HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ferroni@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (thanks for noticin'... --Eeoyore)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: defining fundamentalism - query
Date: 22 Aug 92 17:23:34 EST
News-Moderator: Approval required for posting to soc.religion.christian

In article <Aug.21.00.40.31.1992.14426@athos.rutgers.edu>, miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
> 
>      The term "fundamentalist" is constantly heard in the news
> media.  I am aware of the origin of the term, but what/who is a
> fundamentalist at the present time? 

[... and more follows...]

  There are in fact numerous fundamentalists surviving the early-century
controversy.  All of them hold to what they refer to as the "fundamentals
of the faith".  No, they do not all interpret the bible literally, although
they all tend to hold a literal hermenutic; hence the vast majority are
dispensational.  

  There is, in fact, a clear difference between orthodoxy and fundamentalism.
The latter is historically naive; tends to be restorationist inasmuch as
it attempts to restore early new testament Christianity.  Hence, it is stongly
non-confessional.  Orthodoxy, on the other hand, wishes to maintain historical
continuity via creeds (confessions).

  For all it's emphasis on the fundamentals, fundamentalism is not really
doctrinally oriented.  It is much more interested in evangelism and church
growth.  It's mandatory social conservatism is essentially unreflective.
Another irony of fundamentalism is that while it so stresses the authority
of the bible, it's dispensationalism limits that authority to portions of
the new testament.

  Contemporary fundamentalism is a hybrid that contains elements of 
methodism, bretherenism, revivalism and arminianism, with a spattering
of calvinism ("eternal security" == once saved, always saved, which is a far
cry from the reformed idea of perseverance.).
 

Andrew Sandlin posting from the account of Paul Ferroni (cpferron@cs.hh.ab.com)
From: diarmuid@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Diarmuid Pigott)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Things to think about!
Date: 23 Aug 92 23:24:19 GMT
Organization: University of Western Australia

sryan@vivaldi.trl.oz.au (Simon Ryan) writes:
:      Essentially  everything  is reducable to  science.  

: Likewise 
: everything  is  reducable to the physical. 

These two statements are simply axioms of belief for a materialist
reductivist. These are exactly the things that I would be discussing
with the author. Everything else must be a conditional conclusion based
on these two axioms.

A good example of an axiom of this belief is Specific Aetiology,
first propounded by Pasteur, that posits a single cause for a disease,
primarily biotic. This, although a wonderful theory that had enabled
infection control and immunization, fails when confronting more complex
issues like heart disease.

Similarly those things currently inexplicable by science, are designated
as "Yet-to-be-explained", based on the assumption (induced from the
history of science) that all things are explicable. This is a
"mythological stance", and not one really tenable in terms of science,
which tries to eradicate unwarranted assumptions.

In Hans Eysenck's famous investigation of the paranormal, he suggested
that to dismiss all paranormal phenomena as fraud or hallucination was
unscientific. He also suggested that investigating them did not lend
them the status of scientific objects.

Would the original poster like to consider that his reductivism is a
religious stance please, and then comment...

: 
: Cogitate on that!
: 

hmmm.....
From: julian@sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Observations on the whole Inerrancy Brouhaha
Date: 24 Aug 92 00:43:49 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

vek@allegra.att.com (Van Kelly) writes:

>Problem #6: backdoor rationalism.  I don't know who coined the phrase
>"propositional revelation", but Francis Schaeffer sure popularized it.
>Now a whole generation of American fundamentalists seems wedded to the
>idea that the intelligible content of God's revelation to humans can
>be conveyed by a finite set of axioms found verbatim in Holy Writ.
>Part of being a Christian (or at least a teacher/theologian) is
>learning these axioms, believing them, and deducing sound doctrine
>from them.  This attitude, IMO, entails a fairly strong, if
[...]
>Van Kelly


