HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bill@bessel.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Door-to-Door evang..
Date: 16 Nov 92 03:31:28 GMT
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

shimeall@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall) writes:

>First:
>  You've got to realize that door-to-door evangelism is _in_general_
>not very effective.  The number of people who will respond positively
>to the gospel from a complete stranger is small, and the number who will 
>follow that response with involvement with a church, Bible study or
>other discipling group is smaller still.  People respond more often to
>people they _know_ care about them, rather than those they think are
>just  "getting another notch in the ol' Bible".

I agree with this, and I'll go further: such evangelism is 
actually counter-productive, and likely to turn people 
against your message. The evangelizer is very likely to
be viewed as self-righteous, condescending, and presumptuous.
People aren't going to respond positively to evangelisers
who are perceived this way. 

There is also danger to yourself. The door-to-door 
evangelist is going to be turned down over and over.
What will he think to himself? Will he feel pity for 
the person who has rejected his message? Will he 
(like the Pharisee) praise God that he is not like
other men? The traps can be very subtle.

If you really want to spread your message effectively,
live your life in such a manner that others will want to
imitate you. Volunteer your time to help the poor, the
downtrodden, the sick, those of whom Jesus was speaking
when he said, "inasmuch as you have done it to the least
of these, you have done it to me." (See also Mt. 5:16).

Bill
From: turtle@brahms.udel.edu (Anthony J Collins)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Lost Salvation
Date: 15 Nov 92 23:23:15 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

Can I have the Book Chapter and verse to back up the statement, "It is
impossible for an Elect Son of God to blaspheme the Holy Spirit".  YOU 
WILL NOT FIND IT!

Tony
From: jfb@macsch.com (John Baskette)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The pope and Galileo
Date: 16 Nov 92 02:54:29 GMT
Organization: MacNeal-Schwendler Corp.

In article <Nov.13.01.55.53.1992.19125@geneva.rutgers.edu> altheimm@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Murray Altheim) writes:

>During the formation of the early Christian Church, there were many 
>contending sects during the formation of the canon and Church dogma.
>The sum total of our knowledge of these sects comes from Irenaeus,
>a Roman bishop. I've heard Irenaeus described in almost the same terms
>as Galileo -- totally convinced, evidence or not, pretty vehement about
>propagating and defending his ideas. In fact, being labelled heretical
>back in those days wasn't quite the same as a simple excommunication.
>It sometimes meant death.
>
>My point is that when discussing "heretical" Christian sects of the 
>period, we are in many cases relying almost solely on evidence from
>a hostile source, that is, one who violently disagreed with the 
>subject he was writing about. Witness much of the early history of the
>Native American peoples.
>
>And our history regarding Galileo was also written by hostile sources.

I have two questions:

1.)  The poster seems to imply that heresy in the 2nd century of Irenaeus
     time could result in the execution of the heretics.  My understanding
     is that the early Church never resorted to violence to propogate
     the faith, and that the first time heretics were ever executed was in
     the late 4th century, a good 350 years after the time of Christ and 
     the apostles.  Am I wrong?  I am not well versed in Church History.
     Are there any good reference works that document the use of violence
     and persecution of unbelievers by the early Christian Church?

2.)  Concerning Galileo, do we not have original source materials in the
     form of the writings of Galileo and other contemporaries?  Is it the
     fact of the case that we must rely on exclusively hostile secondary
     sources?
    
Thanks.

John
From: han@npg-sd.sandiegoca.ncr.com (Chuck Han)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: There is no god, REALLY?
Date: 19 Nov 92 06:58:08 GMT
Organization: NCR Corp., Network Products - San Diego

In <Nov.18.01.23.05.1992.6880@klinzhai.rutgers.edu> msh9848@hertz.njit.edu (-Unknown-) writes:

>This is a challenge to Xtians out here. Convince me to believe in Xtianity 
>without quoting the bible. If you prefer , do it by email. 
>I do not believe that "god" gave man the bible nor do I believe in
>god, heaven or hell. Also I can not be convinced using hell fire and
>brimstone fear tactics.

I can think of so many smart-ass replys to your posting, but I
didn't think that would be Christian like.  I must say, it was
tempting though(Gee, that explains why there are so many Christians
including myself, are still in this spring training).

Matt, you know a lot about Christianity already.  You heard that:

	STUFF YOU HEARD ALREADY			IGNORE THIS PART
	==============================		================
	God exists. 				Psalms 115:3             
	Bible was given by God. 		2 Timothy 3:16
	Heaven & Hell exists.			Matthew 13:42-43

I am sure you also heard that:
	Everyone is a sinner.			Romans 3:10
	Sinners must die.			Romans 6:23a
    but God gave us the eternal life		Romans 6:23b
	  as a gift through Jesus 
	  Christ our Lord.
    So, If you confess your with your   	Romans 10:9-10
  	  mouth, Jesus is Lord, and 
	  believe in your heart that
	  God raised Him from the dead,
	  you will be saved.

