HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Question on the Bible
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:28:56 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <Sep.29.02.25.57.1992.2253@athos.rutgers.edu> e_p@unlinfo.unl.edu (edgar pearlstein) writes:
>saruman@cats.ucsc.edu (Friend of Entropy) writes:
>
>
>>	
>    ... There follow many quotes illustrating the horrible attitude of the
>     on slavery and on the treatment of women.
>
>>-Nick
>
>     He missed a lot, or maybe he just got tired looking.  Here are some
>additional horrors from the Bible on the subjects of slavery and women:...
>


Is there a point to this thread???  Maybe the point you two are trying to make
is that because certain conditions that God allows to exist don't fall 
into your 'human' sense of justice  or righteousness that you decide to pass
judgment on God.  What a shame.  It has been my observation that there are
four different types of people who wish to cling to the Bible:

1) Those that accept the word of God as truth even if parts are hard to understand
   or seem contrary to our human way of thinking (Is 55:8-9 "For my thoughts are
   not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.  For as the
   heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my
   thoughts than your thoughts.")
   
2) Those who accept only those parts of the Bible that they either understand or
   that fit into their own beliefs.  (e.g. Denying the parting of the Red Sea and
   attributing it to some non-miraculous event...  e.g. Throwing out the epistles
   of Paul because you don't like what he has to say about the role of the woman)

3) Those who only look for one thing and no further...(e.g.  God is love.  But let's
   forget that he is also holy, just, merciful, etc)

4) Those who reject the authority of the scriptures totally because they can't
   reconcile certain attributes of God or certain actions by God to their own
   thinking.  (Essentially the opposite of #1 above).

It seems to me the above thread fits into #4 and that perhaps shouldn't even be
in a newsgroup called soc.religion.christian.  Maybe soc.religion.humanism would
be a better place for it.

Mark
From: cctr114@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Rea)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: How we are seen (Was Re: Question on the Bible)
Date: 6 Oct 92 04:38:40 GMT
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Bill Rea (cctr114@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz) wrote:
> 
> Just by way of information to readers of s.r.c, I replied to the article
> on Questions on the Bible both in s.r.c and twice by e-mail setting out
> an alternative view of the Bible and the Church which is closer to
> what is actually practiced. The original poster did not (to the best
> of my knowledge) reply to my posting and has not replied to either of
> my e-mails. 

I have had a reply from Nick, and he did get my e-mails but unintentionally 
deleted them. I apologise for maligning his character as he is a genuine
seeker. I sent him a copy of my e-mail and I have received a good reply
from him.
-- 
                                                                     ___
Bill Rea                                                            (o o)
-------------------------------------------------------------------w--U--w---
| Bill Rea, Computer Services Centre, | E-Mail   b.rea@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
From: snorthc@relay.nswc.navy.mil (Stephen Northcutt - E41)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: God's Slaves? (Was Re: Question on the Bible)
Date: 3 Oct 92 06:17:13 GMT
Organization: NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER

Liz Broadwell wrote an excellent followup.  I truly enjoyed reading
it!  I hope that when I take snippets here and there I do not misquote
or bend any meaning.

I wrote:
>  we ALL choose to be slaves of either God or Satan.

The context if you see the previous posts is that you/I ARE  slaves,
the only question is whether you serve a master (the world) or a Master
(God in The kingdom).

Liz writes:
> Slavery sounds like an involuntary relationship

Yes I am trying to convey this exact point.... that you WILL serve is
involuntary, consider the last roundup.... every knee shall bow.....

Liz:
> "Servant" is for me a better term in the context.

What if a large body of people were captured as prisoners of war and
brought to a kingdom to be slaves.  Some of those people might choose
to actively fight against the kingdom. others might be just plain lazy
and try to avoid any work... kind of a passive resistance sort of thing.
But this class of folk are clearly slaves.