YES: I wanted to post that I find this a problem too. I have had many
discussions with fundamentalist christains on this issue, and a lot
of said discussions reduce to "if you do not say yes to the following
questions you are not a christian". 
I think that this grossly overestimates our ability to understand the
world let alone God. When I go to the Bible for comfort or guidance
I do not expect God to have spoken to someone thousands of years ago
in the exact words that he will speak to me now. I expect him to
speak through the examples of people and through previous writers
reflections (eg, psalms). My attitude towards God and his word is
that of tryinh to understand what he is saying to me personally,
and by extension to all of us, and I am willing to rely on his word.
BUT it is another thing entirely to say that any understanding I can
arrive at is infallible or free from error. And if my understnading 
of the Bible is not infallible, I don't see the point of a doctrine 
of Biblical infallibility. It seems to be reduced to saying that the
TRUE message of the Bible, which we cannot understand fully, is without
error.
As long as I am human I will make mistakes, I cannot cover them up by
adding a belief in an infallible Bible.
julian

[Omnipotence: Adding the words "God can..." to the beginning of
nonsense does not make it sense.]
From: Steve.Gross@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Giving if your Heart
Date: 31 Aug 92 06:38:28 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

From Steve.Gross       To:  Lee Askew


>As a not-yet-a-christian, but feeling the power/conviction of Jesus, I
>find it VERY VERY VERY hard to go that last step and 'GIVE' my heart to
>the Lord.
>
>Infact I am finding it probably the hardest thing that I have ever done.
>I would like to know how other people went about this last step and what they
>felt??

>Thanks Lee.
 

---- The trouble you are having, I think, is thinking about the salvation
process in steps.  For example, if you go to church and listen, that is
step one in a long process, culminating in the final step which is giving
your heart to the Lord.  While this may be good for some christians, I
don't think it is accurate in describing the salvation process.

The bible says :  

" Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in
his name, he gave the right to become children of God.  
Because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God   
Likewise, the wages of sin are death, but the gift of God is eternal life
in Christ Jesus or Lord.  If we confess our sins, however, he is faithful
and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
So, God says, "Here I am!  I stand at the door and knock.  If anyone
hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and
he with me. "

You see Lee, You are the man who is hearing the voice of the Lord in your
heart thanks to the Holy Spirit.  Jesus Christ is knocking, and it is your
job to let him in.  Not to give your heart and mind and soul over to the
Lord for an instantaneous 360 degree change in your life.  If you ask
Jesus Christ into your heart as your personal SAVIOUR, and LORD, you can
rest easy.  That is the hard part.  God is gracious, and patient.  He will
work on your heart, and on your mind, and on your soul so that you will in
time give it 100 percent to him.  NO CHRISTIAN is able to give what you
think you should up front.

Salvation is a process.  It takes a lifetime to realize the magnificence
of the Lord in full.  Even so, it is God who reveals himself to YOU, not
you finding out about God.

So relax in the Lord.  Once you have publicly accepted him, and asked him
to be your lord and saviour, He will begin to change you, and make you
into what HE wants.  Just read the bible, and keep up a regular prayer
line, and trust in the LOrd to get you where you need to go.

I hope I have been at least a small help to you, and not confused you to
pieces.  This is the way it was for me, and I haven't stopped loving him
yet.  In fact, it was the easiest thing I ever did now that I think about
it.  In any case, I wish you all the best.

God Bless,
Steve.Gross

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Los Angeles
Date: 24 Aug 92 00:02:19 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA

****NOTE TO MODERATOR**** I know this is only tangential to religion, but I
think there may be enough interesting info to warrant a post - Thanks ******

In article <Aug.21.00.41.19.1992.14448@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes:
>
>Los Angeles is actually named after our Lady.  The full name was
>Nostra Senora Regina de los Angeles de Portiuncula (approximately -- I
>don't speak Spanish).  In English, that's "Our Lady Queen of the
>Angels, of Portiuncula."  The Portiuncula part comes from the church
>that was St. Francis's main church.  The basilica in Assisi is
>currently built around it.  The name of the Californian city was
>undoubtedly picked by the Franciscan missionaries who evangelized in
>California.

