HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vxv4@po.cwru.edu (Virgilio Velasco)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Have any prayer needs?
Date: 5 Oct 92 02:11:51 GMT
Reply-To: vxv4@po.cwru.edu (Virgilio Velasco)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


	Every few weeks, I post a message announcing the existence of
a prayer warriors network which originated here at s.r.c.  It's been a
while since I last made this announcement, so I thought I'd do it again.
If you have any urgent prayer needs, send your request to me and I'll
forward it to the rest of the group.  If you would like to join our
band of prayer warriors, just drop me a line and I'll add your name to
our list.

	Keep the faith!

-- 
Virgilio "Dean" Velasco Jr., grad student & roboticist-in-training, CWRU

   "Bullwinkle, that man's intimdating a referee!"     |    My boss is a 
   "Not very well.  He doesn't look like one at all."  |  Jewish carpenter.
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: In Defense of a Little Virginity
Date: 2 Oct 92 04:54:35 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: ptfarre@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Peter Farrell)
>This doubtless satisfies none of the "What about rape and incest" crowd,
>but we find that the vast majority of women seeking abortions in the
>United States are seeking them for reasons associated with what
>can only be called sexual immorality in the Bible; the baby is
>either inconvenient or embarrassing and so they seek any solution
>short of carrying the child to term.
>
>I once worked in a crisis pregnancy center; most of our visitors
>were young, attractive, middle-class girls who had a problem
>associated with (to quote this morally loose age) "going too far".
>

Yes, indeed. Now why did these young, attractive, middle-class
girls find having a baby embarrassing? Could it ever, in any
case, be because their old unattractive middle class
conservative parents would disown them rather than treat the
baby with love and care? Could it be because they knew that
they would be condemned for the rest of their lives as
irresponsible by conservative-inclined people, if they were to
go ahead and have the baby?

Clearly it *is* irresponsible to do anything that could lead to
a baby being born outside the marriage relationship.
Nevertheless, if you believe that abortion is the extinction of
a human life, as I do, I believe you *must* be tolerant of
those who have accidentally become pregnant. Any attempt to
hold up the unmarried mother as an "awful warning" will simply
push the unmarried expectant mother to the abortion clinic
before she has the chance to become an awful earning for
someone else.

Matthew Huntbach
From: jte@psi.com (John Eldredge)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Why Are Most Religious Followers So Sensitive?
Date: 28 Sep 92 02:21:53 GMT
Organization: Performance Systems International, Inc. Reston Virginia.

In article <Sep.25.21.05.24.1992.3862@athos.rutgers.edu> jwong@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Jack Wong) writes:
>
>   All I asked was for some more facts besides the 
>   Bible claiming that God exists.  

Romans chapter 1 tells us that the orderly design of nature says much about
the person of God.

But, since the content of one's saving faith is derived from Biblical 
revelation, your dismissal of the Bible leaves one with little to discuss.  
God is not provable by strict laws of philosophy or science.  He never 
intended to be.  Faith has always been the vehicle by which men come to God.

 "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not 
see.  This is what the ancients were commended for.  ...
"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because everyone who comes
to him must believe that he exists and that he reards those who earnestly 
seek him."  Hebrews 11:1-2, 6.

Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousnes.  That was 
long before churches or even denominations as we know them.

>   I hope it's not the case because I know of a few people that are very
>   caring unlike some people in this group.

I believe that many believers care.  Care about your soul, your eternal 
destiny.  At stake here is not a point of debate, but a soul.  Your
removal of our most important "tool," that is God's Word, may cause an
unfortunate vacuum that effects the behavior of some poorly.

My hope is that the Spirit of God opens your eyes to His truth, but hostility 
is certainly not an effective tone - for you or your respondants.

John
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: biblical inerrancy / sign of Jonah
Date: 29 Sep 92 07:01:07 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <Sep.27.21.36.45.1992.985@athos.rutgers.edu> mcconley@athena.mit.edu (Marc W Mcconley) writes:

>There are also some theories trying to reconcile the two.  One is a
>claim that there were calendars that differed by a day.  E.g.  it's
stuff deleted

>The passage used to establish this Solar calendar are ambiguous, it's
>unclear why Jesus would have been following an Essene calendar, etc.

According to a Hebrew Bible graduate student here at UGA, the Passover meal
was celebrated on two days.  They made this allowance because so many 
travelers came into Jerusalem during that time of year.  Does anyone else
know if this is true?  I may have to ask him where he got this information.

