HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: abigail@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Shawn Abigail)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT prophecy about praying for CLINTON
Date: 28 Jan 93 08:33:33 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON

In <Jan.27.00.34.07.1993.3173@athos.rutgers.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

>In article <Jan.26.04.45.08.1993.15077@athos.rutgers.edu> ogden_jon@macmail1.rtsg.mot.com (Jon Ogden) writes:
>>Reportedly the President is not a
>>Christian in the New Testament sense, but he is someone who is spiritually
>>open.  

>I think I have heard that both he and Gore call themselves born again 
>Christians.  I am not sure about that, but I know that Clinton is from a 
>Baptist background.  We do not know Clinton's heart.  Paul Cain said that
>the Clinton God showed him was not the Clinton we see is the press.  It
>is probably presumptious for us to say that he is not a Christian.  Paul Cain
>said that the Lord showed him that Clinton had a soft heart.  (that was not
>in the newsletter.)

I assume that the claim would be made that this Paul Cain is a prophet.
This morning I was reading one of the Old Testament passages that talks
about false prophets.  I am curious as to whether any of these modern
day prophets are willing to accept the penalty a false prophet would
receive if one of his prophesies did not come true.  It seems that many
of the modern prophets concentrate on conditional prophesies ("The Lord
will do this if we will be faithful enough").  It is true that the OT
does have conditional prophesies, but it also has the prophets making
unconditional declarations.  If a man gives a conditional prophesy, it
is easier for him to weasel out when it doesn't come true (I guess we
just were not faithful enough...). I guess the sum of what I am trying
to say is that to claim to be a prophet of God is a very serious matter,
and I am not terribly impressed with the "prophets" that I have heard
about in modern times.  What I would suggest (and this I know to be
true) is that we obey the words of 1 Timothy 2:1-4.

Shawn Abigail
abigail@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
From: ptfarre@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Peter Farrell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: ACLU Now Targetting Home Schools
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:17:30 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

If anyone is so equipped, could our readers clarify what I have read
and heard, that the ACLU is now engaged in a Virginia battle against
a family which is home schooling?

The essential elements of information (EEI's) are these:
	The family has been home schooling her since she was 5; she
is now 16 and not far from completing a high-school curriculum.
	The state of Virginia has a clever law that requires any student
above, say, 15, to state of their own accord that they prefer being
home schooled.
	The process whereby the student is required to do this is in
reality a low-level method of interrogation and testing by state appointed
psychologists and so-called educational experts; they seek any weakness
or excuse in this process to intervene and take the student out of the home.
	The family in question is a Christian family; they chose home
schooling out of their own ethical and religious convictions. They and
the daughter are refusing to send her into this process without support.
	The state has brought suit in an all-out power struggle; the ACLU
(not surprisingly) is billing itself as representing the girl's interests
against exploitation by her own family!
	The education board insists that the daughter report to this
hearing whether she likes it or not and un-accompanied.

If the EEI's listed above are true, then I offer yet another piece of
evidence to the skeptics out there who believe we Christians and home
school advocates are paranoid. We are not. This is (again, if true)
an instance of state power being exerted against a Christian family and
a Christian student because of their refusal to have their children
indoctrinated with unacceptable dogma of the new liberal left in this
nation.  If the above EEI's are not correct, will someone WHO IS INFORMED
please rectify the mistakes?  Thanks.
From: jsg1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JONATHAN SCOTT GIBSON)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: RE: PROPHECIES ABOUT CLINTON
Date: 28 Jan 93 09:02:27 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

I think that it's important for us to realize that we can't make judgments as
to what Clinton says.  Even demons know the Bible, if I am correct, the devil
even quoted scripture when he tempted Jesus, but I am not sure.  Anyway, the
point is that there are many people who claim to be Christians that are not.
The Bible also warns against false prophets in the end times and I believe we
are in the end times.  Nevertheless, the only thing that we can do is to pray
for Clinton and Gore whether we believe the prophecies or not.  We are to
submit to authority and we are to realize that God has appointed Clinton as
president as well meaning that he's there for a reason, though we may not know
it.
-- 
                        Jonathan Scott Gibson
                        JSG1@LEHIGH.EDU
                        BOX 479    X0264
From: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The Law
Date: 26 Jan 93 08:15:45 GMT
Reply-To: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman

