HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mdw@corona.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Who is Campus Advance?
Date: 4 Sep 92 06:54:06 GMT
Reply-To: mdw@corona.att.com
Organization: AT&T

In article <Sep.3.00.08.13.1992.19859@athos.rutgers.edu> anonymous@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Liz Broadwell) writes:
>A friend of mine ran into a young man claiming to be from a Christian group
>called Campus Advance.  She'd never heard of them, and is curious to know who
>they are.  (So am I, for the matter of that.)  Anybody know anything about
>these people?

Well, I *think* I might!  (Nothing like a good old-fashioned qualified
statement, right?)

In the 70's, Campus Advance was the name of the campus outreach program
at the Crossroads church of Christ in Gainesville, FL.  They reached
mainly the University of Florida, but also (I believe) reached out to
a local college (Santa Fe Community College?).  As people graduated and/or
moved other places, Campus Advance ministries started at churches/schools
across the U.S.  I think the reason for the name was that it was shorter
and flashier (there's nothing *inherently* wrong with that, is there?)
than "The Crossroads church of Christ Campus Outreach Program."  You can't
even make a decent acronym out of that!  Without going into details,
there were a lot of mistakes made and a lot of myths about them spread.

Many of us in the so-called "Boston Movement" could be considered fallout
from the above.  I say "us," even though I was never part of any "Campus
Advance" program, having attended schools (Harding University and Texas
A&M) that did not have it.  Kip McKean, who helped start the Boston church
of Christ, was himself converted at Crossroads.

I *believe* your friend met someone from the Philadelphia church of
Christ.  (Please tell me my geography didn't fail me and that Penn
*is* near Philly!)  I have known one of the Elders there and a few
of the members there for over 10 years.  I *think* I heard one of
them mention that they were going to start an outreach to Penn called
Campus Advance.  The reason I am not sure is because the last time
I saw any of them (last month), I was Best Man in one of their weddings
and the whole weekend is sort of a blur..... ;-)

Here's the email address of a friend of mine (I don't think he reads
netnews):

joe@lwnext.crc.upenn.edu (Joey Harris)

Tell him Mark Wuest (weest) sent you.

Mark
-- 
Mark Wuest                            *MY* opinions, not AT&T's!!
mark.wuest@att.com
mdw@cheshire.att.com (NeXT Mail)
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Christian "Scout" programs
Date: 24 Aug 92 01:14:41 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

I know that some U.S. churches have their own more religious version
of "scouts". Is anyone here involved in these programs? How does your
program differ from the Boy Scouts of America (or the Girl Scouts?).
Is your program centralized or is each troop independent? Would you
take outside funding if it was available?

[In June, the United Way of Suburban Chicago changed its charter to
allow support programs designed to serve particular religious groups.
I'm wondering what new groups might apply for the money.]

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: defining fundamentalism
Date: 27 Aug 92 07:26:57 GMT
Organization: Unisys Corporation, Malvern, PA

In article <Aug.26.01.51.03.1992.7497@athos.rutgers.edu> REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov writes:
>>
>>  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. etc...........
>
>What's this about not having or maintaining strongly defined doctrinal
>statements!  Bull hockey.  I don't know of a single fundamental church that
>doesn't have in its constitute at least a partial statement of doctrinal
>beliefs.  Are they as elaborate as, say, the Westminster Confession, NOT.  ...

There are many fundamentalist churches in my area that openly profess "no
creed but Christ."  This form of anti-creedalism seems to be fairly common
among the more naive strains of Christian churches.  I believe this is what
the author was referring to "historically naive."

>percent that do.  I'm a Baptist by membership, and yet I have studied many of
>the confession and creeds.  I probably know the Westminister better than most
>Presbyterians lay people!

As a Baptist I'm sure you're familiar with the Savoy Declaration, which is
basicly a Baptist version of the Westminster Confession.  The Savoy
Declaration, as a creed or confession, seems to be a far cry from what most
fundamentalist baptistic congregations in the US would offer as a
"confession."

