HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ceb@dbrus.unify.com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: dealin w/atheist
Date: 14 Apr 92 07:49:24 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <Apr.13.02.00.40.1992.23203@dumas.rutgers.edu> rone@carina.usc.edu (Ron A. Echeverri) writes:
>In article <Apr.9.23.36.58.1992.25239@dumas.rutgers.edu> ceb@dbrus.unify.com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>>
>>God "allows" suffering and pain because He allows people just like you and
>>me -- no! He allows you personally and me personally to act like real slime
>>balls to the rest of humanity.  He also allows you and me to wise up, make
>>amends, and work on employing our talents more productively.
>
>Aren't you a little old to be believing in god? :-)

I'm one heartbeat, one breath away from death and perfect understanding.  Why
do you think that the closer I get to God the less I should believe in Him?
Wouldn't it be more logical to believe in Him *more* as I get closer to Him?

> Seriously.... Every image of god brought up by any of the present religions
> are incredibly inaccurate, as god's perfection is touted by them. If there
> WAS a god, he'd be unperceivable by us mere and imperfect humans. So don't
> worry about it.

How does God's perfection make Him unperceivable?  A rose is more beautiful
than I, yet I can see it, smell it, love it, and glory in it.  The earth is
bigger than an astronaut, yet astronauts have seen it.  The complete absence
of value is an absolute, yet I can write it down on paper.  And you don't al-
low for the possibility that God, being omnipotent, can allow us mere, imper-
fect, beloved children of His to perceive Him.  Do you think that He in His
perfection is unable to do this?  I can tell you that in my experience God is
absolutely capable of it.  And who is worrying about it?  It was the atheist
described in the original post who was all het up about pain and suffering.
The more I put God before everything else, the less I worry about things;
this is a trend I've noticed in the past couple of years.

Any image of God is by definition inaccurate, because it is an image and not
Himself.  But that includes your image of Him, not only what you think are
the images religions promote or the images that religions actually promote.


Carrie		ceb@dbrus.unify.com	x6244
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   "There is no smaller package than a man wrapped up in himself" -- Anon.   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Billy Graham carrying message from the Pope
Date: 7 Apr 92 02:39:43 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: allenmk@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Allen Melinda Kay)
>I know that I am not a Catholic, and I can explain why if anyone really cares
>to know.  But I also know that a Catholic who confesses Jesus Christ as Lord
>and has accepted the forgiveness He offers us through His death on the cross
>can be just as much of a Christian as I am, if not more.

Now this is what puzzles me. All Catholics confess Jesus Christ
as Lord and accept the forgiveness he offers us through His
death on the Cross. The central statement of Catholic beliefs,
the Creed, which we recite at mass, says as much, and the theme
is repeated throughout the Catholic liturgy. So from where
does this argument come that "Catholics are not Christians", or
that to be saved you simply need to recite some formula about
"accepting Jesus as Lord".

Can you not see how insulting it is to suggest that regular
Catholics are not Christians? Do you suppose that we do not
understand our own prayers and liturgy? The question is what do
we mean by "faith"? How do we know someone really believes in
something and is not just reciting it from habit? We can all
say "oh yes, I REALLY, REALLY believe", but do we? I would
suggest that it is the length to which he or she is prepared to
go, the things he or she is prepared to do because of that
belief - so, you see, we are led from "justification by faith"
to "justification by works".

A previous posting of mine on this subject was suppressed by
the moderator - I hope that this one is slightly more
constuctive. When I see people promising instant salvation by
"coming forward" at Billy Graham meetings, or reciting some
doxology about "Jesus as Lord", I feel some of the anger which
perhaps Martin Luther felt when the Catholic Church of his day
promised instant salvation through indulgences and other
mechanisms. I don't see salvation coming this way - it is
something that we must work at. I am sorry that my anger at
this should sometimes come through in negative postings.

