>  
The first thing that struck me about the Vatican II quotes was the
implication that man and woman are not regarded as equals - the term
"reverence" is used as well as "comfort and care for". Also, the point
is made that lack of contraception is used as a deterrent, from a
moral standpoint. It's like the universal religious threat that if
you're bad, you'll go to hell. If I behave myself and do good in this
life because I'm scared of going to hell, that does not mean that I am
therefore 'good'. Only if I choose to do good, because I wish to, can I
then be classed as 'good'. Similarly, if, for the sake of arguement,
lustful or pre-marital sex is wrong, then surely resisting temptation
when no obstacles are placed in front of you is more selfless act than
when there is proscriptions placed on contraception and the threat of
damnation if you transgress. The point I'm making is, does God want a
heaven filled with people who wanted to transgress but were afraid 
to, or people who, by choice, refused to transgress.

Also, I would make the point that sex is not just about bearing
children (an obvious one, I know, but...), it's also about closeness
and oneness. By that I mean that when making love to someone you love
(and when the emotion is reciprocated), there is a unique bond between
you for the moment, a true oneness that I can't believe can be viewed
by God as sinful, even when procreation is not the aim.

I think it boils down to the fact that much harm has been done in the
pursuit of sexual satisfaction - rapes, assualts, broken marriages,
broken homes etc. etc. It is not the act itself that is dirty or
shameful (as many people over the centuries would have us believe),
but rather the constantly evolving complexities of our societies that
makes the fundamental act of making love such a complex ritual.

The church has tried to simplify it by defining some basic rules -
must be married, must be for procreation, but does this in itself
confirm that the sexual act is indeed something to be got out of the
way asap as it's so harmful, or is it a sad reflection on the
evolution of societies and how they twist natural desires into
something to be ashamed of? I think the latter is true. (IMHO)

Dave
From: mjsmith@cac.washington.edu (Martha Smith )
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Wesley Allen "Hang Me" Dodd
Date: 6 Jan 93 07:00:28 GMT
Organization: UW Computing

[This posting was submitted in uppercase only -- I've lowercased it.  --clh]

In article <Jan.5.03.44.49.1993.1320@geneva.rutgers.edu>, rainbow@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Donita Thompson) writes:
|> Imagine the 3 little dead boys' faces when Dodd shows up at the
|> Pearly Gates!

if i were to imagine their faces, i would imagine them joyful - if the
three dead boys are in heaven then they too must have learned (be
learning?) to forgive and love as god forgives and loves.  dodd may
have to pay his dues in purgatory, he will certain live (in the other
life) with the knowledge of his crimes (punishment/purgation in and of
itself) but i for one will never assume that someone is going to hell,
is beyond making a fundamental choice for god.

i am more concerned about those who executed dodd or wanted his
execution ...  they need to forgive dodd and seek forgiveness for
their failure to forgive.

note that bondi in her second book on the desert fathers makes and
interesting point on what forgiveness is that we are required to
forgive everyone.  it is not necessarily re-establishing a ruptured
relationship; it is at least no longer seeking revenge or wishing evil
for the one who committed the wrong.
From: jimfc@ecst.csuchico.edu (James Francis Coughlin)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Is Christianity the only way?
Date: 12 Jan 93 10:20:09 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

In article <Jan.11.03.58.33.1993.21611@geneva.rutgers.edu> dcorbett@access.digex.com (Daniel Corbett) writes:
>Who is it for us to judge those who interpret the Bible in alternate ways?
>Why is one individual's interpretation of the Bible held higher than anothers?
>Is there a standard for interpretation that all Christians follow?  It seems
>to me that there are many denominations of Christianity and that they differ
>radically in their understanding of the Bible.
>
>Any interpretation of the Bible is simply that individual's or group's opinion.
>

In 2 Peter 3:15-17, Peter writes (NASV):

15  ... just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom 
given him, wrote to you,

16  as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which 
are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort,
as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

17  You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard lest, 
being carried away by the error of unprincipled men, you fall from your 
own steadfastness, ...

