HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 133388@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: re: Question on the bible
Date: 6 Oct 92 04:29:04 GMT

In article <Oct.3.02.10.26.1992.3346@geneva.rutgers.edu> saruman@cats.ucsc.edu (Nicholas Patrick Popoff) writes:
>(Im very sorry, but i have lost the name of the person i am replying too)
>
>>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.

It is possible to be feminist *and* Christian, or else I am not a 
Christian (because I am a feminist).  Does that mean I am betting my
immortal soul on it?  Perhaps.  Would I be a Christian if I could not
also be a feminist?  Probably, if there were compelling reasons for 
rejecting feminism as inconsistent with Christianinty.  But, "...there 
is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus". 
(Galatians 3:28)  So in what way is Christianity inconsistent with 
gender equality? (The original poster cited gender differences--but 
equal does not mean the same.)
>
>>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."  

My (possibly heretical) view is that God created me with an intellect
and a sense of justice that he expects me to use, not abandon. (Not
as a substitute for faith, but as an adjunct.)  If there are things 
that are atributed to God that are horrifying to me (as the above
quote is), then  either the attribution is incorrect, or there is
an inconsistency between the sense of justice God gave me and God
himself, or it really is just, but in some way I do not understand.  
But there are things that some claim are true of God to which I would
say, with Nick, "That God is not worth worshipping".  And if it risks
my immortal soul, I have to wonder whether I would want to spend 
eternity with such a God anyway.

-- 
Seanna Watson   Bell-Northern Research, 
(seanna@bnr.ca) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Opinions, what opinions?  Oh *these* opinions. | Occam's razor split 
No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.           | hairs so well, I bought 
I knew I'd left them somewhere.                | the whole argument.
From: k053730@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Philip G. Sells)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Why Are Most Religious Followers So Sensitive? (was
Date: 28 Sep 92 01:57:03 GMT
Organization: Kalamazoo College

Non-religious practice)

Greetings,

You (J. Wong) have probably gotten quite a number of replies on your
original post.  I'm sorry the treatment hasn't been as tactful at times
as it could or should have been.  But there were some things I had
wanted to say to you before.

You asked in the original post about proof or evidence for God's
existence (or at least mentioned your need for same).  I have to tell
you that there really isn't any.  The great paradox about faith in God
is that it really can't come as the result of intellectual effort.
Reason will get you part of the way to acknowledging God, but it will
never be able to bridge the apparent gap between us and God entirely on
its own.  At some point, you just have to take the great leap of faith,
which is to accept that even though God is invisible, intangible and in
a fundamental sense unknowable, He IS there in fact.  As for me, I do
have proof of God's existence, but it's not the kind of proof that I
could communicate to you--it's a personal experience of God's presence.
I suppose a lot of Christians have such proof.  The thing is that these
experiences of God are for them irrefutable proof, and all the evidence
anyone could ever need; but because they can't be externalized (i.e.,
communicated to others), it may not be seen as proof by others.  I know
that what happened to me is an affirmation of the truth about Christ,
therefore, but I can't present that to you.  And so, if we were to talk
about evidence, you would just have to take my word for it.  But don't
deceive yourself... we actually do that quite a lot in life.  Even the
'scientific method' itself is based on that kind of taking things on
faith.  So I don't think you should dismiss the authority of the Bible
out of hand.  There are limits to the extent that one can go outside the
Bible for proof.  And after all, the purpose of the Bible, in part, is
to provide such proof.