Consider further that some might work within the rules and regulations
of the kingdom and rise to a high position, sort of like Daniel did, or
the centurion that struck Paul when the Jews had him apprehended.  They
were slaves who became servants.

Having said all of this, I don't want to get into a battle of
semantics about the choice of the word servant and the word slave.
The information I was trying to convey was that you will serve (service
itself is involuntary) and you get to choose who you serve. 

Now the obligatory dueling scriptures carefully chosen to support our
points :-)  Durn and I am caught with but my Nearly Inspired Version (NIV):
Liz, John 15:15: "I no longer call you slaves,.....

Me:
Col. 3 22-24
     4 1 "Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because
you know that you also have a Master in heaven."

For what it is worth, I came to my understanding of these concepts when
trying to prepare a talk for the juvenile detention center in Sep.
I was going to talk about freedom, and was bopping through a Strong's
concordance and an NAS study bible..... freedom/liberty has very interesting
meaning(s): 1 Cor 10 23, Gal 5 1.  I ended up canning the freedom idea and
instead talked about the three jailbreaks in Acts (they liked that :-)
From: rpgrant@vax.path.ox.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Non-Religious Practice
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:39:50 GMT
Organization: Oxford University Molecular Biology Data Centre

In article <Sep.30.01.27.51.1992.7171@geneva.rutgers.edu>, jwong@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Jack Wong) writes:
> 
[much deleted] 
>     In the end, my point is that there must be something besides the
>     Bible that can I refer to in finding the truth.  For example,
>     if the Ark of Noah or whatever you called it could be found.  

"What is Truth?" asked (joking?) Pilate.  It's a great shame he didn't wait 
for an answer.  Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life".
In all respect, I think the best way to find the answers to your questions is 
to ask Him directly.  Ask God to show you the truth.  We Christians believe He 
answers all who call on Him - try it!

Best of luck in your searching!!

Richard Grant

[I don't think most commentators's see Pilate as joking.  Rather, it
seems to indicate a degree of cynicism, or perhaps discouragement with
the political position he was in.  --clh]
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Men's/Women's Roles in Marriage
Date: 5 Oct 92 01:36:30 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

CS Lewis (Mere Christianity) presents the idea as the husband is responsible
for foreign affairs, while the wife runs domestic affairs.  It seems to be
an interesting idea, and one certainly couldn't say that the man's role is
more important than the woman's.  (Just ask George Bush about the importance
of domestic affairs :-)
From: ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu (Alison Rebecca Colman)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: The Christian Coalition
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:58:01 GMT

Hello,

I hope this is the proper newsgroup to post this question. I am
searching for the address of the main office for the Christian
Coalition, and so far I have been unsuccessful. If anyone could please
help me out, I would be very appreciative. Thanks very much in advance!

Cheers,
Alison Colman
From: rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ralph Reid III)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: thought for the day (9-28)
Date: 29 Sep 92 07:02:59 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

Monday, September 28:

     Earnestly [endeavor] to observe the oneness of the spirit in the 
uniting bond of peace.  <Ephesians 4: 3>

-- 
Ralph.  N6BNO.
Phone 1-916-345-9155.
lectromail- rreid@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu.
I do not waste time expressing others' opinions!
From: klopfer@natinst.com (Mike Klopfer)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Questions about the Bible
Date: 5 Oct 92 02:01:44 GMT
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX

The problem I see with this is that we are starting with our own
definitions of good, God etc and arriving at the conclusion that God
isn't good. This leads us to the conclusion that good comes from
within ourselves. Since it is up to me to determine and create good
it isn't suprising that I should (and who doesn't) find a definition
that justifies me. We are all involved in this same process and it was
in this same activity that the new testament writers where confronted
by a totally different expression of good i.e. Jesus. In their account
they speak of God taking the form of a servant apparently destroyed
by the power of evil. In spite of the fact that they had concluded
that evil had overcome good, confronted by the resurrected living
Jesus they were compelled to see in these events God overcoming our
evil, life overcoming death , love overcoming hate. They were shown
this not primarily in God doing away with evil somewhere out there
but His doing away with evil in me where it is most needed. They
found that this perspective could only be found and sustained in
encounter with the living Jesus. It was not to be found in some
new theory of God or good and evil that was independent of or could
be assumed apart from that encounter. In this love they found that
they could genuinely love their neighbor as Jesus had done and
commanded them to do. 