Did you ever receive a gift, Matt?  I am sure you've received lots 
of gifts for Christmas, Birthdays, Graduations, etc.  But, when you 
saw those gifts about to be handed over to you, did you challenge your 
parents, relatives, friends to MAKE you receive them?   Probably not.  
You freely accepted them, becase you knew they loved you.  Right Matt?  

Same thing with Jesus. Eternal life in heaven is a GIFT from God.  
It's up to you to accept it or you can ignore it. It's up to you, Matt.
God doesn't MAKE anyone to receive him as a gift, including yourself.
I know, it's too expensive of a gift.  I felt the same way, that's
why it took so long before I could accept it.

Hope you accept the once in a life time gift on this upcoming Christmas.

Maranatha,
CHuck

P.S.  Sorry about the references to the Bible.  I guess I am
      disqualified as a challenger to convince you.
From: philip@uswest.com (Philip Bowermaster)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Superman buys the farm
Date: 20 Nov 92 06:17:59 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

I think that Superman has been recognized as something of a Christ figure 
for quite a while. Witness the traditional costume of the Christ character 
in the musical Godspell. And while I don't want to to join in the fray 
with the intellectual giants who are *truly* capable of debating the 
all-important question of "Who makes the better Christ figure Q Spock or 
Superman?"  :^)  , there is one assertion made by OFM himself that I can't let go unchallenged. Namely...

>[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.

If Superman is a dangerous image of Christ, then I think we should all be 
agreed that the character of Aslan in C. S. Lewis's Narnia series is 
heretical if not downright satanic. I hope it's clear to everyone that we 
most specifically do not claim that Jesus was a big talking lion. 
I guess that calls for another one of these  :-) .

As I understand it, the whole idea behind making a literary image of Jesus 
is not to teach the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but rather to 
draw a parallel that provides a fresh perspective. As such, I think that 
Aslan, Spock, and Superman will all work to some extent. I think the 
latter two are inferior for a number of reasons, not the least of which is 
that they were not originally or entirely intended as such.

The point is, a literary image of Christ is good for what it is and as far 
as it goes. Clearly, it should not be mistaken for the real thing. (That 
would be idolatry, I think.) But if you reject one of them for being 
theologically incomplete or inaccurate, you have to reject them all for 
that reason.


While we're on the subject, how do people feel about E.T.?




--Phil--

                           
We're talking about the PHONE COMPANY, here. The phone company simply 
doesn't form opinions on this kind of stuff. This is all me.

[The reason I consider Superman dangerous but not Aslan is that
the idea of Jesus as Superman is a common misunderstanding of the
Christian position.  I don't think many people think Jesus was
a talking lion.  --clh]
From: jkk@aiai.ed.ac.uk (John Kingston)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Bored in Eternity...
Date: 18 Nov 92 06:26:48 GMT
Reply-To: jkk@aiai.ed.ac.uk (John Kingston)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

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. 

1/ Work. God appears to have ordained work for Man *before* the Fall in Genesis
chapter 3. Evidence: 

a/ In Gen 2:19-20, Adam names the animals. While some people may not consider
this to be particularly hard work, the act of naming in Hebrew culture implies
an authority similar to that of a slave-owner. [Perhaps Adam was the first
senior manager :-)].

b/ In Gen 3: 17 - 19, God curses the ground and states that Adam will eat
the produce of the ground "in sorrow". The implication is that Man tilled the
ground before the Fall, and maybe ate the produce as well. (Contrast also 2:5
with 2:7).

I guess Heaven - or at least, the "new earth" (Rev 21:1-2) - may be like Eden
in this respect. 

2/ Meet other saved people (Rev 21:24)

3/ Worship Jesus. While this may sound boring - and personally, I hate the
idea of spending eternity sitting on a cloud wearing a nightdress and
strumming a harp [or even worse, one long church service, of any denomination
:-)] - the presence of the Living Lord seems to have had a dramatic effect on
those who have seen Him, whether in reality or in a vision. Look at the effect
on Saul on the Damascus Road or John in Revelation 1. There are also some
fascinating 20th century examples from people who have had near-death
experiences - Betty Malz is one who has written about her experiences. The
gist of all these examples seems to be that actually meeting Jesus, and
looking into his eyes, has an a indescribable yet wonderful effect on people.

JK


John Kingston,                               | 
Knowledge Engineering Methods Group,         | The heart of the problem
AIAI, University of Edinburgh                | is the problem of the heart
E-mail jkk@aiai.ed.ac.uk, phone 031-650 2736 |
From: anonymous@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Liz Broadwell)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Wanted: Eschatology References
Date: 16 Nov 92 02:54:39 GMT
Organization: Society of Independent Newswaifs

A friend of mine has been commissioned to lead a discussion on eschatology and
how we should deal with it in our daily lives.  She's looking for some good
references, particularly (but not exclusively) those concerning the RC
Christian perspective on these matters.  Can anyone suggest some good books?

