HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Steve.Hayes@f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Preaching to the Moderns
Date: 20 Dec 92 22:14:01 GMT

On <14 Dec 1992 22:32> Michael I Bushnell (5:7104/2) said to All :

 MIB>Michael Siemon wonders why the belief in the virgin birth is
 MIB>important.  To him, it is quite irrelevant, and he is cautious about
 MIB>peoples' reasons.
 MIB>
 MIB>Charley points out that the phrase "born of the Virgin Mary" was
 MIB>intended to underscore Christ's humanity, which was under far more
 MIB>fire than his divinity at the time.  Moreover, appealing to the virgin
 MIB>birth to prove Christ's divinity slights the Resurrection, which, as
 MIB>OFM points out, is what Paul cites as the principal reason for belief
 MIB>in Christ.

Surely one of the significant things about the virgin birth is that it shows 
that in Christ there is a new creation, that God is making a fresh start.
From: bc744@cleveland.freenet.edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: WHY JEWS RESENT PROSELYTIZING
Date: 13 Dec 92 05:11:38 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)


   There have been various recent efforts to link Christianity to 
Judaism.  These efforts range from the repeated use of the phrase   
"Judeo-Christian" to groups of evangelists refering to themselves
as 'Jews' for Jesus.  All of these efforts, calculated to convert 
Jews to Christianity, are doomed to failure.  These efforts prove
that those who do this know little or nothing about Judasim.

   To begin, there is much about how Christians worship that Jews
regard as idol-worship.  From the Jewish point of view, Christian
prayer is wierd and demeaning.  Jews actually do not have visions
of God, let alone any sort of icons.  God is considered as beyond 
anything that we mortals could possibly grasp.  The very thought, 
that "Jesus is Lord," assaults the basic concept of God for Jews. 

   Moshiach(messiah) is not a supernatural being.  He is supposed
to be a man, and only a man.  For this reason, it is not possible
for the Jewish messiah to be born, die, and be resurrected, so he
can try to get right what he never accomplished the first time.

   And finally, the concept of God crucifying his own son for the
sins of any other person, let alone all of humanity, is, from the 
Jewish point of view, totally unacceptable.  It flies in the face
of everything that is important in Judasim.  Judaism teaches that
salvation is achievable by how one behaves.  In Judaism, even the
atheist who behaves in a decent and kind manner will have a place
in the world to come.  Since people of any creed have the ability
to behave in a holy and humane manner, Jews beleive that ANY good
person can go to heaven.  As the old ad slogan for the kosher rye
bread claimed, you don't have to be Jewish...

   If, as Judaism teaches, one can achieve salvation by behavior,
then Jesus would have died for nothing.  This is the basic reason
that Christianity can never accept Judaism.  Judasim holds that a
person is responsible for his or her own salvation.  We also view
an act such as the murder of Jesus as cruel and barbaric.  As the
concept of God in Judasim is one of a loving God, the reason that
is given for God's sacrifice is not acceptable to Jews.  To us it
is repugnant in the extreme.  It flies in the face of all that we
Jews hold dear.

   I hope that this is not regarded as judgement of Christianity, 
for it is not.  Please consider this as simply an explanation why 
Christianity can never find common ground with Judaism.  It is my
hope that this will shed light on why Jews are so deeply offended 
by, and resentful of, Christian proselytising.
From: jmrg9881@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon Reid)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: CREMATION
Date: 16 Dec 92 06:42:17 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

>[This follows a discussion on cremation.
>u94_dlavdas@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu commented that his church forbids
>cremation because the body is the Temple of God.  --clh]

My understanding was that people who object to cremation on religious
grounds do so because they feel there won't be anything to resurrect.

So what happens with people who weren't embalmed, but were eaten by worms?
I guess their bones are still around somewhere...  The same is true of
cremated bodies.  Is it any harder to resurrect a decayed body than a
burned body?  Heck, for that matter, how would you resurrect an embalmed
body?  But "nothing is impossible with God."