I'm not intending to trivialize the problem that you have expressed.
I just think it is basically the same problem we all have in thinking
that we are or should be the source of right and love confronting a
reality of hate and destruction. Given these assumptions it is very
easy for us to excuse ourselves if we find it difficult or impossible
to love our neighbor. The problem is that we don't begin to understand
what God or good are and we must let God show us. If we look to His
revelation in Jesus we find that His reality and love are far greater
than what can be derived from our assumptions and definitions.

I look forward to your comments

mike
From: simon@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Beverly Simon)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Name It & Claim It
Date: 2 Oct 92 04:48:44 GMT
Reply-To: simon@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Beverly Simon)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In soc.religion.christian, cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) writes:
>Can someone please explain to me the concept of Name it and claim it taught
>by Copeland and Fred Price??
>
>All I've ever heard was it was bad.
>
>Can someone send/post Scriptuial references on why it is legit/not legit??
>
>Thanx a lot!!!!!
>
>Chris
>
>cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu

Hi Chris,

I am one of those Name It and Claim It fanatics.  Interesting enough
I happened to come across an article in Ever Increasing Faith Messenger
Summer 1989 pertaining to this topic. One scriptural reference is in
Proverbs 18:21 "Death and Life are in the power of the tongue and they
that love it shall eat the fruit thereof".  There are several scriptual
references in the article written by Dr. Price.

If you would like I'll be more than happy to mail you a copy of the
article, just send me a copy of your mailing address.  Also if you write
Ever Increasing Faith Ministries, Crenshaw Christian Center Post Office
Box 90000, Los Angeles, Ca.  90009 (Dr. Frederick K.C. Price) or Kenneth
Copeland Ministries P.O. Box 961010 Forth Worth Texas  76161-9984, I
know that they will be more than happy to respond to any questions that
you may have on this matter.

Again, if I could be of any assistance to share what information I have
and literature I will be more than happy. In Jesus Name.


God Bless
Beverly
From: Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Steve Hayes)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Cell Group Churches
Date: 28 Sep 92 01:16:24 GMT

On <21 Sep 1992 22:45> Resident.Alien (5:7104/2) said to All :

 RA>I'm not sure what a 'Cell Group' church is, that is, its precise
 RA>definition.  Something patterned after the church that Paul Yonggi Cho
 RA>pastors in Seoul, perhaps?  I have heard about a swelling movement of
 RA>home churches in England from friends here and acquaintances there.
 RA>I'm a member of a fairly non-traditional church, but I've no idea if it
 RA>would fall under the moniker of 'cell group' or 'home' church.  I'd
 RA>like to take a stab at describing it and how it differs from the
 RA>traditional chruch model.

There have been many different kinds of "Cell group" or "house church", so it 
might be hard to agree on a definition. 

The first time I heard about such things was from an Anglican priest from 
England, who had been in a parish where they had house churches. This was in 
Halton, Leeds. It has been described in a book called "The parish comes 
alive" by Ernie Southcott. It deals with what happened in the late 1940s and 
early 1950s. They found the parish church was too big for the kind of family 
fellowship and ministry you described. When you have several hundred people, 
the interaction between them is inevitably more structured and impersonally 
organized. 