Please consider these things, and try not to be put off by the
occasional vitriol.
-- 
Philip Sells			Is anything too hard for the LORD?
k053730@hobbes.kzoo.edu			--Genesis 18:14
From: tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Why Are Most Religious Followers So Sensitive?
Date: 29 Sep 92 06:35:23 GMT
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu

In article <Sep.25.21.05.24.1992.3862@athos.rutgers.edu> jwong@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Jack Wong) writes:
>
>   Recently I posted an article on being a Non-Religious Practioner.
>   In my statement, I said I don't agree or believe the truthfulness
>   of the Bible.  All I asked was for some more facts besides the
>   Bible claiming that God exists.  
>
Jack, that is a common question.  It recognizes that there seems to be
a certain element of circular logic involved in the belief in God.
Look at it this way.  The bible is God's means of revealing himself to
us.  Imagine there was a nice young lady that you were interested in,
but you had only seen pictures of her, never meeting her in person.
Then she wrote you a letter.  This letter told a great deal about
her... where she was from, what she liked to do, what her goals were,
what she expected out of life.  If you had never met the young lady,
this was all the physical evidence you had that she existed...but you
know that other people know her...
   The Bible is self-revelation.  After reading the bible you are able
to discern dependent revelation, which depends on a certain amount of
basic understanding.  You will experience God at some time in your
life if you continue seeking him, and you will know when you do.
   There is Natural revelation, which is the evidence of a divine,
supreme power in the universe that created order out of chaos.  It is
not logical that all the cosmos should have evolved by chance.  There
is too much order in the universe.
   I am sorry that your question was answered in a way that put you
off.... God loves each one of us, and had destined the best for us.  I
hope you will continue your search for discernment.  The place to
start is in the bible, reading it as man's reporting of how God
revealed himself to them.... Then realize that God is still revealing
himself to us in this century, as he did when the bible was written.

Shalom, Jack                            Len Howard
                                        tas@pegasus.com
From: REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Rapture Question (also Challenge to Dispensationalists)
Date: 29 Sep 92 06:41:51 GMT
Organization: FNAL

In article <Sep.27.21.09.30.1992.561@athos.rutgers.edu> jfb@macsch.com (John
Baskette) writes:
>In article <Sep.24.00.03.00.1992.3474@athos.rutgers.edu>
baresson@cbnewsi.att.com writes:

>There are other possibilities for the identity of the restrainer.
>If the restrainer is the Holy Spirit working through the church
>(the salt and light of the world) then it is possible to remove
>the Spirit's influence by reducing the church to a small
>remnant through a great apostasy or departure from the faith.
>(I think that is a more likely interpretation of 2Thess 2.3).
>In fact if 'apostastia' is interpreted in this way, then the 
>passage is a powerful argument against the pre-trib rapture by
>its conspicuous absence.

You forget one major point.  What is the designation of this era of
tribulation?  Is it not the time of *JACOB's* trouble!  There is no place for
the church at this time.  Also, how has Jehovah spoken to this group of people
in the past?  Has it not significantly been with signs and wonders!  I would
hold that there is some merit to the idea that the rapture of the church is to
be a sign to the Jewish people. After all, in Matt 24 Christ was speaking to
the Jews, not to the Church. In Daniel, the Church wasn't even in the picture,
prophetic or other wise. There are allusions, but only as we look back on them.
 The prophets themselves had no inclination of its existence or advent.  Would
they have thought that their people would reject their long awaited Messiah at
the 1st Advent?

Another small point.  The restrainer has to be stronger than the one being
restrained, does he not?  Only God Himself could be the one restraining 1)
Satan, 2) the man of lawlessness, and 3) all manners of evil.  It is the Lord's
Spirit that has been left as His witness to this dispensation and therefore is
the member of the Godhead that would be naturally assumed to be the restrainer.
 


>There does not seem to me to be any warrant to separate the various
>judgements (Matt 25, the judgement seat of Christ, the Great White
>Throne judgment) into separate eschatological events. 