In article <Jan.25.00.39.19.1993.4504@athos.rutgers.edu>  
pendleyiv@urvax.urich.edu (Vann Pendley) writes:
> This is my first post...
> 
> As a Christian, while those laws are good in nature, I/we are not a part  
of 
> that contract but rather the contract created by the coming of Jesus.   
This 
> conract is centered around love, to both God and your neighbor.  The 10 
> Commandments (guidelines) are important in understanding the basis for 
> Christianity but do not have _direct_ bearing on the Christian any more  
than
> the other, ie. dietary, laws of the Jewish covenant.
> 
> Vann
> PENDLEYIV@urvax.urich.edu

I do not fell that your statment is entirly correct.  Christ on many  
occasions refered to the ten commandments.  I feel He came,  in part, to  
clarify the law.  An example is that He said that anger at someone is the  
same as murder, lust = adultery, etc.. I am currently reading the book  
_Christianity is Jewish_.  It has a diffrent veiw point than that we just  
throw away the old.  Christ came to fufill, not to start religion over.

In Christ's Love,
Bryan
From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Science and God
Date: 28 Jan 93 08:48:53 GMT
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development

"Inventing the Flat Earth," by Jeffrey Burton Russell contains
considerable scholarship on the subject of Medieval perceptions of the
earth.  Russell also traces the source of the Flat Earth myth to from
its early conception to its widespread acceptance in the 19th century.
I highly recomment this book to interested readers.


Gregg Skinner
From: rpitts@darth.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: "...by his own hand upon papyrus" - a book
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:30:42 GMT
Organization: CERL/EE, Georgia Tech, Atlanta

I just ran across an advertisement for a book.  Its title
is "...by his own hand upon papyrus" and the following are
some points that it addresses:

    - it contains scholarly, irrefutable historical evidence
      that Mormon founder Joseph Smith lied when he claimed
      he translated the Book of Mormon (considered Scripture
      by the Mormon Church) from an ancient Egyptian papyrus.

    - it is tactfully written especially for Mormons.

    - it contains a spectacular 24 inch foldout panel with the
      first ever published full color photographs of the entire
      Joseph Smith Papyri collection.

The author is Charles M. Larson and it is available through
     Gospel Truths Ministies             ph. (616)451-4562
     1340 Monroe Ave., NW
     Grand Rapids, Michigan 49505-4604 

For your information,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu  |    Love and Worship God the Father and His Son, 
                      --|--            the Creator of the Earth. 
Pro-Life!          -|-  |  -|-  Come bow down in worship, let us kneel
Pro-Responsibility! |   |   |   before the Lord Our Maker.  Psalm 95:6
From: WESTBY@vm1.nodak.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Science and God
Date: 28 Jan 93 08:36:37 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network

First of all, thanks to all of those who have increased my understanding of
quantum physics tenfold.

The real question, I think, is not related to "time" per se.  Nor to "matter".
From a theistic perspective, these too are *creations*.  The real question is
why they exist at all.  To paraphrase Chardin, why is there *something* rather
than *nothing*?

The greatest mystery of the universe may not lie in its complexities, but in
the simple fact that there are mysteries to ponder. (A thought of mine based
roughly on the writings of Rabbi A.J. Heschel).  From this perspective,
questions about what was "time" before "time" existed as we know it are not so
important.