In Halton they said that if the only place the church is to be found is 
inside the parish church, then there are large areas that they have given up 
to the devil. They must heep the devil on the hop so that he doesn't know 
where the church is going to pop up next. So they have the church in the 
street, the church in the block, meeting in people's houses, and ministering 
and witnessing where they live. They would also meet in the houses of those 
who were not members of the church. Enquirers, nominal Christians who 
asked for their children to be baptized because it was the "done" thing, 
people who wanted a "church wedding", suddenly found that the church was all 
around them - next door, across the road, down the street. They found that 
Christ was not safely locked up in that building several blocks away, but 
that he might actually come into their houses, into their lives. 

So that is one model of a cell group, if you like. There are many others, 
such as the one you described. The only difference is that you seemed to see 
"cell churches" as an alternative to the bigger "parish" church, whereas in 
the model I have described they were seen as complementary.

the unworthy servant of God

Steve
--  
INTERNET: Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
via:  THE CATALYST BBS in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
       (catpe.alt.za)   +27-41-34-1122 HST or +27-41-34-2859, V32bis & HST.
From: ptfarre@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Peter Farrell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Sandy Patti Divorce??
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:59:20 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

In article <Sep.24.00.01.35.1992.3440@athos.rutgers.edu> ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:
>... 
>I wasn't going to comment, but this caught my eye.  Since Sandi Patti is
>a public figure, then everyone who knows of her divorse is forced to make
>a decision - do I still buy her tapes/go to her concerts, or not.  If the
>former then the person is judging that the divorse is acceptable, if the
>latter, that it is unacceptable.
>
>You CANNOT not judge a public figure in this situation.
>
In response to which, the moderator writes: 
>[Do we really buy music based on judgements of the personal character
>of the author?  I can understand that there are people who personal
>character makes one recoil from their works.  This happens to me in
>some cases.  But when there's doubt, it would seem to me that we could
>make our decision based on the quality and message of their works
>itself, without feeling forced to judge them personally.  --clh]

I cannot disagree more strongly with the moderator. 
I cannot agree more strongly with Mr. Ward. 

I have found it very difficult to enjoy any artist's message after
learning that the artist as a person was a living contradiction of
the content of the work.  There can be no more powerful negation 
of any work than by its own creator. 

This is magnified tenfold if the artist is a Christian whose work 
conveys truths about the Kingdom and whose artistic skill
results in extraordinary reknown. A Christian who achieves fame has
a double burden, whether they agree with it or not. 

It is with good reason that the scriptures warn, "Let not many
of you become teachers, brethen". This applies in our time to
the super-famous Christian artists and speakers. Would Dr. Graham's
ministry suffer no loss if he were exposed as a womanizer or a
swindler? 

> "...When there's doubt, it would seem to me that..." 
The more I read of the story, the smaller the doubts. 

We can't condemn the lady, no. We can't condemn Mr. Warnke, either.
But who can seriously believe that hearing her songs and then hearing
that she left her husband (he seeks reconciliation; she has nixed it)
can have no impact?  Even though we do not pass judgment on her, her
work is marred.  So too is the work (if we can call a fraudulent book
"work") of Mr. Warnke. To forgo judgment of them as people is one thing;
to say their lives are no contradiction, however, is an appalling
refusal of the facts.

-- 
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."
From: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Name It & Claim It
Date: 29 Sep 92 06:46:17 GMT
Reply-To: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos

Can someone please explain to me the concept of Name it and claim it taught
by Copeland and Fred Price??

All I've ever heard was it was bad.

Can someone send/post Scriptuial references on why it is legit/not legit??

Thanx a lot!!!!!


Chris


cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu
From: ptfarre@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Peter Farrell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: In Defense of a Little Virginity
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:59:42 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

In article <Sep.18.23.44.14.1992.14296@athos.rutgers.edu> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>... 
>If you wish to oppose abortion, you MUST accept pregnant
>students. The hypocrisy of many "Conservatives" on this issue
>is stunning. They claim to oppose abortion, yet their
>encouragement of the view that pregnancy is a punishment for
>illegitimate sex, and wish to extend that punishment by social
>sanctions must surely send thousands to the abortion clinics.
>
>Matthew Huntbach

Mr. Huntbach,
I do not know which conservatives you have been speaking with or
listening to. But the social conservatives I read have never listed
pregnancy as punishment from God for anything.  Our view (that is,
my own and other conservatives of like mind) is that a conceived
human being is still human life; the main thing separating your
level of growth and maturity from theirs is time. We don't see 
any equity or fairness in destroying that life, be it
embryonic or otherwise.