Matthew Huntbach
From: ken@batman.austin.ibm.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: THE DARKSIDE OF CHRSTIANITY
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:07:03 GMT
Reply-To: ken@batman.austin.ibm.com
Organization: IBM PSP Palo Alto, Ca.

lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)

#IMHO, the church is filled with hypocrisy.  There are people within
#it who call themselves Christian but yet certainly are not there
#for Christ.

Some people are there for themselves, to show off or be seen at
"the church where people have money." Some people are there
every time the doors are unlocked and are the most un-Christian
people I've ever met. Ideally, church is a place where you can
join with people who feel the same as you and share that spirit,
but too often that is not the case.

I've come to believe that the truer Christian is the humble one who 
says, "I'm not worthy, Lord," not the arrogant braggarts who say,
"I know I'm going to heaven, but you? No way. You're <insert_
sin_here>." These people are oblivious to their own faults. But
don't let that turn you off inside!


#But do not allow your dislike from prohibiting
#you to take a look at Christianity.  You may still find God.
#Many have.  Keep your heart and mind focused.  Ask God for help.
#Look hard and make sure you've seen before you give-up.

I think it's really sad that things that happen turn people off
to God instead of just to a particular congregation or minister.
Sure, people act petty sometimes, and I have had it turn me off
to religion - not to God, but to churches, etc. I found a good
church here, though, in another denomination, and I like it. I
feel something, I really do, even when I'm not at church.


On a related note, do ya'll believe that it is required that you go to
church every Sunday?



THIS POSTING DOES NOT REPRESENT THE OPINIONS OF MY EMPLOYERS.
-------------------------------------------------------------
	"We're just a Bob Seger cover band."
		-Les Claypool, PRIMUS
-------------------------------------------------------------
From: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Chi Alpha:  Any out there?
Date: 15 Apr 92 08:43:14 GMT
Reply-To: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.

Hello out there,

I'm Michael Le Houllier and am a member of the Plymouth State College
chapter of Chi Alpha Christian Fellowship.  I'd like to get in touch
with other Chi Alphans from all over.  Please email me, it should
prove interesting.

For me, I had my first Born Again experience two years ago.  My second
was over this past weekend on a retreat in Maine with a newly formed
Chi Alpha group in Boston.

Plymouth State is in New Hampshire and we have about 30 members in our
Chi Alpha chapter.

Please email me.

God bless,


-- 
 Michael Le Houllier           *  John 3:16  * Nov 12, 1991 - Dili      
 (m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu.us) *  Remember: June 4, 1989 - Beijing
 Go BLUE JAYS  6-0  v. Orioles   Fri (4-3), Sat (8-2) and Sun (3-1)
 CELEBRATE!!  The Strike is over.  Allez les Canadiens!!!!
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: End times near?
Date: 15 Apr 92 08:30:41 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <Apr.9.22.57.19.1992.24706@dumas.rutgers.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>If the Son of Man is coming at an unexpected hour, then why are you so
>sure that we should expect it?  Be ready, watch, but always confess
>ignorance.  We know neither the day nor the hour: in other words, not
>only are we ignorant of the exact time, but we are also ignorant of
>the general time.  



Paul wrote in I Thess. that the day of the Lord would come as a theif
in a night but that "ye" were not in darkness that the
day should over take them as a theif.
Link Hudson.
From: Todd M Nelson
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Christians Evangelizing Catholics et al(Was Re: Billy Graham
Date: 8 Apr 92 08:42:51 GMT

[This doesnt have a real from address because the author had someone
else send the posting for him.  He can't post himself.  By the way,
if you're in this situation, you can send email to christian@cs.rutgers.edu
--clh]

[David Hanson made some negative comments about the Roman Catholic Church.
He recommended a book about it.  Simon Park suggested "Fundamentalism
and Catholicism", giving the other side (i.e. a comparison from
the Catholic perspective.  --clh]
 
Hullo,
 
I just read this book not too long ago.  I thought it was thoroughly researched
and well written (clear and easy to understand).
 