>All the fundamental Bible Colleges, and Institutes and sem's have very well
>defined doctrinal statements.  ...

"Fundamentalist" bible schools and seminaries are NOT churches.  Their
purpose in constructing a doctrinal statement or confession may be very
different from that of a church or denomination.  And that fact that
"fundamentalist" bible schools might have doctrinal statements in no way
reflects upon whether or not they are common in fundamentalist churches.

I think the moderator's point that the original use of the term
"fundamentalist" as someone who subscribed to the ideas embodied in _The
Fundamentals_ is a far cry from fundamentalists of today.


-- 
Tom Albrecht
From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Salvation and the purpose of evangelization
Date: 28 Aug 92 04:57:32 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <Aug.27.02.37.42.1992.934@athos.rutgers.edu> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au (Derek Abbott) writes:
>
>...If salvation is possible without having even heard the name "Jesus"
>(as in the case of an eskimo 3000 years ago) then we ask what is
>the purpose of evangelization and what is the need for doing it
>with any urgency?
>
>However, if we say that salvation is only open to those who are
>exposed to Jesus (in their lifetimes) then what does happen to
>the poor eskimo who lived 3000 years ago or the child born
>today with a severe mental handicap?
>
>Does anyone have the answer to this tension?
>
Romans 10:13-17
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?
and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?
and how shall they hear without a preacher?
And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written...
So then faith faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of
God."

Those who have not heard the word, cannot believe.  Therefore they
shall perish.  This is why missionary work is so crucial.  This is
why Jesus gave the great commission.  It may seem unfair to you, but
who am I, a mere man, to question God's eternal plan or righteousness or
justice.  Salvation is ONLY possible through faith...

As far as the child with a mental handicap, it is widely believed
that there is an age of accountability which varies from child to 
child depending on their ability to distinguish right from wrong.
Someone who is so mentally deficient as not to understand the word
or its message would probably not be held accountable.  However,
I have no scriptural basis for any of this and still wrestle with
the concept.  As far as I know, this is not dealt with in the Bible.
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H Buehler)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Papacy
Date: 30 Aug 92 05:36:17 GMT

In article <Aug.28.01.38.10.1992.25168@athos.rutgers.edu> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:

   >I would question the grounds of your identification of "the papacy" with the 
   >"see of Peter". The bishop of Alexandria was called "pope" long before the 
   >bishop of Rome was, and his title is still today "Pope and Patriarch of 
   >Alexandria and All Africa". 

   "Pope" is only an _unofficial_ title for Peter's successor.  I
   believe the title was conferred popularly many centuries ago, and
   translates to a familiar term for father, i.e. "papa".  He has several
   titles, but probably the most official title is "Bishop of Rome."  The
   term "papacy" therefore comes from this unofficial title, but refers
   to the special status we Catholics believe Peter held among the
   Apostles.  This is evidenced, for one thing, by the Gospels, which
   pretty much always referrered to the Apostles as, e.g. "Peter and the
   disciples," etc..

"Pope" was not a distinctive term for the Roman Pontiff in the early
Church.  As Steve Creps hints at, the word comes from the Latin and
Greek words for "father."

The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that the word "pope" (actually, the
Greek equivalent, pappas) has always been used in the East to
designate a simple priest.  Just like Roman rite Catholics call their
priests "Father", I suppose.  According to the CE, in the West, the
title "Pope" was for bishops alone, since the beginning.  It
apparently started to be a distinctive title for the Bishop of Rome
starting in the 4th century sometime.

   The papacy itself is not geographically based on the See of Rome,
   but rather the successor of Peter, wherever he is.

There is an interesting entry in Pius IX's "Syllabus of Errors"
regarding this.  The following is condemned proposition #35:

"There is nothing to prevent the Sovereign Pontificate from being
transferred from the Roman Bishop and from the City of Rome to another
Bishop and to another See, either by vote of a general council, or by
an act of all peoples."