Link Hudson.
From: templef@columbia.dsu.edu (Fred Temple)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: A Question to Christians
Date: 28 Sep 92 01:56:35 GMT
Organization: Dakota State University

Why are so many Christians so arrogant?
I say this because I have come across so many people who
profess to be Christ-like but behave as though they are
superior to all others.  Also, most of the Christians I have
been in contact with seem to believe that if you don't believe
exactly as they believe you are damned to Hell.  Furthermore,
many Christians seem to believe that Christianity has an exclusive
claim to morality.  Christians, please explain this to me.  Thank you.
*****************************************************************
* Frederick J. Temple - KB0GKD                                  *
* Madison, South Dakota USA                                     *
*                                                               *
* "Create your own programming environment                      *
*  with the power of the Forth." - F.J. Temple                  *
*****************************************************************

[It's called "original sin".  I.e. Christians aren't perfect either.

But there's a basic problem that makes what you might regard as
tolerance difficult.  Suppose for a moment that we're right: that the
world was really created by God, that your eternal destiny depends
upon your relationship with him, and that Christ is the key to this
relationship.  Then it's hard to see how Christians can simply regard
all beliefs as alike.

In fact there's a subtle distinction here.  It's not that we think
people are damned because they don't agree with us.  It's that we
think that the spiritual world has "hard" laws, just as the physical
one does.  If I tell you that when you walk off a cliff you're going
to get hurt, this isn't a matter of pride.  The issue isn't agreeing
with me.  It's rather that there's something objectively true that I'm
trying to alert you to.  Christians believe that it's the same way in
the spiritual realm -- that there are things that are simply true, and
that things will be a lot better for you if you take them into
account.

I realize that this can turn into a source of pride, and that
sometimes Christians really do seem to think we control God.  On the
other hand, ultimately Christians -- even liberal ones like me --
simply can't regard all religious beliefs as equally valid, any more
than we can regard all scientific or mathematical beliefs as equally
valid.  This makes the whole question of toleration a very difficult
one for Christians.  From a legal point of view, most (though not all)
of us think that the State has no business favoring one religion over
another.  There are too many problems with trying to compell belief.
From a personal point of view, we are called on to love and respect
people who disagree with us.  But we also think they are wrong, and
many of us think that there are some areas in which being wrong is
going to have a long term effect.

--clh]
From: pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Questions about the Bible
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:38:21 GMT

Kapila,
 
I agree that man is imperfect. However, it seems more accurate to me to say
that God created man with an ability to choose to either obey God or to
sin. It doesn't seem to me as if it was required for Adam and Eve to fail,
only that they have choice. This is part of true love, the ability to
choose. If obedience is forced upon us (i.e. we are forced to be perfect),
then somehow we are not perfect in that condition either since we had no
choice.
 
God is unique in that he created a man who had choice to either obey or sin,
but God also knew what he would do. This is an attribute of God we call
omniscience (all-knowing). You can argue round and round and round that
since he knew, he is responsible or to say that to know is not to force.
We can have some understanding of this with someone we know and in certain
situations, we know how they will respond. We say, "I knew you were going
to do that." But our foreknowledge, does not force the action on them.
 
When you bring in Satan. Again we can see in the Bible that God created
Satan to be good. However, Satan went bad. 
 
One very important thing to know is the verse in Romans 8:28, "And we know
that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have
called according to his purpose." (NIV) This means that no matter what
happens, the loving God has already forseen it and is working for the
good of those who both love him and are called according to his purpose.
I think it implies that anyone who doesn't love God or who isn't living
in God's purpose for them is going to have a difficult time with some
of the events that go on. It also means that everything doesn't happen
for the best, i.e. everything that happens may not be how God (or we)
might most like it, but God does work for the good in all things.
 
Now regarding salvation:
 
If you truly sense that you are in need of salvation, must you not treat
as suspect anything that has its origin in you, the one who is in a
bad state? This is the difference between all other religions and
Christianity. Namely, in other religions, man reaches inside himself
to try to become better. In Christianity, God reaches down to us and 
does what we are unable to do for ourselves, he adds something to us
namely himself. This is the born again experience that Christians 
talk about. The Bible calls it a mystery, "Christ in you, the hope of
glory." God is again returning us to the state that Adam and Eve were
in before the Fall when God would come down in the cool of the evening
and walk with them. The loving God desires relationship with each of
us. He has made a way, through his son Jesus Christ. If we confess 
our sin to him, he will forgive us and cause us to be born again by 
his spirit coming to live in us. Then we can begin to love God,
find out his purpose for us and live with him in that purpose.
 