Three comments:

1.  This passage indicates that there are indeed right and wrong 
    interpretations of Scripture.

2.  It is necessary for Christians to make judgements as to whether others'
    interpretations of Scripture are correct, in order to not be led astray 
    by incorrect interpretations.

3.  Although it does not say so in this passage, one might want to try to
    teach the correct interpretation of Scripture to those whose own 
    interpretation is so bad that it will lead them to destruction (if they
    are willing to listen), to save them from that destruction.
From: yhuh@ihlpe.att.com (Young U Huh)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Do We Need To Pray????
Date: 5 Jan 93 08:20:18 GMT
Organization: AT&T

From article <Jan.3.21.44.04.1993.28273@geneva.rutgers.edu>, by labson@borneo.corp.sgi.com (Joel Labson):
> I'd like some discussions on this....
> 
> If God knows what we need, don't you think that He will just give it to
> us automatically without praying for it??????

That's a good question!  

> 
> I think we just need to pray for what we want...NOT what we need....??

Since the God of Christianity knows everything, he knows what you want 
just as much as he knows what you need.  In addition, he knows precisely 
what you need or want even if you didn't know or were confused about it 
yourself.

> 
> Any comments, agree,disagree,don't know,maybe ??????? - jrl
> 
> -- 

Keep thinking.

Young Huh
yhuh@ihlpe.att.com

[Before responding to this, you might want to wait and look at some
of the other responses in this group.

Both the original posting and this response take for granted a concept
of prayer with which I disagree.  I don't see it as primarily a way
of getting God to do something.  Various people have suggested several
reasons why God might want to involve people's prayers in getting
things gone, rather than just doing them, e.g.

  - By working through other people, God helps build a Christian
	community.

  - Not all of our desires are right.  By bringing things to God,
	we have an opportunity for our desires and goals to develop
	in a direction he wants.

One of the most interesting views of the role of prayer is in some of
the novels and poetry of Charles Williams.  The novel "Descent into
Hell" is particularly relevant here.  He believes that the Christian
way of life involves bearing each others' burdens in a very literal
way through prayer.

--clh]
From: hunt@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Do We Need To Pray????
Date: 5 Jan 93 08:23:26 GMT
Organization: Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Iowa

> If God knows what we need, don't you think that He will just give it to
> us automatically without praying for it??????
> 
> I think we just need to pray for what we want...NOT what we need....??
> 
> Any comments, agree,disagree,don't know,maybe ??????? - jrl
> 

	It seems that the deeper question is 'What is the purpose of
prayer?'.  If the purpose is to prod God into giving us things that
we want or need then perhaps it would make sense to only ask for those
things that we want.  Scriptures make it clear that God knows our needs
better than we do and will 'withold no good thing from us'.  If even
our earthly fathers know to give their children good things, how much
more does our heavenly Father know to give good things to His children.

	Prayer is more than just rubbing the magic lamp and pulling the
genie out of the bottle.  At its very core, prayer is meant to make
our hearts like the heart of Christ.  Spirit speaks with Spirit.  We 
are told to 'pour out our hearts to God', to 'pray without ceasing' to
'walk in the light', and to 'have the heart and mind of Christ'.  God
will certainly give to us those things that we need whether we ask for
them or not.  However our hearts will remain unchanged and self-centered
if we refuse to seek God's provision through prayer.

Kenny
From: dsegard@nyx.cs.du.edu (Daniel Segard)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Sexism (was Re: Non-procreative sex)
Date: 8 Jan 93 05:45:40 GMT
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.


 news@cs.ruu.nl (Six O'Clock News) writes
>>>>> dsegard@nyx.cs.du.edu (Daniel Segard) (DS) writes:

DS>       And using the same logic, if a couple remains childless so that
the
DS> wife can generally be known to be infertile, barren, or however this
is to

 6> I agree with this post, but want to point out that the above is a
 6> very sexist biased view on childlessness. It can be the husband as
 6> well who is infertile. Please don't blame the wife if a couple is
 6> childless.
 