I grew up in Japan, where cremation is required by law; there just isn't
enough land for living people, much less dead bodies.  Christians there are
cremated and have no qualms about it.
-- 
Jon Reid    j-reid@uiuc.edu    GEnie: THE.REIDS
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."
From: J.Hale@latrobe.edu.au
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Does God intervene?
Date: 16 Dec 92 06:34:38 GMT
Organization: VAX Cluster, Computer Centre, La Trobe University

In article <Dec.13.00.12.22.1992.901@geneva.rutgers.edu>, 
	phoenix@cwis.unomaha.edu (Shannon Chris Saltzman) writes:
> 
>  Asking me this today is a bit of a strain because I have had
> a rotten day, but the character of God doesnt change no matter
> how bad of a day Ive had!
> God does help with certain situations. His wisdom coupled with our prayers
> causes great works to happen. He WILL NOT ALWAYS answer our prayers with
> a "yes". 
I believe there can be only one answer with respect to God answering pray.
He ALWAYS does.
However, it doesn't always seem that way. Why?
Perhaps we haven't heard the answer. The Holy Spirit's voice is as loud as
our willingness to hear it isn't it? Or perhaps we don't really know what
we are asking. Yeah we might ask for "A" to happen but perhaps we really want
"B"? Perhaps "A" would put us into such a state that we would feel even more
separate from Him? Perhaps, as you say, we must just trust that He Knows, 
whereas, we who believe in our seeming limitations, cannot know.
> [Hitler bit deleted]
I think the above covers Hitler as well. [at least without putting forward
a too specific theolgy]
> It is wrong to say God doesnt answer prayers(I did once in this article)
> he does answer them,sometimes the answer is no. I will NEVER understand
> why some prayers cant be granted, but I will trust that God has a plan.
This reminds me of another point. Often when we ask or pray we already have
in mind the answer WE want. The very asking of the question begs the answer
we desire. Not only do we want God to answer OUR prayers but we want Him to
answer them right (i.e. give us the answer WE want). This will more often
than not get in our way of hearing His answer, which is always the same.


In Christ,

James
-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
James Hale     			Lincoln School of Health Sciences
Computing Unit			La Trobe University,Bundoora, AUSTRALIA
                                
James.Hale@Latrobe.Edu.Au
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The grace of God rests gently on forgiving eyes,
and everything they look on speaks of Him to the beholder.
He can see no evil, nothing in the world to fear,
and no one who is different from himself."
						Text, P 418
_____________________________________________________________________________
From: af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Is Christianity really the ONLY way?
Date: 16 Dec 92 08:11:36 GMT
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net

Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to God. If you wish, I'll give you some
verses.
-- 
Frank				    |	"rightly dividing the word
af664			            |          of truth"
"Jesus is Lord"			    |      (2 Timothy 2:15)
From: eng10459@nusunix1.nus.sg (TAN CHEE LEONG)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Christmas...What does it really mean ?
Date: 17 Dec 92 04:27:15 GMT
Organization: National University of Singapore

Well, it was The Singing Christmas Tree back in 1988 or 1989 that really
convinced me about the validity of Christmas.  During that year, somehow
I was impressed by the numerous conversions that took place all over
Singapore in various projects by the churches.  Why, if God welcomes
souls on Christmas just as He does on other days, then Christmas must
have been under His divine "approval" (even though this has no
scriptural basis, just common sense).  In fact, God had wanted Christmas
on every Sunday, don't you think so?  Moreover, the reason for Christmas
is also celebrated every month by churches in the form of communion.
Indeed,  Christmas isn't Christmas till it happens in your heart!

All of us need some kind of landmark, or a reminder.  Just as we are
reminded of the redemption work of Christ through communion.  This is
just a human weakness that God had foreseen long ago when He instituted
communion.  And so, more than just a reminder,  Christmas also provide
yet another opportunity for the unbelievers to know more about Christ
(provided that all of us are evangelising in the first place).

But personally, Easter has a greater impact on me than Christmas.  I
supposed it's because the completion of the redemption work lies at
Calvary!

In His Love,
Chee Leong
e
From: isc10030@nusunix1.nus.sg (OEI ENG HAUW)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Christmas...What does it really mean ?
Date: 13 Dec 92 04:57:24 GMT
Organization: National University of Singapore

Hi Brothers and Sisters - In - Christ,

	Just wondering what does Christmas means to Christians ... (I
just want to know how you all out there celebrate Christmas or is it a
day of celebration).