Peter White
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Councils and canons (was Innerancy (sic))
Date: 29 Sep 92 07:06:31 GMT
Organization: none

In article <Sep.27.21.32.11.1992.919@athos.rutgers.edu> Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Steve Hayes) writes:

   The Roman Catholic Church did not exist in A.D. 325. The Church of Rome 

Here's the end of the Nicene Creed of the council of 325:

"...and those who call 'God the Son changeable and mutable,' these the
Catholic Church anathematizes."

The question arises, what is meant by the phrase, "The Catholic
Church"?

St. Cyril of Jerusalem of Jerusalem wrote this in 347 AD, in his work
"Catechectical Discourses," 18:26:

"And if ever thou art sojourning in any city, inquire not simply where
the Lord's house is -- for the sects of the profane also attempt to
call their own dens, houses of the Lord -- nor merely where the church
is, but where is the Catholic Church.  For this is the peculiar name
of the holy body the mother of us all."

The Fathers in the West say the same thing 30 or 40 years later.
"Catholic Church" seems to be a proper name of one religious body in
the 4th century.

   certainly existed, and was the most influential church in the West. But the 
   churches of Alexandria (whose bishop was the first to use the title "pope", 
   and still does today) and Antioch were at least as influential. The Council 
   of Nicaea also recognized the Churches of Jerusalem and Constantinople as 
   influential - Jerusalem because it was where the Church started and was the 
   scene of Christ's death and resurrection, and Constantinople because it was 
   the new capital of the empire. I don't remember offhand, but I don't think 
   there were any bishops from the Church of Rome at the Council of Nicaea, 
   though the Roman Church accepted its decisions.

You're thinking of the council of 381.  Constantinople had no
importance at the time of Nicaea, and Jerusalem was not a patriarchy.
The important sees at the time of Nicaea were Rome, Alexandria and
Antioch.

There were two priests from Rome present at Nicaea as the Pope's
representatives (Victor and Vincentius).
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Christians and Economics
Date: 6 Oct 92 03:53:47 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
>Fritz Shumacher (beloved of hippies) was some kind of a Christian. He
>wrote a very famous book called "Small is Beautiful" which I think
>he subtitled "Economics as if people mattered". He included a chapter
>called "Buddhist Economics", but as he says, he could have chosen any
>anti-materialist creed and it would have been substantially the same.

It's basically a re-working of the Distributism of
G.K.Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc. Both were noted Catholic
apologists. I am pretty sure that Schumacher explicitly
recognises his debt to G.K.Chesterton.

I am wary though about any attempts to link Christianity with
any form of economics. The line that "Christianity is basically
communism" is common here in the UK, but I note that in the USA
there is a strong link between certain Christians and
right-wing politics.

It is part of the genius of Christianity that it does not
neatly map onto any economic structure. I can accept that
two people may hold wildly differing views on economics, yet
both be sincere Christians who apply their Christianity to their
economics.

Matthew Huntbach
From: jonh@david.wheaton.edu (Jonathan Hayward)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Extempore prayer
Date: 28 Sep 92 01:11:54 GMT
Organization: Wheaton College, IL

In article <Sep.23.01.17.56.1992.28650@athos.rutgers.edu> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>I think in any case the distinction you have drawn is not as
>great as you would like to believe. In evangelical and
>charismatic groups which value extempore prayer you will find
>in fact that most people stick to variations on common
>formulae. If anything, these groups lose some of the depth and
>feeling in good liturgical style prayer, since as I said most
>people are not poets or theologians and so restrict themselves
>to simple banalities. The banalities can, however, become
>dangerous, since without any check on them it is easy for
>theological error to slip into them. For instance, how many

Does the Holy Spirit constitute a sufficient check?

>extempore prayers fill up the space with the words "Spirit of Jesus"
>- now what is this - a fourth person of the Trinity? yet idle
>repetition of sloppy phrases in extempore prayer can bring
>about such wrong thinking.

I find both prayers composed by others and prayers in my own words to bring me
closer to God.  I use prayers composed by others in the same manner as an
eloquent quote I come across - not out of refusing to think, but because of
being aware of how powerful and truthful the words are.  When I speak the
Lord's Prayer, I am made more aware - and I have not yet encountered a better
or more powerful prayer.