A few brief thoughts about the relationship between faith faith and reason:
a relationship to the Creator, to the Source of all being cannot be limited to
blind faith - for such a relationship would be terribly incomplete.  The mind
must play a role (our faith should make sense to us).  But I also believe that
the mind must realize its own limitations -- many experiences which make life
worthwhile have very little reason put into them.  Love, primarily.  And yet
we do not doubt love's existence.  My point is that trying to use only reason
to PROVE that God exists may be like using only reason to PROVE that I'm in
love with someone -- impossible and counterproductive.

Heschel put it best, I think.  "There are no proofs for God's existence.  Only
witnesses."

Finally, being a theist, I would like to advance a philosophical argument in
favor of theism.  When we ask ourselves why there is something rather than
nothing, we are left with two possibilities (at least that I can think of).
The first of which being that being has always been.  The second is that being
was created by some Being which transcends existence as we know it
(traditionally known as "God").  What we know of being suggests the second, I
think.  After all, being comes from being.  An egg comes from a chicken (or, to
be more precise, whatever physical process occurs in the egg-creation).  At any
rate, it doesn't "just happen."  It comes from somewhere.

If being comes from other being, this would tend to suggest that being could
not create itself.  So why is there anything?  How did it come to pass that
there is any being?  Is it logical that something like being has always been
here when we know it is in the nature of being to be created from other being?
The most logical conclusion I can think of is that of a Creator.

Anyway...thanks again for a fascinating discussion topic.  I'd love to hear any
comments...

                                      Westby@vm1.nodak.edu
From: mjsmith@cac.washington.edu (Martha Smith )
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: On _losing_ life
Date: 26 Jan 93 08:49:21 GMT
Organization: UW Computing

"Losing life" I have assumed means to give up the false self that we think of
as ourself in favor of the real self which is God.  Check out Thomas Merton's
Seeds of Contemplation on the topic.  Yes this done imply the giving up of all
attachment to position, wealth, etc. and a desire solely to model one's life
on that of Christ, the Suffering Servant
From: stovall@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Steven Stovall)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Harold Camping's "1994?" and your opion...please
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:20:45 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department

kim@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Mingoo Kim) writes:

>Hi. I've been a long listener of Harold Camping's "Open Forum" heard all across
>the US on Family Radio. And I have come to believe his study and his 
>translation of the Bible is correct. 

>What is your opion on him. Has anyone read his book "1994?" It's scary yet
>exciting to think the time is so near (if his studies are correct).

I too have been listening to Family Radio for years. I have great respect
for Harold Camping. Naturally, I dont blindly receive everything he has to
say (his peculiarly rigid abhorrence of tongues comes to mind), but I have
never questioned his commitment to the Lord Jesus and the preaching of
the Gospel of Salvation. I have not seen the book, but have heard him
discuss his thesis numerous times. The setting of dates for the Coming
of the Lord has always led to disaster, but many Christians, Jews, and
even Muslims believe we're close to the end of time. Whether this is
end of the millenium hysteria or not, I dont know. All I know is that
the Lord will raise me up on the Last Day.
_______________________________________________________________________________

steven stovall
stovall@exeter.cs.ucla.edu
(310) 825-7307
From: amadeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Wiccan?
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:20:31 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at Austin

It's me again, your friendly Witch-in-residence... :)

Just wanted to let you know that we'll be posting a FAQ sheet for
alt.pagan by Wednesday in the evening sometime, so perhaps that might
answer some of your questions about Wicca.

Look for it in news.answers.

-- 
-----Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik-------------------------------*<:-)-------------
"Queens never make bargains."  -- The Red Queen, _Through the Looking Glass_
-----amadeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu--------------The University of Texas @Austin---
From: dhammers@urbana.mcd.mot.com (David Hammerslag)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Handmaid (was "I feel threatened...")
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:17:43 GMT
Reply-To: dhammers@urbana.mcd.mot.com (David Hammerslag)
Organization: Motorola Computer Group, Urbana Design Center

--
In article <Jan.21.03.51.33.1993.17243@athos.rutgers.edu>, chuck@ssd.kodak.com
(Charles S. Collins 726-9461) writes:

| I would also recommend a new book by Virginia Mollenkott: "Sensuous 
| Spirituality: Out from Fundamentalism."  In the second chapter she
| contrasts Offred's story (from "Handmaid's Tale") with that of the Virgin
| Mary (the handmaid of God).  Interesting reading!
| 
| Warning:  If you are offended by inclusive language, particularly 
| references to God as female, beware.  Ms. Mollenkott intentionally
| refers to God as female to balance the deeply engrained notion
| that God is male.  Personally, I think she is right in doing so.