It does seem, at first, that Keating goes into Protestant bashing.  However,
I believe that he states a number of times that the people he is bashing are
those groups (primarily Fundamentalists) who are anti-Catholic.  I will also
add that some of the things that he said did make me feel a little 
uncomfortable.
 
Anyway, I was raised in the Lutheran Church and am coming into the Catholic
Church this Easter Vigil.
 
Not only does he provide a good defense of the Church against Funamentalism,
his book could be used as instruction in the why's of the uniquely Catholic
doctrine.  This is the primary reason that I enjoyed the book so much.  I 
had been looking for a book that explained why the Catholic Church holds 
certain doctrines and how they came to be.  This book answered most of my
questions and provide references for the benefit of those who were looking for
more info.
 
This is a good book and I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to find out
more about what and why the Catholic Church believes what it does.  I doubt 
that his book will convince you of much if you are already an avid detractor
of the Catholic Church.
 
---------
Todd M Nelson
From: jabishop@essex.ecn.uoknor.edu (Jonathan A. Bishop)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Jesus returns in 1996?
Date: 17 Apr 92 02:31:09 GMT
Organization: New Cate Space Agency, Norman, OK

jkohnen@comix.cs.uoregon.edu (John Hamilton Kohnen) writes:

>BC 4004		Adam's creation; begin symbolic day 1

>  +6000		Days 1-6; 6000 years of human toil on Earth
>   ----
>AD 1996		THE 2nd COMING; begin day 7 or Lord's day,

>Jesus returns in 1996. Incidentally, some believe that Jesus was
>born in 4 B.C., that early date, instead of the obvious 0, being
>attributed to later calendar error. That would put him exactly 4000

Just one thing to point out... There was no year 0.  According to the way
we reckon things (which is in error, but that's not relevant), the year
1 B.C. was followed by the year A.D. 1.

--------
Jonathan A. Bishop
jabishop@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu

"Yippee!  That may have been a small one for Neil,
 but it was a big one for me."
                            --Pete Conrad
From: ward@vlsi.waterloo.edu (Paul A.S. Ward)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: The Joys of Intolerance !!!
Date: 8 Apr 92 08:14:10 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

OK, people have been doing a lot of gnat straining lately, it's time to
have a look for some camels.  

Someone has stated that they object to Billy Graham saving people and 
then sending them back to the RCC.  A lot of people have since responded 
to him by informing him how objectable and intolerant his posting is.
I think it is time to do a little meta-level analysis.  Let us therefore
rephrase the statement made as follows:

I object to Y saving people and then sending them back to X.
(where Y = Billy Graham)

Now I submit that there exists a value for X such that _everyone_ on this
net (in particular those who objected to the posting) will concur that the
above statement is true.

For some, such as the initial poster, the value of X is the RCC.  I suspect
that for some Roman Catholics (here change Y to, say the Pope) the value of
X might well be any X not equal to the RCC.

For those (more tolerant of the net membership) we will have to stretch
things a little further - perhaps X has to be JW or Mormans.  Perhaps
we are very tolerant and we have to go to, say Buddists, or Moslems for
us to agree with the statement.  Some exceptionally tolerant people may 
want X to be Satanist.

The particular value for X is not the issue though.  The point is that
many people are objecting to this initial poster's "intolerant attitude",
when in fact they merely object to _what_ he is being intolerant about.
Most are even being particularly intolerant of his opinions/convictions.

So the question really is one of how tolerant should we be?  At what point
do we lose all principles except that of tolerance to others, at which
stage we have no basis for any belief, since all arguments/philosophies/etc.
are equally to be tolerated.

-- 
Paul A.S. Ward                         |    am(X) :- think(X).
Dept of Elec. and Comp. Eng            |    think(i).
University of Waterloo                 |    ?-am(i). 
ward@vlsi.waterloo.edu                 |    yes.

