HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jwmorris@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Jeff Morris)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Is heaven really desirable?
Date: 19 Nov 92 06:41:15 GMT
Reply-To: jwmorris@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Jeff Morris)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

More than once, I've found myself someplace beautiful and wondering
how anything could be better.  (Of course, I could do without those
pesky mosquitoes and black flies!)  After giving it some serious
thought, I concluded that, even if everything were just the way we
liked it, no stinging insects, no pain, no hunger, etc., there would
still be us.  Considering human nature, if we were given everything
we desired, we would become SPOILED.

Since we were originally created in God's image and then fell to our
present condition, perhaps when He's through fixing us (and granting
considerable extra credit through grace) we'll no longer have those
human characteristics which make us susceptible to greed, boredom,
anger, and on and on.

I, obviously, don't know.  The only things I am sure of are that God
exists and that I don't know what He knows.
From: news@cbnewsk.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Sexuality (was: Re: REFRESH)
Date: 19 Nov 92 06:59:26 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs

In article <Nov.18.03.36.05.1992.885@athos.rutgers.edu> conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt) writes:
>...as one who tries to minister to people with sexuality
>issues (homosexuals, sex-addicts), I have found that this attitude has
>done a lot of damage to Christians.  The effects of it are far-reaching
>into the Christian community. 
>
>God created us as sexual beings.  Although we start experiencing our
>sexuality at early ages, it slaps us in the face at puberty.  

I think the reason masturbation is considered wrong is that it can lead 
to self-absorption and also it can be a manifestation of obsessive
thinking about sex.  How many of the frigid wives you mentioned call
their shower massage, "Steve"?  How many of the porn-addicts, view the
material while masturbating?  Christ's message is that of truth, and
it's true that we are sexual beings, and it's true that there is a normal
exploratory phase of sexuality where mastubation is not a matter of right 
or wrong since the participator is unaware of their physiology.  Associating
guilt with such normal behavior is harmful.

Purity of heart, requires us to monitor our thoughts as they enter our
minds.  When an impure thought enters, drive it out.  It's like when
you think about your sister in a sexual way, or some other 'dirty' thought
you immediately say to yourself 'ewwww, yuck' and dismiss it.  Once
such thoughts are allowed to escape your checks and are considered
in your mind, you are openning yourself for a fall.  'We are not fighting
the flesh, but pricipalities and powers.'  The fight is not curbing the
urges of the flesh, but the consideration and preoccupation with the
flesh.  Once the thought is given a chance, consideration that it may not 
be wrong, the battle may already be lost.  

Joe Moore
From: ptfarre@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Peter Farrell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: suicide- is it a sin in God's eyes.
Date: 17 Nov 92 08:27:38 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

In article <Nov.15.21.53.33.1992.23792@geneva.rutgers.edu> moy@acf3.nyu.edu (Gloria J. Moy,N.DORM C3,(212)9983456,) writes:
>
>	Is suicide a sin in the eyes of God?

Before much answer and discussion, I am curious: is there a FAQ file that
deals with major doctrinal questions and rights and wrongs such as suicide?

These days, suicide is usually being considered in the context of someone
who wants to throw the life they were given back in God's face. Now popular
among the cultural elite these days is the notion of "assisted suicide"
and other forms of self-destruction as a right or prerogative.

I'd like to toss one of the first easily debateable ideas out that if a
person is giving their life for a friend, family or God, perhaps not.
But if a person is hurling the package back at God in disgust, probably
so.

If we take upon ourselves the notion that a human life created by God to
be lived in accordance with His wishes is really something we can do with
whatever we want regardless, we've really worked past the specific matter
of suicide to the underlying matter of who owns that life ultimately.

Hence the dilemma of our society; once enough people
have convinced themselves that God either doesn't exist or doesn't care,
where are the moral bulwarks to prevent the ethic of suicide?  Preoccupation
with the self ultimately arrives at one of its most horrible and logical
conclusions. 

-- 
Peter Farrell			| "Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, 
ptfarre@afterlife.ncsc.mil 	| shall enter the kingdom of heaven; but he
				| who does the will of my Father in heaven."