Can we assume that she also refers to the Devil as female, to balance the
deeply ingrained notion that the Devil in male?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Hammerslag (dhammers@urbana.mcd.mot.com)
   "...there ain't nobody so bad that the Lord can't save 'em ain't
        nobody so good they don't need God's love..." -- Mullins 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: RE: Online bible
Date: 22 Jan 93 08:43:47 GMT
Reply-To: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman

In article <Jan.21.04.23.25.1993.17628@athos.rutgers.edu>  
manning@halley.est.3m.com (Arthur T. Manning) writes:
> After posting the request, I found a reference to what I am looking for.
> The online bible is available via anonymous ftp from 
> wuarchive.wustl.edu    /doc/bible/ibm-pc  and /doc/bible/mac
> 
> I'm amazed that this stuff is FREE!!!!
> --
> Arthur T. Manning   <manning@halley.est.3m.com>                       O

There is also one by using telnet. It is at 192.31.181.1
Login as wais.
It is also free.

In Christ's Love,
Bryan
From: jfc@nic.cerf.net (Co Ho)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Existence of God
Date: 22 Jan 93 08:56:18 GMT
Organization: CERFnet Dial n' CERF Customer Group


	Have you read "When Skeptics Ask" by Geisler Brooks?  (ISBN
0-89693-766-6) - it does cover many different approaches for proving God's
existence (and many other topics) with logical reasonings.  It really
helps me a lot!

	On big-bang and disproving other theories of the beginning of the
universe, "The fingerprint of God" is extremely good, (written by a
physicist, it will sastify the technical argurment of some people.)

	On short reading, one of the recent Time magazine discuss about
the scientist's struggle to discover "God" - it doesn't provide a solid
conclusion, but there are a lot of information.

	Hope that helps.



-- 
Co Ho  - FJC Software Development | "..is there a vision that I can call my
321 E. Chapman Fullerton CA 92632 | own? Feel like I'm looking for a reason
(714) 992-7274 BBS:(714) 992-7754 | -roaming through the night-  to find my
Alt.Addr=xcho@ccvax.fullerton.edu | place in this world.."   MichaelW.Smith
From: mjsmith@cac.washington.edu (Martha Smith )
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: What are the Triads?  Who are the Irvingites?
Date: 25 Jan 93 04:47:51 GMT
Organization: UW Computing

St. Gregory Palamas, a well known saint/theologian especially in the
Orthodox circles, wrote The Triads.  A good translation is available
from Paulist Press.  There is also an interesting study on the
relationship between Palamas and the Sufi available.  Hesychasts (sp?)
are most closely associated with the Jesus Prayer and hence with the
Philokalia (3 of 5 volumes currently available in English ... several
good volumes of excerpts).  Probably Losky's Mystical Theology is the
best introduction.
From: topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Robert Conquest's _The Great Terror_
Date: 25 Jan 93 05:36:25 GMT
Organization: Applied Presuppositionalism, Ltd.