[I think the objection was not just to his assertion, but to some of
what he said in the process of asserting it.  E.g. comments about the
horrible Roman Catholic Church that sends people to hell.  It's one
thing to make a judgement that you think a group's theology is so far
from yours that you can't in good conscience cooperate with them in
evangelism.  I'm sure there are other readers of this group that would
take that position even of my church (Presbyterian Church (USA)).  But
I think the comments went a bit beyond that.  --clh]
From: gt5599d@prism.gatech.edu (gt5599d TOLBERT,JASON ALAN)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Christianity's spread
Date: 8 Apr 92 08:02:57 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

Christianity started in the Middle East one might say.  How come Europe has 
been virtually the only agent for spreading Christianity?

Jason -- "True peace is not the absence of tension, it is the presence
of justice" - Martin Luther King, Jr uucp:
...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!gt5599d ARPA:
gt5599d@prism.gatech.edu 				Jason Tolbert

[Short answer: Christianity spread through the Roman Empire, and
eventually became Roman.  European civilization is the successor to
Rome.  Of course it also spread through the area now covered by the
Orthodox churches.  I don't know whether you consider that Europe or
not.  There are now evangelistic efforts based in non-European
countries.  Our church hosted a Korean-speaking congregation whose
pastor was a missionary from Korea.  --clh]
From: MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: dealin w/atheist
Date: 15 Apr 92 07:54:30 GMT
Organization: HAM - Hackers Against MUDs

In article <Apr.14.03.03.55.1992.13778@dumas.rutgers.edu>, dxf12@po.cwru.edu
(Douglas Fowler) says:
>     PRECISELY!  He IS imperceivable, at least the vastness of His power is;
>that's why He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to die for us.  He wanted us to be
>able to understand, and He knew He had to come down to our level, because we
>couldn't approach His.

It seems from the old testament that god was percieved by many. His power
was evident from the thousands he killed. This still ignores the idea of
why sacrificing an innocent man would have any effect on someone else's
crimes. Also, you're presuming god's intentions, which is essentially
judging him. Also not a wise move considering the bible.
This whole thread has digressed from the title it bears and has become
like all the others--interpretations of the bible that are meaningless
to a nonbeliever. So I might as well pose a new question like the ones
originally given:
In Genesis 1:27, god creates man and woman simultaneously. In Genesis 2:7,
another version is posed--man is created, and later, in 2:22, woman is
created from man. This is only a part of the problem which is essentially
two creation stories: one is chapter 1, and the other in chapter 2.
Explain this if you would. Also, as part of this, explain how Eve was
subject to god's warning about the tree of knowledge, since she wasn't
around to hear it...

>--
>Doug Fowler: dxf12@po.CWRU.edu      :    "Every baby born into the world is
>Real home: Canton, Ohio             :  finer than the last."--Charles Dickens
> Trying to follow in the path of our :     "A baby is an inestimable
>Lord;anything close will be a success:  blessing and bother."--Mark Twain

Martin Schulte
MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu
From: jayne@mma.beltrix.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Fallen angels
Date: 8 Apr 92 08:30:23 GMT
Organization: Martin McCubbin & Associates Ltd.

In article <Apr.1.03.43.41.1992.11501@dartagnan.rutgers.edu>
wrg@physics.purdue.edu (William R. Geisler) writes:
 
>                                       I've been looking for the standard
> story of the fall of Luthur/Satan (initially one of Gods' angels then 
> rebelled (sp?) against God).  Can't find this concept/story anywhere.
> 
>       I've looked in Genesis (wrong place?), and the only direct mention
> is the Adam and Eve and Serpent story.  Am I not looking hard enough?  If
> this is not in the Bible, does anyone know where/when/why this story
> originated?
> 
> 
> Thank you,
> Bill Geisler
> 
> [It's not there.  I don't know where it originated -- perhaps others
> can tell us, but it's not in the Bible, at least not explicitly.
> --clh]
 
 
  The belief in the fall of Satan appears in the writings of the Church 
Fathers.  Scripture referring to this event exists but is open to other 
interpretation.  For example, Isa. 14:12-14 is traditionally held to be 
a description of the fall of Lucifier but could taken to be a discussion 
of the king of Babylon.  Jesus himself seems to be speaking of this 
event in Lk. 10:18, "I saw Satan fall like lightening from heaven."  And 
Jude 6 refers to "angels that did not keep their own positon but left 
their proper dwelling" as to a story known by his readers.  That would 
indicate that the story predates the New Testament. 
 