[I've got FAQ entries on many things, but not on suicide.  It doesn't
come up often.  --clh]
From: baresson@cbnewsi.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: US presidential curse
Date: 15 Nov 92 23:08:49 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <Nov.12.02.58.18.1992.17232@geneva.rutgers.edu> baseball@catch-the-fever.scd.ucar.edu (Gregg Walters) writes:
>>> A subsiduary question might be to what extent is a curse binding
>>> on a Christian, since believers are freed from the elemental
>>> spirits of the universe.
>
>I'm confused.  Your assumption, that "believers are freed from the
>elemental spirits of the universe", is new to me.  I have read the New
>Testament twice and I don't remember this specific phrase, although
>it is of such a nature that I am sure I would not forget it.  Sounds
>sort of "New Age" in fact.  Can you give me "chapter and verse"?

Galatians 4.3 (eg RSV). 

Scriptures like Rom 8.9 and 1John 5.18 and 4.4 help us to
understand the believer's strong protection - while other
scriptures like 1Cor 5.5 and 1Tim 1.20 serve as solemn warnings
in this domain.

Barney Resson
"Many shall run to and fro, & knowledge shall increase" (Daniel)
From: ceb@dbrus.unify.com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Entering the Kingdom (Was Re: Power)
Date: 16 Nov 92 03:11:49 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <Nov.11.02.59.39.1992.15077@geneva.rutgers.edu> caw@gtech.com (Christopher A. White) writes:
>In article <Nov.10.01.57.10.1992.12377@geneva.rutgers.edu> mussack@innerdoor.austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack) writes:
>>Some Christian principles that should not be in government: ...
>
>>- equal pay, the parable where the farmer pays every laborer the same 
>>	regardless of how long he's worked.
>
>To me, this is not about equal pay but about individual bargaining (vs.
>collective bargaining). I feel that this principle should be grabbed
>onto and explored in our labor laws. In an age of collective bargaining
>the individual has *some* degree of freedom. 

And here I was going along thinking the parable had nothing to do with labor
laws.  IMO the parable put into plain speech (i.e., no analogy) is that some
people learn about Christ and become good Christians early, and some later,
some even on their deathbeds.  Yet all merit the same reward, heaven.  Christ
posits that the early arrivers might think that because they've been good
Christians longer, they deserve a bigger slice of heaven than the latecomers
do; and Christ disagrees.  How does one individually -- or collectively --
bargain the amount of goodness one must be/do in order to get "paid" what
quantity of heavenly reward?  And what does heavenly reward have to do with
one's earthly paycheck?


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244		---------------------+
|  "Do not overbake."							     |
|		- complete recipe instructions for Missy's Oatmeal Cookies   |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: vxv4@po.cwru.edu (Virgilio Velasco)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Superman buys the farm
Date: 20 Nov 92 06:55:49 GMT
Reply-To: vxv4@po.cwru.edu (Virgilio Velasco)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

>[Superman is a dangerous image, since the most likely theological
>implication would be the heresy of Arianism.  I hope it's clear to
>everyone that we most specifically do not claim that Jesus was
>superman.

Absolutely.  He is a Christ-figure, but for all his nobility, he
falls far short of what Christ truly is.
 
>In dealing with Spock, a lot depends upon whether you regard the
>novels as part of the canon.  If so, a somewhat more positive
>interpretation comes out.  First, "suppression of emotion" is a
>disasterous mistranslation, that came out of early human-Vulcan
>interactions, before there was anyone who understood both cultures
>well enough to translate words clearly.  Vulcans now believe that a
>better translation is "passion's mastery".