It would seem that, even if the Pope could/did not reside in Rome for
some reason, as during the Avignon Papacies, he must still be the
Bishop of Rome.
From: ceb@dbrus.unify.com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: healing statistics
Date: 26 Aug 92 06:21:07 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <Aug.25.02.08.00.1992.18920@athos.rutgers.edu> U16028@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
>My mother just died on Friday, August 21, of complications due to cancer....
>My mother, who was a kind gentle as they come, was subjected to incredible
>pain and agony.  Our family was subject to the unrelenting torture of
>watching her waste away, helpless except for our faith and belief that God's
>will would be done.
>
>I prayed.  I prayed.  I begged and pleaded.

Did you pray that she be healed, or that God's will be done?

>And she died.  Now all I can do is wail and gnash my teeth.  Why did he
>abandon me?

Why do you think He abandoned you?  Do you think that He is *not* patiently
and lovingly waiting for you to turn to Him for comfort, just as He is al-
ready surrounding your mother's soul with love, peace, and joy?

It sounds to me like you assume that His will is identical to yours.  It was
*your* will that she live and recover from the cancer.  From Carlo M. Mar-
tini's _Journeying_With_the_Lord_:
	The cross offers nothing ... to those who pretend
	that God's love corresponds to man's ... desires.
What was God's will in this?  *You* don't know; *I* don't know.  But this
tragedy is completed.  Now is the time for you and your family to choose 
whether you will recover from, or be irretrievably damaged by, your mother's
death.  You have the opportunity now to choose to love God and depend on Him
no matter how terrible the storms are that try to wreck your lives, or to
choose to reject Him and His comfort and try to weather those storms alone.
Which will it be?

My father died 6 years ago, after a long period of physical decline, 2 AM
dashes to the hospital, oxygen tanks occasionally trailing around the house,
loss of both his driver's license and of the concentration necessary to make
even a game of gin rummy enjoyable.  His decline was not particularly painful
physically, and he died in his sleep.  There are things I wish I could have
said to him before he had died, and things I wish we could have done to-
gether.  But the only part of him that really matters lives in God's love
now, and I couldn't wish him to be elsewhere, for anywhere else would be a
come-down compared to where he is now.  Above all, I do not mistake my wish
to have had more time with him, or that he had died in some other manner,
with God's will in the matter.  Do I wish that Daddy had been immortal?
No -- aside from knowing my Greek mythology, why would I want to deny anyone
reunion with God?  All the reports have it as being a thoroughly satisfying
experience!  ;o)


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244   ------------------------------+
|   "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then there will be   |
|   peace."					-- Anon.		      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: And what *is* a Christian
Date: 27 Aug 92 06:40:01 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

sbuckley@sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:

>petersob@uwec.edu (Brent Peterson) writes:

>>You could open up an arguement about whether salvation is a one-time
>>event or a process.  I used to think that "accepting" Christ was a 
>>one-time deal for everyone.  Now, I've been more open because there
>>are people that can't remember the day, hour, or even year that they
>>were saved.  For me it was a little bit of both.  "Believing" in Jesus
>>to me is "a trusting response to God's grace".

>  in trying to live a righteous life through the Spirit's conviction
>i find re-accepting Christ frequently, sometimes often each day, allows
>me to draw closer to God; while in the times when i just think that i've 
>accepted jesus once and i'm fine from now on, i tend to drift from a place
>where i feel God is close to me and it's harder to live the good life.

Is it necessary to be Christian to go to heaven?  Would it be possible just to
worship God with no mention of Jesus, or does Jesus figure prominently and
essentially into the equation?  Surely there were those people that were worthy
of heaven before Jesus came, so can there not be such people today?