I happen to have handy a list of references on the topic of Satan from a 
course I just took; here they are for anyone interested:
 
Zech. 3:1-2; Ps. 38:21; Num.22:22; 1Sam 29:4; Matt. 13:19; John 17:15; 
Eph. 6:16; Matt. 12:24; Lk. 11:15; Jn. 12:31; 2Cor. 4:4; 2Cor. 6:15;  
Rev.12:9; Rev 12:10; Eph. 2:2; 6:12; Job 1:7 (this is not an exhaustive 
list)
 
  Bible study needs to done with prayer and input from other believers.  
I think it is especially important when studying this topic. 
 
************************************************************
*  Jayne Kulikauskas  (jayne@mma.beltrix.guild.org)        *
*    ____________________________________________          *
*  disclaimer-I don't really work for mma; my husband does *
*             Even he doesn't always agree with me.        *
************************************************************
From: zaft@caritas.cotdazr.org (Gordon C. Zaft)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: the church established by Jesus Christ
Date: 15 Apr 92 07:53:24 GMT
Organization: Argus Consulting, Oxnard, CA

In article <Apr.13.01.57.13.1992.23118@dumas.rutgers.edu> dali@milton.u.washington.edu (David A. Lee) writes:
>Ok, so there is something that has troubled me as a Christian for many 
>months.  Who can say that someone who has accepted Christ and has love
>for Him in his/her heart isn't a Christian?  The people I refer to are
>LDS church members who strongly profess love for Christ.  I read about
>the Catholic church and its beliefs, some people saying that perhaps the
>Catholics aren't Christians.  A lot of people say Mormons aren't Christians.

	I think the point that would be made by some (and no, I'm not
trying to bash Mormons, here, just to explain the approach of some to
this topic) is that (they would say) the Christ that the LDS claim
to be following is not, in fact, the Christ of history.  That is,
someone following someone they claim to be Christ, and call Christ,
does not make the person followed actually Christ.  It's like saying
someone is your sister, and calling her your sister, when really
she's your wife (like Abraham did!).
	Of course, this raises the question of 'What must you believe
about Christ to be following Christ?', but that's a whole different
can o' worms...

-- 
* Gordon Zaft     Argus Consulting    727 W. 5th St.  Oxnard, CA  93030-6955
* zaft@caritas.cotdazr.org | zaft@caritas.UUCP | suned1!gcpacix!caritas!zaft
       I'm a .signature virus!  Join the fun and copy me into yours!
                 Semper fidelis Christi et Vicarii sui.

[I'm not terribly interested in discussing the substance of whether
LDS beliefs about Christ are sufficiently erroneous to merit this
judgement, but Gordon certainly points out the issue: even if you
accept that a Christian is anyone who accepts Christ as Lord and
Savior, that leaves plenty of room for discussion: do their ideas
about Christ diverge so far that it isn't really Christ?  Do their
ideas about salvation diverge so far that they aren't relying on him
as savior, but on their own merits, or Mary, etc.?  Periodic postings
from our Moslem colleagues point out the problem here in a form
that's likely to be less controversial among Christians: they
acknowledge Christ, but they don't believe much of what the NT
says about him.  Do we consider them Christians?  There's probably
no way to avoid theology and get a simple definition.  This is why
I really discourage discussions about whether a group is Christian.
It very quickly turns into a general discussion of whether they're
right or not.  --clh]