Very close.

1769: Gaspar de Portola and Fr. Juan Crespi (a Franciscan) arrive at the
      current site of Los Angeles and deem the site suitable for settlement.
      They refer to the site as:
                ~                     , 
      Nuestra Senora la  Reina de Los Angeles
        Our     Lady the Queen of the Angels  
                                ,
      and the river as 'De Porciuncula'
                                     , 
Some historians include the 'de Porciuncula' part, some don't.  The
Porciuncula means 'little portion' and referred to the aforementioned
plot of land near Assisi in Italy.   There was a feast day associated with
the Porciuncula and it was on that day that the party arrived on-site in
present day Los Angeles.

1771: Mission San Gabriel founded a few miles from the future downtown LA
      area.  Those darn Franciscans again!  Fr. Serra gets credit(?).

1781: Spanish Governor Felipe de Neve gives the area the official status
      of pueblo, the second in California (San Jose being the first).  It
      is officially called:

      El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles sobre el rio Porciuncula
      The 'city' of the Queen of the Angeles on the river Porciuncula.

A call to city hall informs me that the official current name is 'The City of
Los Angeles'.  Other euphemisms are you may know are la-la land and shaky city.

The Porciuncula is now the concrete Los Angeles river that you see in movies 
all the time.


Bob von Buelow,

Graduate of Crespi Carmelite(!) High School

Info from Mrs. Jean Bruce-Poole, Senior Curator/Historian, El Pueblo
Historical Monument, Los Angeles.

--
Bob von Buelow             Mars Observer Planning and Sequencing Element
bobv@quarky.jpl.nasa.gov         - standard disclaimers apply -
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: where does the bible mention about smoking?
Date: 2 Sep 92 02:25:14 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <Sep.1.03.52.38.1992.13750@athos.rutgers.edu> boris@ucsee.berkeley.edu writes:

>"The evidence that cigarettes shorten life is overwhelming; the causal
>connection is as firmly established as any in medicine." -- Science 80,
>September/October, p.42

True, but many things shorten life, and yet we do not oppose them.  Why not?
Examples:
Driving a car (the fumes they produce).
Many, many industries (that we work in, consume the products of) polute
the environment.
In LA 20% of the smog is produced by outdoor BBQs - should Christians oppose
the usage of BBQs in LA?

If I might suggest a better question to ask here is not "Why is smoking
bad?  Where does the Bible object to it?", but rather "Why are we so
inconsistent in objecting one bad thing, but allowing many others?"

Paul
From: pruss@unixg.ubc.ca (Alexander Pruss)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Qumran finding
Date: 3 Sep 92 03:58:12 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada

In article <Sep.1.22.27.34.1992.23282@athos.rutgers.edu> ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com writes:
>I thought this was exciting, too.  Well, actually I don't know if it was the
>same scholar, now that i think about it, but this scholar had translated
>Matthew into Aramaic and discovered that it was much, much easier than it
>should have been given the disparity between Aramaic and Greek, and he found
>plays on words that only existed in Aramaic, and other literary techniques that
>made no sense in Greek but perfect sense in Aramiaic.  Then I read Eusebius,
>who says quite explicitly that Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Hebrews "in
>their own tongue".  No question in his mind.  So I'm thinking, why is this such
>a hotly debated topic?  What's the big deal?  Matthew was written in a Semitic
>language.  It's obvious. Case closed.

Well, when I was reading Eusebius, I was interpreting Eusebius as saying
that Matthew wrote ANOTHER Gospel in Hebrew, a Gospel now lost.  I think
this interpretation is consistent with Eusebius.  Thus, Matthew would
have written two Gospels, a Hebrew and a Greek, with possibly some different
selection of material in each.