And also, what is with all of these denominations?  Do members of one
denomination think that the members of others are totally wrong and will thus
be denied access to heaven?  How important are the things that separate the
denominations.  Could one get along without any of them?  That is, need a 
Christian be a member or any organized religion at all?  If not, then why are
so many people members of expensive religious organizations?  Would it not be
best to worship privately, and to keep others' ideas away?

Just curious

keith
From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Baptismal Hair-Splitting (Was Re: And what *is* a Christian?)
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:42:18 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

Actually, before Gaius disappered, they heard him say, "I seem to recall 
hearing about how Peter was with a group of Gentiles when the Holy Ghost was
poured out on them upon their belief and they began to speak in tongues,
much to the amazement of the Christian Jews that were present, perhaps
not understanding how circumcision made no difference where salvation
was concerned.  These gentiles, having been saved and filled with the
Spirit, were then baptized (by immersion of course)."  With these words,
Alex and Billy were warped back into the present where they considered
Gaius' words and scoured the Bible to find this story.  In just a few
minutes, they managed to find it in Acts 10.  Just by coincidence, they
also remembered the theif on the cross who was saved prior to death and
how he certainly could not have been baptized by immersion.  Unfortunately,
Alex (or Billy...can't remember which one) was too proud to admit that this
story of the saved gentiles really was as it appeared and tried reading
some other interpretation to it to coincide with his views.  As Gaius
looked through the portal of time, he was saddened by how the message of
salvation through faith had been altered to include other things.  For
some baptism, others works and deeds, etc.
Mark
From: ajackson@cs.ubc.ca (Ann Jackson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: "Christian politics"??
Date: 1 Sep 92 07:18:56 GMT

In article <Aug.31.03.29.47.1992.25816@athos.rutgers.edu> you write:
|> Our economy is about to be attacked by a law that is predicated on the
|> concept that we must set things up so that disabled never need any
|> special considerations: buses have to be designed to accept
|> wheelchairs even though it would be cheaper for us and more convenient
|> for them to have special shuttle buses set up specifically to handle
|> wheelchairs, ...

In British Columbia, we've had a shuttle bus service for the disabled for years,
run by the public transportation utility. Recently, there's been a move to
equipping the regular buses with lifts instead. Wheelchair-bound people seem to
claim that this is a wonderful improvement to their freedom of movement. The
shuttle service has to be reserved two or three days in advance, so if your
friends called up and said "How about meeting downtown tonight for a movie?"
you couldn't join them (unless they had a car to pick you up). With the new
system, you can roll on down to the bus stop. So maybe the extra cost to the
taxpayer is worthwhile.

[Indeed.  My comments were not intended to imply that I wanted to
require disabled people to reserve buses days ahead of time, nor
anything of that sort.  --clh]
From: bradk%isdgsm@rtsg.mot.com (Brad Kaiser)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Marriage to a Catholic outside a Catholic Church
Date: 26 Aug 92 06:21:49 GMT
Reply-To: bradk%isdgsm@rtsg.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group

In article <Aug.23.21.14.32.1992.23012@athos.rutgers.edu>
jim@cs.uow.edu.au writes:

>I have just encountered something that i find hard to understand.
>
>Is it true that if a Catholic marries a non Catholic in the non catholics 
>church, then the Catholic church does not recognise the marriage and thus
>the two are living together.
>
>I have come across this where the Catholic priest does not recognise a marriage
>of a Catholic girl in an Orthodox church unless he is present or something
>like that. Is this in Vatican or Catholic law or is this a parrish thing.
>
>I would seriously like to get an answer to this and quotes from laws and other
>sources. Is the Orthodox church recognised by the Catholic church.

According to Fr. Peter Stravinskas in 'The Catholic Answer Book', the
Catholic party should apply to her bishop for a dispensation to marry
in the Orthodox Church.  No Catholic cleric is required to contract
such a marriage, he says.  Subject to the usual considerations for one
marrying outside the Faith, her marriage will be recognized by the
Catholic Church, and she remains fully in communion with the life of
the Church.