BTW, I've posted several requests-for-info to this group, and I'm always glad
to see how willingly people respond -- Christian charity in the intellectual
realm.


* 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: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Oneness Pentecostals
Date: 17 Nov 92 07:57:13 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo

In article <Nov.15.18.09.00.1992.23242@geneva.rutgers.edu>, rowland@tne01.tele.nokia.fi writes...
> 
>  I was reading a report concerning one mission event in which the 
>  choir was a 'Oneness Pentacostal' choir.  The inference in the 
>  article was that this was a discredit to the enterprise, but I 
>  didn't understanding why.  Does anyone out there know anything 
>  about the distinctives of 'Oneness Pentecostals' ?

	They have a modalistic view of the Godhead. They believe that 
Jesus was the Father, and that He is the Spirit. They therefore baptize 
in the name of Jesus. They believe that one has to be baptized to be 
saved. They believe that unless one receives the baptism in the Holy Spirit 
accompanied by speaking in tongues, that one is not saved.

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
From: mayne@sun16.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: New Age & "bizarre practices"
Date: 23 Nov 92 02:07:22 GMT
Reply-To: mayne@sun16.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <Nov.20.00.40.12.1992.10854@athos.rutgers.edu> mayne@ds2.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne) writes:
>
>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 issue in Smith v. Oregon] 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.
>
>[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]

That is what I said, except that I didn't name Scalia. His opinion
went beyond what was necessary to settle the case before the court,
and has been criticized as right wing judicial acitivism partly for
that reason. However one justice's extraneous comments don't have the
same precendent setting effect as the actual decision applied to the
question before the court.

It has been pointed out to me in email that there may be more to it
than this, that Oregon didn't have an exemption to the law against
peyote in its laws and Smith's argument of religious justification
was over ruled on that basis. I am not sure of the accuracy of this
or other details. In any case the Smith decision and specifically
Scalia's opinion seems to indicate a disturbing trend.

Bill Mayne
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Denver Church of Christ (long)
Date: 20 Nov 92 05:49:14 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <Nov.19.02.12.06.1992.947@geneva.rutgers.edu> mdw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (mark.d.wuest) writes:
>I had a discipler tell me I was seeing my favorite girl too
>much.  I asked our evangelist what HE thought.  Sort of quote: "He
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>said WHAT!?!?"  He married us a little over 19 months ago.  ;-)

I noticed your use of "our evangelist" in this article.  Do mainline
Churches of Christ recognize the office of evangelist?  What is
a "Boston" Church of Christ evangelist, and how is he different
from an evangelist in evangelical circles, say, like Billy Graham or
Reinhardt Bonnke?

Link Hudson.
From: jmrg9881@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon Reid)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Christian Jokes
Date: 18 Nov 92 09:38:54 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

>This from the "Pontius Puddle" strip in a recent United Church Observer:

Here's another one from Pontius' Puddle:

Pontius: Sometimes I'd like to ask God why He allows poverty, famine,
         and injustice when He could do something about it.

Friend:  What's stopping you?

Pontius: I'm afraid God might ask me the same question.
-- 
Jon Reid    j-reid@uiuc.edu    GEnie: THE.REIDS
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."
From: altheimm@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Murray Altheim)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Found RSV Bible for you.
Date: 18 Nov 92 10:18:01 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

I'm sorry I lost the original post. This is a reply to someone wanting a
copy of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. Here is information I
found on the Oxford editions available. It is listed as "still available",
so I assume they are not printing new copies. I'm not sure why you would 
want the RSV over the NRSV, as my understanding is that the NRSV is more 
accurate to the original texts, but that's your decision. Here it is:

RSV Clothbound Editions
ISBN             Style No.                  Price
0-19-528324-4    8900                       37.95
0-19-528348-1    8910A  (with Apocrypha)    39.95

RSV Leather Editions
0-19-528334-1    8914   (black leather)     75.00
0-19-528335-X    8914A  (black w/Apocrypha) 80.00
0-19-528322-8    8914A  (burgundy w/Apoc.)  80.00

In addition, Oxford carries NSRV, Catholic and New English Study Bibles,
King James, NIV and others. For ordering information, call 
1-800-481-7556 in the US, or in Canada, 1-416-441-2941. 

BTW, I am not affiliated with Oxford University Press in any way, so
please field your questions to the above mentioned sales department.