OFM writes:

> [As far as I know, all major branches of Christianity reject the
> accusation of "Christ-killer".  Most Christian meditations on the
> crucifixion put ourselves in the place of those who killed Christ.  He
> died because of *our* sins.  We don't truly understand our own sinful
> nature unless we understand that we would have shouted "Crucify!" as
> well.  So the crowd spoke not for Jews, but for humanity as a whole,
> but particularly for *us*.  --clh]

Well, yes and no.  Those of us who are His own share in the reason for His
death insofar as Jesus died for the sins of His people.  However, that
doesn't minimize the cupability of the specific Jews (and Romans) who had a
hand in actually putting Him to death, esp. the chief priests
 scribes and
pharisees.  They conspired to put Him to death (Mark 3:6).  They had the
kingdom taken from them as a result (Matt. 21:43).  Peter, in his first
serom, preached on the reality of the death of Jesus and the Jews' part in
it. The effect of that sermon was that 3000 people were saved (cf. Act
2:37). Jesus also declared that Jerusalem would be destroyed because of the
Jews' rejection of Him and their hand in His crucifixion (cf. Matt.
23:34-39; Luke 21:20).  Bloodguilt (cf. Matt. 27:25) is a serious offense
in the law of God (Deut. 21:6,7).  The people were held responsible for
violating those laws.

Nevertheless, the term "Christ-killer" is inappropriate to describe later
generations of Jews who had no hand in His death.

--
Tom Albrecht
From: jgj@travis.csd.harris.com (Jeff Jackson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Westminster Confession on line?
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:20:14 GMT
Organization: I would rather be windsurfing.

Does there exist a copy of the Westminster Confession in ASCII
anywhere?  Where can I get it?

Thanx.

Jeffrey Glen Jackson  _|_Satan jeered, "You're dead meat Jesus, I'm gonna
jgj@ssd.csd.harris.com |     bust you up tonight."
x5120                  | Jesus said, "Go ahead, make my day."
                   ~~~~~~~~~ -- Carman, "The Champion"
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Bye-bye Home Bible Studies
Date: 21 Jan 93 08:36:49 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <Jan.20.00.14.23.1993.941@geneva.rutgers.edu> dsegard@nyx.cs.du.edu (Daniel Segard) writes:
>     I know that such zoning laws did get passed in Colorado Springs
>several years back.  One guy had set up a home Bible Study fellowship that
>was meeting in his basement every Sunday morning and the city made him
>stop.  I gather the neighbors were complaining about all the cars parked
>on the street.  But I understand he only had 30 people max in his house,
>so I wouldn't think that it would be that bad.  The city said that he had
>established a church in his residence and that this was not permitted.  Of
>course the early church always met in homes and never had dedicated
>buildings for that purpose, so I suppose someone could argue that there is
>a mandate there....  <grin>

If I might point out, I suspect that those people who went to the early
church did not have larges numbers of cars parked in front of their
homes.  I suspect that you will find you can have as many people as you
can fit in you homw provided that you (1) do not expect them to be allowed
to park cars in large quantities on the streets and (2) do not disturb
the peace.

>     Nevertheless, this sort of government intrusion into what a person
>can or cannot do in their home is unwelcome by many. ..
>Whether they are all watching a football game, or whether they
>are meeting for prayer or whatever, should be covered by privacy laws.

But the cars will be in a public place (the street), and that is a gov't
concern.
From: ross@cc.gatech.edu (Rosario DSouza, J)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: A beginner's question
Date: 26 Jan 93 08:25:19 GMT
Reply-To: ross@cc.gatech.edu (Rosario DSouza, J)
Organization: College of Computing, Georgia Tech

In article <Jan.22.03.47.52.1993.6062@athos.rutgers.edu> ross@cc.gatech.edu (Rosario DSouza, J) writes:
>Hi,
>
>I am a relatively new Christian, and I have the following question.
>
>Some people tell me that some parts of the Bible should be taken
>literally, and some parts should not. My question is: how does one
>discern which parts are to be taken literally and which should not?
>
>
>..Ross D'Souza
>ross@cc.gatech.edu

Thanks very much to all who have responded to my question (by email,
as well as on the newsgroup). I have received a LOT of replies, and
I'll try to thank each one of you individually, but if I don't get a
chance to do so, please accept my thanks now.

..Ross D'Souza
ross@cc.gatech.edu