Cough. Exsqueeze me! Look at your *Greek* NT and you will see that one is a
bema seat that gives rewards (i.e. Rom 8:1).  As for the GWTJ, it is just that
-a *THRONE* judgment.  "Every mouth will be stopped."  There is a Judge, but
there is no appeal.  (Sorry, your mother will not be able to speak for you) 
Also, there is this small thing of the illustration of the Jewish wedding! We
are spoken for now, and the Bridegroom has gone back to His Fathers "place" to
prepair a room for us, after which He will come and take us back to that room. 
There is a small "private" party, then the consumation, *then* the public party
begins.  (Boy what a party it will be too!) This public party is usually
thought of as The millennium.

just poking my nose in....
Rex
From: rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Relationship of Old and New Testaments
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:38:41 GMT
Organization: Imaging Science Engineering & Technology, Xerox Corporation

In article <Sep.30.01.33.32.1992.7277@geneva.rutgers.edu> aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>Stephen Northcutt writes:
>
>>Hi Nick!  I think its GREAT you are reading the bible!  A caution, since
>>you are considering Christianity, you should concentrate more on the 
>>new testament, or as I prefer to think, the new covenant.  The greatest
>>value of the old testament to a Christian is to help in the understanding
>>of the new testament.
>
>Is this true?  I've been thinking about the relationship of OT and NT a lot
>over the past few weeks and have come to the exact opposite conclusion.  When

Read what the Lord leads you to read.  The NT &  OT are one and the same...  
The Old Testament concealed, is the New Testament revealed.

rlg
-- 
Ron Goers @ Xerox Corporation     Email: rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com

"Time flies like an arrow ...
 fruit flies like a banana"
From: cabezon!kapila@uunet.uu.net (Kapila Ranasinghe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Questions about the Bible
Date: 29 Sep 92 07:11:31 GMT
Organization: Logic Modeling Corporation of Beaverton Oregon

Greetings,
  I am a Buddhist who has been subjected to a couple
of conversion attempts by some (very dear) Baptist 
friends and some sweet elderly neighbor couple who 
are Jehova's Witness.  (I do understand their intent
is to bring salvation to my life, and appreciate the
effort).

  But I have fundamental questions about various 
qualifications applied to the nature of God.  God is
said to be perfect.  But his creations seem to have
too many imperfections.  For instance, when God created
man he obviously had the expectation that man would heed
his advise.  We all know that the prototype (Adam and
Eve) themselves malfunctioned.  Now since God is all
knowing he must have known that this was going to happen.
Therefore, it seems like that he created the man in a
form that would sin and therefore get punished.
This is fine except that this a contradiction to the
loving nature of God.  You could also blame the whole
mess on Satan but then that renders God some what 
out of control, definitely not the Supreme ruler.
What am I missing here?

  I have a whole bunch of other questions like this.
The answers (from the afore-mentioned people)
would have been fine for the believers,
definitely not convincing enough to me.  What I see in
myself and around me has convinced me that the need for
salvation (enlightment or whatever you want to call the
experience), whether you end up being a Christian, Buddhist
or a Hindu, first has to come from within.  Then the human 
being projects this drive to be "good" to a religion that
appeals to him.  Depending on the level of conviction and
dedication they will either acheive their goal and remain
a believer or move on to something else.

  If these questions/statements offend anybody in anyway
I can truthfully say that, that was not the intent.
I'd appreciate any answers/clarifications/corrections.

Thanks in advance,

Kapila
kapila@lmc.com
From: finneyk@seanews.akita.com (Ken Finney)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Christian Sex
Date: 5 Oct 92 02:08:59 GMT
Organization: SEANEWS - Seattle Public Access News & Mail

Just a short comment: You said that you couldn't resolve the concept
of "bondage and submission" in a Christian marriage.  Over the past
few years I have been studying  "B&D", and had the exact opposite
response; when you understand the psyche of master/slave relationship,
the master is as bonded to the slave as the slave is to the master.
Being is a society that doesn't have slavery and serfdom, this
relationship/mental bonding is hard to understand, but historically,
serfswould fight on for their master afterhe had fallen in battle,
and a master would often sacrifice himself on the batlefield to save
a group of serfs.
From: Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Steve Hayes)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: 'my personal savior'
Date: 3 Oct 92 06:18:58 GMT


 LC>"MY personal savior" limits itself to the ego-centric, as does 
 LC>my account
 LC>at Midlantic.  "MY lord" affirms the experience as personal, 
 LC>but connects
 LC>me to a community.  No LORD worthy of the title has just one 

I once saw a very succinct comment:

Good God!  - Exactly!
My God!    - Presumptuous!