Yep, I read "Spock's World" too, so I know about cthia.  Actually
though, I was referring to the way Spock denied his human half for so
long--that is, until the events of Star Trek IV.
-- 
    Virgilio "Dean" Velasco Jr., CWRU grad student & roboticist wannabee

   "Bullwinkle, that man's intimidating a referee!"    |    My boss is a 
   "Not very well.  He doesn't look like one at all."  |  Jewish carpenter.
From: toombsb@ere.umontreal.ca (Toombs Bruce)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship // GBU
Date: 23 Nov 92 02:05:09 GMT
Organization: Universite de Montreal

Hello, all,
 
I am interested in hearing from anyone who 
has been or is involved in Inter-Varsity Christian 
Fellowship or Les Groupes Bibliques 
Universitaires, anywhere in the world.
 
I am a former IVCF staffworker who left that 
ministry several years ago while in the throes of a 
crisis of faith -- a crisis (if that is the best word) 
that has not yet subsided.  I would like to hear news 
from the IVCF world, and possibly get into 
conversations about Christian faith and life -- 
a subject that has troubled me considerably these last few years.
 
One last thing : if any of you knows my friend Pete Lowman, 
and especially if he has an electronic address and 
you know it, please e-mail me.
 
I am not a regular reader of this group (lack of time), 
though I do lurk from time to time.  Replies should 
come through e-mail.
B
 
Thanks!
 
Bruce Toombs (toombsb@ere.umontreal.ca)
Ph.D. Candidate, ethics
Department de philosophie
Universite de Montreal
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
From: mayne@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Need Christian Jokes...
Date: 18 Nov 92 08:36:59 GMT
Reply-To: mayne@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

A man had just arrived and the Pearly Gates and was in St. Peter's
waiting room, apprehensive about what fate awaited him after lifetime
of living it up drinking, gambling, chasing women, and other sins.

Two friends who had led very virtuous lives, though with a few sins,
came out, kicking themselves. The man then knew he was in for it. Finally
he was called in. He stood trembling before St. Peter, but St. Peter just
went about routine processing to admit the man to heaven. The man
couldn't understand this, and finally asked "You I'm going to get into
heaven after all I've done?"

St. Peter said. "No records were kept. You are as welcome as anybody.
Come on in."

"If no records were kept and everybody is welcome, why were those
two guys ahead of me kicking themselves?"

"Oh. They also thought we kept records."

Bill Mayne
From: news@cbnewsk.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: bored.....
Date: 19 Nov 92 06:58:35 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs

In article <Nov.18.05.24.50.1992.4929@athos.rutgers.edu> phys224@cantva.canterbury.ac.nz writes:
>if we lived in eternity, we would do everything,say everything,and think
>everything infinitely many times.How could we not be bored? Lets face it,
>whoever actually invented the idea of heaven forgot about that.
>and if that eternity exists outside of time,then so do we;we would be an
>oil painting for god's amusement.arent'nt we that already?
>I mean,he's constantly sending us floods,fire,pain,pestilage etc thoughout
>time;he must enjoy it,why else would he make us all suffer so much?
>
>
>stephen botha

I don't like to spend a lot of time thinking about heaven.  Jesus
describes his kingdom as a state of being, or a process of becoming.
He really never talks about it like a place.  I don't think it's
pie in the sky when you die, it's down on the ground while you're still
around.  It's the newness of life when you realize that you have
control over your thoughts.  It's the joy of realizing that you are
worthwhile and lovable.  It's the experiences that grow out of faith,
waking up each morning with a smile.  It's a "BE"-attitude seeking
to grow and to love and to be loved.  

The point of the beattitudes is that time should be spent being and 
doing what is right and not worrying about what others think or what 
rewards there will be.  The rewards for the beattitudes are not 
promises for the future, they are promises for now.  The 
singlehearted will see God, not in heaven, now, when they look at 
someone they will see God in that person.  The poor in spirit, those 
who own nothing, or in reality, nothing owns them, their mortgage, 
mother-in-law, sex, drugs, money, nothing owns them, they have the 
kingdom of God in their hearts.  Jesus is our example of how to 
live life in truth and love and courage.

So what's in heaven after we die?  What if a fetus decided to stop
growing, if there really is a world out there, I don't have to work
now, what does it benefit me to waste my time now.  And I only have
nine months to live, then I die to this supposedly new world that no
one has seen and come back to the womb.  And what's this about living
for 10, 50, 100 years.  What's so good about that, it must be boring.
After you've ingested all the nutrients you need day in and day out,
heart pumping, converting the nutrients into growing, 100 years of that
would be too boring.  