       However, in the examples which I gave it is clear that it was the
wife who was barren.  I do agree that the husband might be infertile as
well, but in the case of Hannah (Samuel's mother) it is clear that it was
not the husband's problem since his other wife, Peninnah did have children
by him.  The same goes for the case of Sarah, who was obviously the
infertile one since Abraham had no problem producing children with her
handmaid.
From: mussack@innerdoor.austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Do We Need To Pray????
Date: 5 Jan 93 08:40:10 GMT

Prayer is necessary for my sake, not God's.

Praying helps me organize my thoughts. I clarify my feelings by putting
them into words, even if unspoken. Praying aloud is a form of
fellowship. When a group recites a standard prayer or merely 
responds with an "Amen" to a personal exclamation, it means 
they're all on the same wavelength.

If praying is talking to God then we shouldn't merely pray
just to get things any more than I should only talk to my
wife when I want her to rub my feet.

Chris Mussack
From: whheydt@pbhya.pacbell.com (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: ?'s
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:45:40 GMT
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <Jan.8.00.50.23.1993.2545@farside.rutgers.edu>, creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
> In article <Jan.7.01.27.14.1993.6107@geneva.rutgers.edu> shrum@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Rick Shrum) writes:
> >Some questions:
> >
> >1) The concept of eternity; I mean God has *always* existed. I find it
> >   hard to imagine there being no beginning.
> 
>    If God did not always exist, then how did He come into being?  That
> is, wouldn't someone have to have created Him if He did not always
> exist?  If so, then there would have to be another god who created
> God, and so on, and so on.  

This is a masterly summation.

However....  My conclusion from it is a bit different than yours.

Rather than postulate either an inifite regression of creators, or
that God 'must ahve alsways existed' (whatever that turns out to
mean), if God can simply exist--so can the universe, and that requires
one less assumption than a God that created the universe.

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |            You!
510-823-5447                 |    Out of the Gene Pool!
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |
From: news@cbnewsk.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Do We Need To Pray????
Date: 6 Jan 93 06:58:04 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs

In article <Jan.3.21.44.04.1993.28273@geneva.rutgers.edu> labson@borneo.corp.sgi.com (Joel Labson) writes:
>I'd like some discussions on this....
>
>If God knows what we need, don't you think that He will just give it to
>us automatically without praying for it??????
>
>I think we just need to pray for what we want...NOT what we need....??
>
>Any comments, agree,disagree,don't know,maybe ??????? - jrl
>

I think we need to pray.  Not to obtain anything, not to go to heaven, not
to be holy, we just need to pray.  I'm a functionalist, minimally, prayer
is a way of articulating praise, thanks, remorse, or petition.  It satisfies
two deep rooted needs, first is to articulate to ourselves exactly our needs,
hopes, sorrows, and beliefs; and second is to be understood completely.  What
better way to meet these needs than with an ever listening God who allows us 
to say exactly what we want to say to him, and completely understands 
everything said and unsaid.

One philosopher quipped, if there were no God, then we would need to create
one.  If we consider alternatives to prayer, we could choose a confidant or
a diary (journal).  But diaries can be lost, stolen, read by unwelcome eyes,
and confidants can slip or deliberately betray us.  I don't mean to undermine
the value of either of these, but God never betrays a secret, and always acts
in our best interest.

Prayers, such as a good examination of conscience at night, a dedication of 
the day in the morning, thanks at meals, remind us to be humble and to lead 
good lives.  A prayerful life, a life that is a living prayer remembers always
that all good comes from God, seeks always to do what is the most loving thing,
admits mistakes freely, sees and trusts God in all things.  Thus more important
than our little prayers is our life prayer, without which we might as well
say that we don't need God as to say we don't need prayer.

Joe Moore
From: jimgar@scorch.apana.org.au (Jim Garner)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Non-procreative sex
Date: 7 Jan 93 06:03:20 GMT
Organization: Craggenmoore public Unix system , Newcastle , Oz

revc@garg.campbell.ca.us (Bob Van Cleef) writes:

|Am I the only one who sees this as an example of "violating the spirit
|of the law while fulfilling the letter?"
|If it is immoral to have sexual activity "with the possibility of fertility
|excluded," then it is immoral to have sexual activity on any day when you
|know that the woman is not fertile. Under that rationale, natural family
|planning methodes would be as immoral as using artificial methods.