--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!5!7101!22.5!Steve.Hayes
Internet: Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
From: snorthc@relay.nswc.navy.mil (Stephen Northcutt - E41)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Question on the Bible
Date: 29 Sep 92 06:47:38 GMT
Organization: NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER

Nick (Friend of Entropy) writes:

>I cannot possibly accept Christianity
>simply because its tennants, as expressed in the bible, violate many
>of my most deeply held beliefs.  That is, that women and men are equal,
>and that slavery is inherently wrong.  
>	I have gathered some quotes that i was espesially surprised by
>in my readings in the bible.  What are your reactions to these?  I just
>cannot believe that anyone could possibly follow faithfully a book, and
>a god, that expresses these beliefs.


Hi Nick!  I think its GREAT you are reading the bible!  A caution, since
you are considering Christianity, you should concentrate more on the 
new testament, or as I prefer to think, the new covenant.  The greatest
value of the old testament to a Christian is to help in the understanding
of the new testament.

A point about equality of men and women.... this is a very recent concept,
still only held in part of the world today.  You are welcome to your opinion
and your vote!  But I would caution you against using a hundred years of
history/philosophy to judge four thousand years of history.  In point of
fact men and women are different (Amen!).  Who can say what the prevailing
opinion on this subject will be should Jesus choose to tarry even 25 more
years?

A point to consider per slavery.  You ARE a slave.  I AM a slave.
It is my guess we serve different masters, but know clearly that we
serve.  The ruler of this world is Satan.  This is why when he was
tempting Jesus he was able to offer it to Jesus if Jesus would bow to
him.


>	I find these opinions increadibly offensive, and not merely isolated
>parts of the book, but built into the basic ideas i found:  guilt and
>punishment.

Shucks buddy!  If you want to find something REALLY offensive check this
out.  When you decide to serve Jesus and accept that you are a sinner and
that you want to allow Jesus into your heart as this is the only path to
eternal salvation.....  as soon as you do this .... your old master is
gonna be really mad..... and he is gonna get you.... you are going to
experience condemnation and persecution.  That's right, no way out of it,
you give your life to God and the worldlies are going to spit all over you and
the rules are you have to forgive them and love them right back.

Which brings up an important point.  Your gonna do a lot better if you
start with the most important commandments in the bible and work your
way down to worrying about this other stuff.... Start by loving the
Lord with all your heart, mind and soul and then love your neighbors as
yourself.   Make sure that you have a loving/serving heart attitude with the
works to go with it and you won't spend a lot of time getting upset about
slavery, equality, capital punishment and whatever else.

God bless you!  Stephen
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: "Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him."
Date: 3 Oct 92 06:38:54 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <Oct.2.00.46.56.1992.1629@geneva.rutgers.edu> DSIMON@thor.nafb.trw.com (D_SIMON) writes:
>Job 13:15 says, "Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him."
>
>My question is how loyal should a person be to God?  Would you
>trust, serve, love, and work for God even if He killed you?

Yes.  This life is such a brief flicker compared to eternity that I
don't see how it makes any sense to trust my own perspective over
God's.

>Even if you knew He was planning to send you to hell anyways?

Tougher question.  "Should"... yes.  "Would"... maybe not.

>And sometimes they die in the midst of their tragedy.  We advise them
>to remain faithful to God because it all pays off in the end (heaven).
>But should we be faithful to God only because of what WE can get out of it?

Ummm... no.  We should remain faithful to God because God is God.
The fact that it does pay off in the end is a bonus.

-- 
Mike Van Pelt                                When guns are outlawed,
mvp@netcom.com                               only Carl Rowan will have guns.
mvp@hsv3.lsil.com
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: A technical question on Christology
Date: 5 Oct 92 02:08:37 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney

hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu writes:

>I've got a sort of technical question on Christology, which is really
>directed at our more conservative readers.  