When I pray outside of prescribed forms, however, it is acting _in_the_Holy_
_Spirit._ The Holy Spirit is the check on me producing errors that would taint
my beliefs and my understanding of God.  Unless Jesus was a liar and the
counselor he promised is ignoring my wholehearted (and as well-founded as I can
make them) attempts to learn and grow greater, being absent and allowing Satan
to teach me instead, an honest prayer that does not take a prescribed form is
holy.

################################################################################
# "God, give me mountains # "But the greatest   # Jonathan Hayward             #
# to climb and the        # of these is love."  # Jonathan_Hayward@wheaton.edu #
# strength for climbing." # I Corinthians 13:13 # jhayward@imsa.edu            #
################################################################################
From: w3romani@student.business.uwo.ca (Walter Romaniuk)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: christian business association
Date: 3 Oct 92 06:33:51 GMT
Organization: University of Western Ontario

Greetings!
I'm an MBA student in Canada, and a couple of friends and I have been 
thinking about trying to set up a Christian business club for two 
reasons:
1- to give support to other christians in our program
2- to help some others realize that there is something more important 
than money.

I would appreciate any comments or suggestions on how people at other 
schools have gone about establishing such organizations.

God Bless, 
Walter

w3romani@student.business.uwo.ca (Walter Romaniuk)
Western Business School  --  London, Ontario
From: rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: God's care of us individually
Date: 5 Oct 92 01:36:12 GMT

(Contributed to the CHRISTIA BITNET list server and to the
soc.religion.christian newsgroup)

Here are a couple of ideas from computing that I find useful in
thinking about the objection that God has more important things
to do than to personally monitor the actions, thoughts, prayers,
sins, etc., of every person.
 
1.   Parallel processing model:  given a massively parallel
     computing environment, one might consider handling a
     molecular dynamics simulation by spawning (forking, if the
     UN*X gurus prefer) multiple processes, one for each atom in
     the simulation.  Similarly we might thinking of the divine
     subprocesses spawned to deal with each individual being ---
     this reminds me a bit of the Roman Catholic doctrine of
     guardian angels, whose feast was just celebrated 2 October.
     [Lest someone accuse me of spreading unscriptural doctrine
     I'll include Matthew 18:10 (RSV):  "See that you do not
     despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in
     heaven their angels always behold the face of my Father who
     is in heaven."]
 
2.   Non-real-time model:  the common Christian understanding
     says that God stands outside of time.  That means that, to
     God, events in our time do not require action in (God's)
     real-time.  So even if God is a uni-processor he's got
     plenty of "time" to deal with each individual --- running
     the universe is not a real-time problem for God.
 
Disclaimer --- I am not suggesting that God is a computer,
whether massively parallel or uniprocessor, any more than the
author of a fairly popular inspirational verse intended to
suggest that Jesus leaves visible footprints in the sand as he
accompanies each of us through life.
-- 
                                              --- Tim Rolfe
                                           rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu
                                            ROLFE@SDNET.BITNET
From: dike@rs054.intel.com (Charles Dike)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: biblical inerrancy / sign of Jonah
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:40:04 GMT
Organization: Intel Corporation, Beaverton, OR


    > Link Hudson.
    >According to a Hebrew Bible graduate student here at UGA, 
    >the Passover meal was celebrated on two days.  They made 
    >this allowance because so many travelers came into Jerusalem 
    >during that time of year.  Does anyone else know if this 
    >is true?  I may have to ask him where he got this information.

Alfred Edersheim says basically the same thing but in great detail
in his "The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah". If you want to
use this for an argument to support the last supper as a Passover
meal there is a problem with the crucifixion time. The sacrifices
would have begun on the acknowledged High Sabbath and the second
day would have handled the rest of the overflow crowds. Christ
had to be killed before the High Sabbath.  Edersheim attempts to
deal with these problems and opts for a Friday crucifixion.  I 
can't recall why but I think he went with it because of tradition.
My memory fails me.

Cordially,
Charles Dike
dike@scic.intel.com
From: Steve.Gross@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Some troubles.
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:41:26 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

Hello all.

I am experiencing some troubles with my server I think.  I have been
ahving difficulty sending mail to some people who are at certain
locations.  If you reply to my riddles or my posts at my box, and recieve
no reply, it is probably for this reason.  I am terribly sorry for any
inconvenience, and will try to post the things you request if they are not
going to upset the groups, or if they are not duplicates.

Once again, sorry for any ill-feelings I have caused due to no response. 
It really is not because I don't want to respond to you.

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