Could a fetus know what it meant to talk or sing?  Could it know
it could walk or play?  Could it know it could love and be loved?
Could it know that just plugging along, growing, that eventually
that growing would pay off in making him stronger and well equipped
to deal with his new life?  I has not seen nor ear heard nor has it
entered the heart of man what God has in store...

Joe Moore
From: mayne@ds2.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: New Age & "bizarre practices"
Date: 20 Nov 92 05:40:15 GMT
Reply-To: mayne@ds2.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <Nov.19.01.55.59.1992.815@geneva.rutgers.edu> massengale_m@cubldr.colorado.edu writes:
>Freedom of religion does not permit sacrificing virgins or drowning
>supposed witches.  It does permit worship of whatever deity one chooses,
>provided such worship does not interfere with other laws.  A good example
>(a controversial one, though) is the Supreme Court ruling that disallowed
>Native Americans the ritual use of peyote.

If I am wrong I ask that someone correct me, but I believe that you
are referring to Smith v. Oregon, and that even that most regretable
decision didn't actually disallow the ritual use of peyote. The case
started as a civil suit over a question of employment in a drug rehab
program. The court held that the plaintiff could be fired from such
a job after testing positive for drug use, his claim that the use of
peyote was in the practice of his religion notwithstanding. This is
not the same as disallowing such ritual use. A reasonable interpretation
of the opinion could be taken to permit the states to disallow the
use of peyote. But that was not the issue.

To their credit some Christian groups realized the issue of religious
liberty involved and supported Smith's position, by the way.

Bill Mayne

[Thanks for the information.  However the commentaries I've seen
suggest that one of the justices who led in formulating this decision
(Scalia?) intended a more widespread implication.  --clh]
From: mmrwlm@sn370.utica.ge.com (Wanda L McCrae)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: hell and heaven
Date: 22 Nov 92 23:04:13 GMT
Reply-To: mmrwlm@sn370.utica.ge.com
Organization: General Electric

In article 11849@athos.rutgers.edu, phys224@cantva.canterbury.ac.nz () writes:
+what happens if a christian marries an atheist (say) (as has happened with
+my parents) and they both die...how is it possible for the christian partner
+to be happy in heaven in the knowledge that their partner is suffering
+eternally?( a question for you fundementalists out there.)                     
+If it is possible,i don't think much of christians... if not,then what is the 
+use of heaven?
+
+stephen botha,new zealand.

Jesus answered a question similar to that one in Mark 12:18-25.  The
religious leaders came to Jesus and presented the following scenario:

A woman is married to a man with seven brothers.  By Mosaic law, if
her husband dies and they had no children, his brother should take her
as his wife and have children in his brother's place.  If each man
has her as a wife as the other brothers die, and none of them have children with her,
whose wife will she be in the resurrection?

Jesus said,"For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry,
nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven."
(verse 25, KJV)  Apparently, once in heaven, all marriage ties from earth
are forgotten.

---
______________________________________________________________________
Wanda L. McCrae            | "Free your mind and the rest will follow.
mmrwlm@sn370.utica.ge.com  |  Be color-blind.  Don't be so shallow!"
                                 - En Vogue
From: Whitten@fwva.saic.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Bored in Eternity...(NOT)
Date: 17 Nov 92 08:25:46 GMT
Organization: Science Applications Int'l, Corp. - Computer systems operation