This doubtless satisfies none of the "What about rape and incest" crowd,
but we find that the vast majority of women seeking abortions in the
United States are seeking them for reasons associated with what
can only be called sexual immorality in the Bible; the baby is
either inconvenient or embarrassing and so they seek any solution
short of carrying the child to term.

I once worked in a crisis pregnancy center; most of our visitors
were young, attractive, middle-class girls who had a problem
associated with (to quote this morally loose age) "going too far".

Best Regards (and I mean that) 
PTF  

-- 
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."
From: oueichek@imag.fr (Ibaa Oueichek)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Orthodox Saints?
Date: 28 Sep 92 02:38:03 GMT
Organization: IMAG Institute, University of Grenoble, France

Liz Broadwell (anonymous@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu) wrote:
: How did/do the Orthodox Churches go about canonizing saints?  While I'm pretty
: sure that the RCC and the Orthodox share some saints from the early days of
: Christianity, I've never heard about any specifically Orthodox saints.  I was
: wondering in particular whether anyone had been canonized recently, and if so,
: for what reason.

  Saints canonizing have never stopped in the Orthodox church. It's the
chruch's council which canonize saints. I think the last one which has been
canonized was a munk who lived in Athos during the 19th century. The reason
was his contribution to Orthodox (thus Christian) theology through his books.
(Sorry, i can't recall the name, because it's Greek). But it's true that all
the saints canonized are much less known than early saints, the last "great"
father of the church is considered to be St John of Damascus.

G-D bless.
: 
: 
: * 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: norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Extempore prayer
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:48:48 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <Sep.27.21.11.53.1992.626@athos.rutgers.edu>, jonh@david.wheaton.edu (Jonathan Hayward) writes:

|> When I pray outside of prescribed forms, however, it is acting _in_the_Holy_
|> _Spirit._ The Holy Spirit is the check on me producing errors that would taint
|> my beliefs and my understanding of God.

But how can you account for all the well-intentioned people who started out 
as orthodox Christians and ended up in doctrinal errors?  It would be 
presumptuous to say that they sought the assistance of the Holy Spirit less than 
you.

I'm not saying that the Holy Spirit doesn't direct you away from error and
into the truth; but it almost sounds as if you were claiming a sort of 
infallibility.  You don't really intend that, do you?

Your biC,
-_RC
From: saruman@cats.ucsc.edu (Nicholas Patrick Popoff)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Question on the Bible
Date: 3 Oct 92 06:10:26 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz

(Im very sorry, but i have lost the name of the person i am replying too)

>Well no, I wasn't implying God's judgment is flawed, but that equality
>of the sexes is a new concept that might well not survive another quarter
>of a century... put more bluntly, you could be wrong here.  

>Put aside the "current state of sexual politics" as you put it.  Now
>in strict logical truth, do men = women?  No!  The ability to conceive
>comes to mind immediatly.  Now why oh why would you bet your immortal
>soul on such an issue?

	Is it impossible to be Feminist and Christian?  It appears so.
The cause of equal rights for all is NOT a trend, and YES, i would and
will bet my immortal soul on that.

>Well er uh, I understand that there are passages in the Bible that
>trouble you, that is one thing.  But does it make any sense for you
>to dictate what God is supposed to believe?

	Well, there you go.  NO, i have no right to dictate what God is
sposed to believe.  However, if i am horified by his mandates in a war
to kill ALL of the enemy, including women and children, cant i say:
"Well, that God is not worth worshiping.  Lets move on."  

-nick