In Christ,
Alex.
From: bradk%isdgsm@rtsg.mot.com (Brad Kaiser)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Papacy (was Re: The Lord's Table (Part 1 of 2))
Date: 24 Aug 92 00:12:06 GMT
Reply-To: bradk%isdgsm@rtsg.mot.com

In an excellent article <Aug.21.00.44.39.1992.14505@athos.rutgers.edu>,
Joe Buehler writes of a great deal of patristic and Scriptural
evidence for the Catholic doctrine of Petrine primacy.

I thought I'd point out another Scripture, one that really only makes
sense to me if I read it in the context of Petrine primacy.  It's
hardly enough to base the dogma on; I just found it interesting.

It's in Luke 12:

  [41] Then Peter said, "Lord, is this parable meant for us or for
  everyone? [42] And the Lord replied, "Who, then is the faithful and
  prudent steward whom the master will put in charge of his servants
  to distribute the food allowance at the proper time?  [43] Blessed
  is that servant whom his master on arrival finds doing so.

(This is the 1986 NAB text; the NIV text is replaces the word
"steward" with "manager", but is otherwise similar.)

The Lord's words in v 42 are rather odd, except when you view them in
the context of a commission of authority.  (Don't take my word for it,
read the passage in context.)  And, He uses the singular
"steward", even though Peter used the plural "us", which I found
rather telling.  (I'm not even going to tell you what I think "the
food allowance" is, but it's not potato chips! ;-) )

This Gospel passage was proclaimed at Sunday Mass a few weeks ago;
there was no mention in the missal that it had anything to do with
Peter, but when I heard it, I sat bolt upright in the pew and thought,
"Hey, it's Mt 16:18 all over again!"

Love in Jesus' Name,

Brad Kaiser
(bradk%isdgsm@rtsg.mot.com)

  "Hatred destroys.  Only love creates."
            -- St. Maximilian Kolbe, shortly before his arrest and 
               martyrdom at the hands of the Nazis.

[The immediate meaning is, of course, a warning for those with
authority.  That is, the passage isn't itself a comission of
authority, but does have as a background the idea that there are
leaders.  I don't think commentators see much significance to Jesus'
use of the singular.  If you read on, he distinguishes among servants
who know his master's will and those who don't.  Thus more than one
seem to be involved.  --clh]
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: slavery
Date: 24 Aug 92 01:12:30 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney, Australia

conan@durban.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) writes:

>I would be
>interested in knowing more about opinions on slavery in Europe prior
>to the Age of Discovery--did St. Thomas have an opinion (he had one
>on everything else :-).

We should be careful to keep in mind that slavery has existed in various
different forms, and with different levels of moral repugnance due to it.
So quotes about whether it is OK must be read in the context of the times,
and which form of slavery is being spoken of.

In Roman times, a father could even kill his son in certain
circumstances apparantly: that slaves could be roughly treated too
is not to be wondered at. But nevertheless, to be a slave in a good household
could be a step up for many: look at Joseph's fortunes in the Old Testament. 

In Australia we had slavery by "blackbirding": sugar farmers would go to
Melanesian (South Pacific) islands, invite interested canoeists to view
the hold, slam the door and take off, with a hold full of surprised
"kanakas". This kind of kidnapping and involuntary slavery is a far cry
from volunatary slavery, which has been the practise in some places
and times, where a poor person could find a (hopefully) kind master and
sign up as a slave, sometimes just for a certain period of time. 

Another type of slavery is that of criminals. Even today in most countries
convicts lose most of their civil rights, if not officially then certainly
effectively. The growing trend to farm out prisoners to privately
run gaols gives the appearance of buying and selling them too.

-ricko
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Mark 7
Date: 27 Aug 92 06:56:03 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

I read through Malachi Robertson's discussion, but I didn't see how 
you disproved the statement "Thus he declared all foods clean" - the 
point being made by Jesus was that defilement is from within the heart 
of man and is not caused by the food one eats.  Mark emphasized this by 
the above statement, which I quoted.   