Ironically, it is not the Catholic Church which fails to recognize the
validity of the Orthodox sacrament in this case, it is the reverse.
The Orthodox hold that the priest is the minister of the sacrament,
while Catholic teaching is that the couple administer the sacrament to
each other.  A Catholic priest as the sole presider, therefore, would
have a "defect of intent", according to Orthodoxy, which would render
him unable to administer the sacrament.

>
>Thanx in advance 
>
>Jim
>
>Email : jim@cs.uow.edu.au

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.
From: dlhpfm!dlh@ncoast.org (daniel lance herrick)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Clinton & Gore
Date: 4 Sep 92 07:05:56 GMT
Organization: dlh Performance Marketing

ceb@dbrus.unify.com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:

> The actions of the current SBC leader-
> ship (if they're still doing what filled the secular newspapers some years
> back (firing traditionalist professors at Southern Baptist U. and replacing
> them with outspoken and shameless bigots; forcing traditionalists out of the
> SBC leadership and replacing them with o.&s.b.; etc.)) fills me with the same
> disgust as the standard secular attempts at coercive bigotry.

This is the same liberal/conservative thing that is being argued in two
or three threads on soc.religion.christian right now.  In fact, some of
the same issues figure in the decisions.

There is group of opinions that have systematically penetrated the
leadership of several organizations since maybe the 50's or 60's. 
First, the faculties of the seminaries, then the faculties of the bible
colleges, eventually the pastorates.

Right now, the alumni and parents and the people in the pews who pay the
bills of many of the schools would be aghast if they knew what their
contributions are being used for.  The recent changes in the Southern
Baptist Convention have been a self-conscious reversal of that trend. 
The job is not done yet.

I once heard an interview of the head of a college located somewhere in
Central America.  He said, "It is an explicit feature of our faculty
contract that this school exists to exercise the academic freedom of
the trustees of the college and the contract will come to an end when
the faculty member ceases to represent the position of the trustees."

The judge who did the spade work to start bringing SBC back to its
traditions said that it does not make sense for parents to spend
eighteen years trying to teach a Biblical world and life view and then
pay a denominational college to spend four years tearing it all down.

dan
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: where does the bible mention about smoking?
Date: 2 Sep 92 02:45:45 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <Sep.1.03.51.28.1992.13724@athos.rutgers.edu> lbarrass@phillip.edu.au writes:
>In article <Aug.31.03.20.04.1992.25798@athos.rutgers.edu>, phantom@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (James Choi) writes:
>> I have been curious about non-smoking policy of some christians.  From my
>> limited experience, catholics seems to smoke openly while protestants
>> either don't smoke or downplay the fact that they smoke.
>> 
>> I did a text search through the entire bible and I could not find anything
>> that dictates against smoking.  Where did this policy come from?
>
>  On a more serious note, although it is never mentioned in the Bible, smoking
>is very harmful and we are warned not to defile the temple of the Holy Spirit.
>
>Another thing to look at in regard to defiling our bodies is what else we put
>them through e.g. Alchohol, Caffeine, Cholesterol (McDonalds etc), excess sugar
>.. the list goes on. I am guilty of more than one in that list!


My sense is that "all things in moderation" would apply here.  Smoking one
cigarette a month probably isn't going to do much harm to one's body.  Neither
is one mambo banana split a month.  Or a shot of scotch.  The problem comes
when one starts smoking, say, 600 cigarettes a month, or a pack a day.
Or 30 banana splits.  A half bottle of scotch a day.  And so on.  

It's wise to caution against smoking, because it's addictive for most people.
To a lesser degree, so is alcohol.  And sugar.  Moderation is probably the
hardest path to follow, but for those strong enough to do it, there's
good biblical precedence.



-- 
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu

I believe we are on the irreversible trend toward more freedom and
democracy -- but that could change.   -- J. Danforth Quayle