Murray

-- 
Murray M. Altheim      "Ils ont l'orteil de Bouc, & d'un Chevreil l'oreille,
Instructional Consultant    La corne d'un Chamois, & la face vermeille
CSU, Sacramento          Comme un rouge Croissant: & dancent toute nuict
altheimm@csus.edu       Dedans un carrefour, ou pres d'une eau qui bruict."
From: rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ralph W. Reid III)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: thought for the day (11-15)
Date: 16 Nov 92 03:32:02 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

Sunday, November 15:

     Peter . . . said: "Tabitha, rise!"  She opened her eyes and, as
she caught sight of Peter, she sat up.  <Acts 9: 40>

-- 
Ralph.  N6BNO.  NOW LOOKING FOR A JOB!
Phone 1-916-345-9155.
lectromail- rreid@ecst.csuchico.edu.
I do not waste time expressing others' opinions!
From: tomault+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Galen Ault)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Sexuality (was: Re: REFRESH)
Date: 23 Nov 92 02:06:20 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <Nov.20.00.49.22.1992.12073@athos.rutgers.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

>
>There are other things that we might consider "normal" that are sinful.  
>How many of us have never told a lie?  How many times have we been boastful?
>Or contentious?  

But just because something is normal doesn't make it sinful.  How many of us
have been friendly or kind or have given the Lord praise just because we felt
it would be natural to do so.  Are these things sins?

>
>If you really think about it, do you think that Paul and Barnabas performed
>this act on themselves on their missionary journeys?  Or do you think
>that Jesus did this?

But is that a result of projecting our modern notions of sexual reality back
onto Paul, Baranabas, and Jesus?  After all, masturbation is mentioned nowhere
in the Bible, and Jesus's sexuality is never discussed in the gospel.  Although
there is great teaching about when it is appropriate to engage in sexual
activity, very little is said about what acts are or are not permissable.

Tom Ault
From: david-s@hsr.no (David A. Sjoen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Door-to-Door evangel.
Date: 18 Nov 92 08:32:16 GMT
Organization: Rogaland University Centre

In article <Nov.13.02.17.37.1992.19258@geneva.rutgers.edu>, tony@swrinde.nde.swri.edu (Anthony R. Benitez) writes:

> The dangerous theology here is "Maybe the Lord has been trying..."!
> I want you to point out ONE instance in the Bible where the Lord
> "TRIED" to do anything.  The Lord I believe in didn't try to do,
> He DID!  I believe in an omnipotent, powerful God and Saviour, who
> in spite of the wretched, miserable little creatures we truly are,
> loved us and through his Grace saved us.  There was no trying in it.
> He just did it, and I praise his name for it.

I don't quite agree with you in this. God will get done what he wants
to get done, but not necessarily through us. God loves us and wants us
to do things in Him and live a blessed life in Him. What he doesn't
do is force us to do this, because He wants us to do it in love for Him
who died for us, lives for us, has already placed us in Heaven, and will
take us home to Heaven some day. What we can do, and sadly also too often
do, is live our lives for ourselves. Then God won't use us in His work,
and He will have to chasten us.

	'This is our God, the Servant King
	He calls us now to follow Him
	to bring our lives as a daily offering
	of worship to the Servant King'
					G. Kendrick

:)avid

-- 
 __________________ ___________________________________________________
| David A. Sjoen   |"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they |
| Gulaksveien 4    | follow me; and I give them life eternal; and they |
| N-4017 STAVANGER | shall never perish, and no one shall seize them   |
| Norway           | out of my hand." John 10:27-29                    |
`------------------'---------------------------------------------------'
    E-MAIL: david-s@ifi.hsr.no  (Rogaland University Centre, Norway)
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Anglicans/Catholics
Date: 22 Nov 92 22:41:36 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: abigail@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Shawn Abigail)
>A Roman Catholic man who is single or widowed can be ordained.  A man
>who is already an ordained Anglican minister, who converts to Roman
>Catholicism, falls into some special category.  Perhaps this was a
>one-time trial event, or perhaps there were further extenuating
>circumstances in this case.

I think the situation is that although Anglican orders are not
accepted by the RC Church, it is accepted that much of the
training for an Anglican minister is as would also be required
for a Roman Catholic priest, thus an Anglican priest who
converted would be accepted for ordination without having to go
back to the seminary.

Also as a special dispensation, married Anglican ministers have
in some cases been permitted to become married RC priests. It
should be noted that the RC Church does not see marriage as a
complete barrier to priesthood (and of course there are married
priests in some of the Orthodox-rite Churches in communion with
Rome), but does say that celibacy is normal practice for
priests.

Following the Church of England's decision to ordain women, it
looks like we might see a lot of examples of this, as there is
a great deal of talk of Anglo-Catholics in the CofE moving over
to Rome. The former Bishop of London, Graham Leonard, the
foremost Anglo-Catholic, has revived the idea of a Church with
Anglican rites but in union with Rome, but so far as I know
Rome has made no comment, and I don't think Westminster (the RC
primacy in England) is at all favourable to the idea.

Matthew Huntbach