No the rhythm method still allows for the possibility of procreation,
simply because it is TOTALLY UNRELIABLE.

-- 
Jim Garner B.Math (Newcastle NSW Australia) - jimgar@scorch.apana.org.au
From: jraja@vipunen.hut.fi (Jarno Tapio Rajahalme)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Any knowledge on foundations of Al-Anon ?
Date: 8 Jan 93 05:16:24 GMT
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

I'd like to know more about the foundations about Al-Anon teachings.

I've read the '12 step program' they have and I'd like to know more of
its origins.

	Jarno
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Address: Jarno Rajahalme            | EMail:                              |
|          Servin Maijan tie 12 H 111 |   Jarno.Rajahalme@hut.fi            |
|          02150  ESPOO, FINLAND      | tel: +358 0 468 2891                |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: abigail@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Shawn Abigail)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: The purpose of meetings of the local church
Date: 6 Jan 93 06:42:35 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON

I have read a couple of postings about small group fellowships,
and have been in a church that tried out "SGFs".  It always makes
me happy to see believers growing in the Lord and becoming more
concerned about each other.  I am excited at the idea of "home
churches", where the whole church meets in a home.  I am also
excited at the idea of evangelistic home Bible studies, for the
purpose of reaching out to the lost.

However... the idea of small group fellowships does not appeal
to me, because it seems to divide the church.  If there is a
problem in a local church with believers being distant from each
other, it must be dealt with, but the best way of dealing with
it is not to split up the church into small groups.

One of the big justifications for SGFs is that it gives us a
non-threatening church meeting to invite friends and neighbours
to.  The question I would like to ask is, what is the purpose of
meetings of the local church?  I am not asking what the purpose
of the local church is!  One of the purposes of the local church
is evangelism, but I can find no evidence from Scripture that one
of the purposes of MEETINGS of the local church is evangelism.  If
an unbeliever comes into one of our meetings, they may be impressed
with what is happening, but I think we run a grave danger when we
start to tailor meetings of the local church to do our evangelism
for us.  All Christians should be involved in witnessing, but 
witnessing involves a whole lot more than inviting people to come
out to your church.

Our responsibility as Christians is to worship God and edify each other
in church meetings, and then to go out into the world and witness for
Christ.  Doing the witnessing ourselves (instead of inviting people
to "come to church" to hear the preacher) puts a greater burden on
our shoulders, but will result in the greater reward and satisfaction.

Shawn Abigail
From: alisonjw@spider.co.uk (Alison J Wyld)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Wesley Allen "Hang Me" Dodd
Date: 8 Jan 93 05:44:30 GMT
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK.

In article <Jan.6.01.57.09.1993.2823@geneva.rutgers.edu> daveshao@leland.stanford.edu (David Shao) writes:
>
>At least Dodd is accepting his punishment under the law.  In this
>area he is acting in a more Christian way than others who seek to
>have sentences reduced just because they have found Jesus.  We
>read from Scripture that the thief hanging on the cross who accepted 
>Jesus acknowledged the justness of his punishment as part of his
>final confession.  And he was a thief, not a child murderer like Dodd.
>Death penalty opponents should keep this in mind.

It sounds to me as if you are mixing two separate issues.  It is one
thing for a Christian to accept his punishment under law, as you put
it.    It is another thing to say that his acceptance makes the
particular punishment right.

(For the record, I am implacibally opposed to the Death Penalty under any
circumstances, and very glad I am a citizen of a country where it is
no longer used.)

Alison
From: crs@stein.u.washington.edu (Cliff Slaughterbeck)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Wesley Allen "Hang Me" Dodd
Date: 8 Jan 93 05:54:03 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

daveshao@leland.stanford.edu (David Shao) writes:
>crs@stein.u.washington.edu (Cliff Slaughterbeck) writes:
>
>...  It now becomes "too expensive"
>to prosecute rapists.  Might as well repeal the laws against rape.
>
>It's the opponents of capital punishment who must take the blame for 
>the expense of it's implementation.