If we look at Peter's vision, where God said "don't declare anything
unclean (or common) that I've called clean," we have to wonder where 
this pronouncement was made, if this passage in the gospels was not 
the place.  Remember the food Peter was commanded to eat included
animals that were prohibited from the Law (Leviticus and Deuteronomy).

The point of the gospel passages was to say "the heart of man is the
problem" and the point of Peter's vision was to say "go to the Gentiles,"
those people who are unclean.  However, the food issue was also part
of the teaching.

Remember that Paul told Timothy that in the last times people
will advocate not to eat certain foods and to not marry.

   1 Tim 4:3   They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain
      from certain foods, which God created to be received with
      thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.
   1 Tim 4:4   FOR EVERYTHING GOD CREATED IS GOOD, and nothing is
      to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,
   1 Tim 4:5   because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

Again Paul warned people about judging and being judged.

   Col 2:16   Therefore do not let anyone judge you by WHAT YOU EAT
      or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon
      celebration or a Sabbath  day.
   Col 2:17   These are a shadow of the things that were to come;
      the reality, however, is found in Christ.
   Col 2:20   Since you died with Christ to the basic principles
      of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you
      submit to its rules:
   Col 2:21   "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"?
   Col 2:22   These are all destined to perish with use, because they
      are based on human commands and teachings.
   Col 2:23   Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom,
      with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their
      harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in
      restraining sensual indulgence.

Paul in these two passages understood the change of the law on food.

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Salvation and the purpose of evangelization
Date: 31 Aug 92 07:40:45 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <Aug.30.02.56.56.1992.12577@athos.rutgers.edu> kmm@cs.purdue.edu (Kevin Megill) writes:
>For God will
>judge us on the basis of what we know


If that is the basis of judgement then it is surely better to be ignorant!!

So why evangelize with any urgency?

[I once heard someone ask a fine Calvinist Presbyterian this question.
(Unfortunately I've forgotten his name.)  He said (roughly), "do you
think the fact that Jesus, our savior and Lord of the universe told us
to is a sufficient reason?"  God can reach people without us.  But
he's offered us the honor of joining him in this effort.  I think we
should accept his offer.

If you want more immediate reasons, I guess I think that even though
God can work with limited understanding, truth is always better.  Yes,
God may reach someone who doesn't know him by name, but surely a clear
presentation of the Gospel is going to be a help.  Even if it didn't
affect anyone's eternal destiny (and I'm not saying that), I think it
could help the way they live here.  It seems to me that even that is
worth doing.

--clh]
From: sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com (Steven J. Edwards)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: EWTN
Date: 1 Sep 92 07:15:23 GMT
Reply-To: sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com
Organization: Bull HN, Worldwide Information Systems, Billerica, Mass., USA

In article <Aug.30.01.43.25.1992.11838@athos.rutgers.edu> gandhi3@husc8.harvard.edu (Srinivas Gandhi) writes:
>  I have seen the EWTN cable network on several occasions both
> in Boston and elsewhere.  I was curious as to whether many of you
> have seen its programming, particularly Mother Angelica's and
> Fr. Benedict Groeschel's shows.

I enjoy watching some of the more theoretical shows on EWTN (Eternal
Word Television Network, US based Catholic programming), although my
schedule limits me to about an hour a week worth of viewing.

I am particularly pleased with Fr. Groeschel's expositories.  He has
an interesting backround; he is both a long time psychologist and a
priest in a hardened area of the Bronx.  I have my copy of the NAB and
(on occasion) Thomas Aquinas handy to follow his lectures.  I've had
the experience of seemingly uncountable university lecturers; most of
them could learn a few lessons from Groeschel's style and clarity of
delivery.

 [The above opinions expressed are my own; not necessarily held by others.]
      == Steven J. Edwards           Bull HN Information Systems Inc. ==
      == (508) 294-3484              300 Concord Road         MS 820A ==
      == sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com     Billerica, MA 01821          USA ==
"That Government which Governs the Least, Governs Best." -- Thomas Jefferson