>In article <Nov.13.02.17.43.1992.19268@geneva.rutgers.edu>, dwjurkat@mailbox.syr.edu (Jurkat) writes:
>Just exactly what do you do when you're in heaven?  Eternity is rather long. 
>
5gz8wakefiel@vmsf.csd.mu.edu writes:
>
>One of the only hints in the Bible is found in Revelation 22:3: "and the saints
>of God shall serve him."  Add this to I Corinthians 6:3, and use your imagina-
>tion.  If you need a jump start, see Wilbur Smith's "The Biblical Doctrine of
>Heaven."  He was a conservative Presbyterian at Fuller Seminary, and had the
>most wonderful imagination... He imagines us, each of us, as fully creative and
>artistic...  I hope so.
>                  
I'm glad you brought this up.  This matches my understanding exactly and 
even has an earthly corrollary to make it clearer.  I know when I start
acting in a creative manner (programming, drawing, etc.) that I don't seem
to notice time passing at all.  Usually I stop because I have other
obligations which draw my attention or because my body gives out (hunger,
sleep, eyes blurring, etc.)
 
One of the wondrous things we already know about heaven is that we will
have new bodies and that we will have enough time to fulfill any other
obligations. (Praise the Almighty)
 
We also know this creative work is serving G-d since we are part of
the present creation (albeit flawed).
 
Something to think about...
David Whitten (whitten.fwva.saic.com) US:(619)535-7764
From: ceb@dbrus.unify.com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Liberal/New Age Religion (Was: Santeria and animal-sacrifice)
Date: 16 Nov 92 03:11:31 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <Nov.11.02.29.10.1992.14838@geneva.rutgers.edu> schnaufe@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Bernard A Schnaufer) writes:
>altheimm@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Murray Altheim) writes:
>
>>Remember it was only this year that the Vatican recognized the possibility
>>that the earth is round. What they've done for science, they've done for
>>society. 
>
>I may be biased, but I detect a little bias in the above statement.
>
>[The first statement isn't so much biased as a mistake.  He was
>thinking of the announcement about Galileo, which of course is not the
>roundness of the earth but the fact that it orbits the Sun.  Even this
>is not really news to the Catholic Church.  They've accepted it for
>some time.  --clh]

The Catholic Church probably accepts as fact that the earth is an ovate
spheroid, not round (as well as its orbit).  What the Vatican did recently
wrt Galileo was lift his excommunication; that is, acknowledge (if one had
listened to the Pope's speech during the ceremony) that the 17th-century
Catholic theologians who excommunicated Galileo were mistaken in taking as
literal fact the Bible's descriptions and attributions of scientific and geo-
logical phenomena.  If the Catholic Church is as influential on society as
Mr. Altheim implies, one will shortly hear scientific creationism biting the
dust everywhere (not to mention everyone discovering the ability to acknow-
ledge their own mistakes).  One won't, of course.




Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244		---------------------+
|  "Do not overbake."							     |
|		- complete recipe instructions for Missy's Oatmeal Cookies   |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: massengale_m@cubldr.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: New Age paranoia
Date: 17 Nov 92 08:37:34 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

With due respect for Mr. Farell's patriotism, I would suggest that this
country is founded on Greco-Roman systems of government, as well as our
Judeo-Christian heritage.  Intolerance such as he proposes has already
brought many people to shores to become Americans.  Our country would be
less great without them.  Should we invite them to leave now?

I would further suggest that Jesus would not do this.  If anything, he
would throw out the "moneychangers in the Temple", like televangelists,
our modern Pharisees.   

Melanie
From: mayne@ds2.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: New Age paranoia
Date: 20 Nov 92 05:15:05 GMT
Reply-To: mayne@ds2.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <Nov.19.01.57.26.1992.826@geneva.rutgers.edu> altheimm@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Murray Altheim) writes:
>
>And in my experience, most pagans I have met are opposed to killing 
>animals for anything other than food, and believe that ALL life is 
>sacred...

In fact quite a few are opposed to killing animals even for food
and are consequently vegetarians.

In my opinion anyone who is not a vegetarian and who claims to
believe the Bible, which attributes specific instructions and
commandments for animal sacrifice to God, is extremely hypocritical
to condemn the few who practice animal sacrifice on moral grounds,
as opposed to theological disagreement. The fact that ritual animal
sacrifice is no longer practiced by main stream Christians nor
prescribed in the New Testament is no defense if you believe that
God today is the same as the one in the Old Testament.

Bill Mayne