This is not at all what I am suggesting.  Nowhere in my statement did I ever
make a case for making murder and torture legal.  The question is not
whether or not murder and torture should be legal, but rather what an
appropriate sentence should be.

>>Surveys of the American people show that most Americans strongly support the
>>death penalty, so it is unlikely to be overturned in the near future.

>I guess people are wrong for reading their Bible and coming to the
>conclusion that the Lord demands the death penalty for those who prey 
>upon them.

Obviously your faith and mine lead us to different conclusions.  I do not
doubt that you believe that your opinions come from an honest attempt to
understand the words of our Lord, please do not doubt that my opinions are
also deeply held and based on my faith in Christ.

Remember the story in the Bible where Jesus confronts an angry mob about
to kill a woman who was guilty of adultery (as the Law mandated).  His
words were "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."  To me, this
is convincing evidence that Jesus did not believe in capital punishment.

>Now that the motives of the proponents of capital punishment have been
>so scrurrilously attacked, let me go to the opposite extreme and throw
>out the following:
>
>  Why do some liberals oppose the death penalty?  Well, it's their
>  rejection of God and their adoption of the slogan:  "Man is the
>  measure of all things."  Sentient human life is the most precious
>  thing, therefore it must be preserved at all costs no matter how
>  evil it is.  After all, who are we to judge what is good and evil?
>
>Do I really believe that the opponents of capital punishment think like
>this?  NO!  But please, let them try to have with us a civilized
>discussion instead of just calling us the evil ones.

Well then, why did you write the paragraph above?  I posted an honest
capsule of my feelings about the death penalty, and a few of the reasons
why I don't believe it is appropriate.  If I offended you with what I wrote,
then I apologize, such was not my intention.

>Yours in Christ
>David Shao

****************************************************************************
Cliff Slaughterbeck           * 
Dept. of Physics, FM-15       *   There is no such thing as "rock bottom".
University of Washington      *   
Seattle, WA 98195             *
****************************************************************************
From: Steve.Hayes@f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Wesley Allen "Hang Me" Dodd
Date: 11 Jan 93 09:10:09 GMT

On <09 Jan 1993 10:08> David Shao said to All :

 DS>>Thirdly, as a taxpayer, it costs much more to execute someone 
 DS>>than it does to house them for life in prison.

 DS>Do we just give up when 
 DS>confronted by well-financed evil?  Must Christianity be used by 
 DS>people to corrode away the morals of this nation?

Your reasoning seems to be fallacious. The argument was not that people who 
commit sexual assault and murder should not be prosecuted, but that they 
should not be killed if prosecuted and found guilty, which is a different 
question altogether.

Steve Hayes
P O Box 7648, Pretoria
0001 South Africa
From: daly@chocolat.princeton.edu (John Daly)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Do We Need To Pray????
Date: 5 Jan 93 08:39:01 GMT
Organization: Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (CFD)

In article <Jan.3.21.44.04.1993.28273@geneva.rutgers.edu>, labson@borneo.corp.sgi.com (Joel Labson) writes:
|> I'd like some discussions on this....
|> 
|> If God knows what we need, don't you think that He will just give it to
|> us automatically without praying for it??????
|> 
|> I think we just need to pray for what we want...NOT what we need....??

Did your parents ever give you a gift?  Did you need it?

God wants to have a relationship with us through His son.  Have you ever
been in a close relationship where you didn't share your needs and hopes
and desires with the other person?  The point isn't whether they know or
don't know.  The relationship is formed through the asking and receiving.

Incidentally, when Jesus healed the blindman He first asked the blindman
what he wanted done for him.  Why?  Any fool would know he wanted to see
again.  I believe He asked because it established a level of intimacy and
relationship that wasn't there before.  God knows what we need, just as a
parent knows their child wants presents, but it's in communicating those
needs and working them through together that we come to know God.