This is no answer, but at what point would you accept that mystery can
validly set into this? Or that mystical experience of Christ through 
the Eucharist might reveal to us more about the hypostatic union than we
might get in theology? 

-ricko

[I would hate to be seen as being against mystery.  And indeed the
heart sometimes knows things that the mind doesn't know.  I wouldn't
claim to completely understand the Incarnation.  But the question I'm
dealing with here -- whether Jesus was really a human being -- affects
Christian belief and practice fairly significantly.  I John 4:2 makes
it a touchstone for Christian judgement.  Unfortunately, I John says
"in the flesh", which is apparently ambiguous.  I take it to mean that
Jesus was really a human being.  Others take it to mean that the Logos
took on a human body.  --clh]
From: jwaugh@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jonathan B Waugh)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Corporate Confession
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:43:11 GMT

During a recent Bible study, the question of corporate confession came up and 
the group was divided as to what the contemporay Church's response should be.  
Clearly, it was a common practice in the Old Testament, but not so much in the 
new testament.  Rather than examples in the New Testament, we get exhortations 
>From leaders like Paul who describe thinking and relating to each other as a 
parts of the "body of Christ".  No one in the study was claiming that we could 
or should ask for forgiveness of an individual's sin (as though we were asking 
for forgiveness for them) but it seems that just because we are no longer under
the Old Covenant, doesn't mean that we should put-away corporate confession.

All responses invited!
From: graikund@jupiter.newcastle.edu.au (Gitesh Raikundalia)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: 1 every second?
Date: 5 Oct 92 02:09:35 GMT
Organization: Uni of Newcastle, Australia

Fellow brothers and sisters

	I have heard that about one person leaves the face of the earth
each second without having turned to the Lord Jesus and I would like to thus 
encourage and remind you (of course, as I myself need to be too) that we
must strive to live lives like our Lord all the time. I have just been 
reading about how must strongly seek holiness in our lives and have the
right spirit through fearing God (if we truly feared God, we probably 
wouldn't continue to do as we do). Please look at any hypocrisies in your
life because where I am, there are always being shown up either by 
non-Christians or just by looking at Christians. We all fall in certain ways
(I know I had recently) but remember God's grace is greater than our sin.
Please keep fervently in prayer for as many as possible that you know who are 
not saved.

	Also, be careful with the idea of witnessing to non-Christians through
relationships (ie, girlfriend-boyfriend love) because, from a recent experience
I had, if God is not involved (eg, this is not His desire for you), then it may
turn out negatively compared to what you originally thought. Look at this
Biblically BEFORE you do such a thing (no, the Bible doesn't say you are strictly
forbidden to go out with or marry them, but think more about what it involves).

--
Gitesh K. Raikundalia - Anti-racist,
                        Anti-sexist,
                        Anti-homophobic,
                        Anti-materialistic, 
                        Pro-pacifistic,
                        Ex-Hindu,
                        Anti-satanic,   Christian.
From: ichoi@scws4.harvard.edu (Isaac Choi)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Dating...
Date: 5 Oct 92 02:10:45 GMT
Organization: Harvard Arts and Sciences Computer Services, Cambridge, MA

Hi everyone!

My roommate (who is also Christian) has broken up recently and is about to
seriously re-consider the issue of dating--how much is right, what kinds
are right, or even if dating is ok for a Christian. I couldn't think of many
scriptural references or much solid advice I could give him, so I was won-
dering of you people out there in netland would have any sound Biblical 
advice on dating and the like..  I would hate to start a flame war or a 
major controversy, but I just want to know if any of you have some ideas
on the issues of Christian dating...  Thanks!
From: schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: opinions on the big bang needing a external cause
Date: 5 Oct 92 02:02:29 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha

Could people on this channel post some opinions on whether they think the
universe can be self sufficient (i.e. does it have to have a specific cause)
or did it have to be externally created (by God).