	According to what I know, Christmas is round the corner and the
mood is there... the peace, the Christmas songs and carols and the joy
of all the cards and gifts.....well does these means Christmas to u.  In
addition, Chirstmas is also, for me, a day where by I will remember
Christ as the greatest gift of all to me...being born in a manger in
Bethlehem.  I also love to sing carols during this seasons too.  It is
also a day whereby Christians can go out and evangelise...is this
alright...making use of a pagan day...and spread the news.  Well,
Certainly, Santa Claus is out of question and I believe snowman and
...all other kinds other Christ being "born" on this day is the exact
reason reason for celebrating Christmas, right ?

	Well, I believe some Chirstians dun believe in celebrating and
enjoying Christmas out there, some may even condemn Christians for
celebrating a day set up by Ceasar... so please contribute and share for
I am really interested in knowing anything that is related to Christmas.

		Merry Christmas !

			And a Blessed Christmas Day.

							Simon Oei.
P.S : Please contribute .... even on how your area celebrate Christmas.
It must be very exciting, especially Christmas is just around the
corner!
From: zedaker@wam.umd.edu (PMW "MAP")
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Nudity - Why be ashamed?,et.al.
Date: 13 Dec 92 04:59:25 GMT
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <Dec.1.09.38.34.1992.15371@geneva.rutgers.edu>  
chunder@byron.u.washington.edu (Yih-Chun Hu) writes:
> 
> Well, it turns out that many times, nudity is the cause of violence,  
etc. In 
> a study undertaken in Canada, it has been found that when TV was  
introduced, 
> the number of violent acts per minute more than doubled! This was  
probably 
> done because there is a lot of violence, nudity, etc. on TV. So, perhaps  
it 
> is bad. No, nudity in itself is not terrible, but the effects it has on  
the
> human brain is. So as soon as everybody can control themselves, it will
> be good. But until then, it has a negative holistic effect in society.

How can you say that just because nudity was grouped with violence in that  
study in Canada that it is automatically a cause of violence?  If nudity  
promotes any sort of violence it is because of the cultural roots of our  
country.  What I mean is this:  Our country was supposedly founded on so  
called "Christianity".  Christianity generally promotes the idea that  
nudity is bad.  This has created the inevitable curiosity that exists in  
our society.  People want to see nudity because it is portrayed as  
something "dirty" and "bad" in our society.  Basic human curiosity gives  
us things such as pornography and the like.  (There are those that think  
pornography is sinful--I am not one of them.)  Some of this pornography  
can get violent however and there are some people out there with little  
grasp on reality who might take this violence to heart and act on that  
feeling.  

Of course now it sounds like I am saying that "Christianity" is at the  
root of the violence problem.  I am not saying this.  I am not  
anti-Christian in any way.  I feel there are some Christians who actually  
mean well.  But there are still many more who seem to think their way is  
the only way and there is no other way for the rest of the population.  At  
least this has been my experience.

I havn't decided if I believe in a "god" or not.  (I can see that it has  
been neither proven nor disproven.)  But my god would be loving and  
forgiving even if I am not His/Her ideal "child".  There are two phrases  
from the bible that I think are relevant even today (many Christians seem  
to have forgotten them lately):

	"Judge not lest ye be judged." and "Do unto others as you would  
have others do unto you."  

That is all.....Pam
From: dhawk@netcom.com (David Hawkins)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Atheism -> Christianity
Date: 20 Dec 92 23:23:24 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

About a friend who was an atheist and became a Christian:

Yes, happened to me.  About the best explaination I can pass along
is one that Scott Peck uses at the start of _The Different Drum_.
Peck is a psychiatrist (sp?) who noticed that some of his patients
came in as relgious and left as skeptics while others came in as
skeptics and left with an interest in relgion.  Peck speculated that
there are 'stages of faith' that people often go through:
1. orientation is 'chaotic' - doesn't have a sense that things have
a reason or fit together.
2. organizational/institutional religious - change occurs normally 
by a dramatic conversion experience. 
3. skeptic - questions the answers of the organization
4. what Peck calls 'mystic' (sp?) - a gradual awareness of a spiritual
feeling within oneself.

This gradual change is hard to explain to one's skeptical friends 
since they assumed I was going back to organizational relgion.
Actually I have nothing to do with organized religion - I'm a 
Southern Baptist.  ;-)  

It is possible to drift back and forth between those different stages.
There are times I'm still skeptical and times when I enjoy the 
institutional church.

I think a guy named Fowler has a similar work on stages of faith, but
has six stages.  It's easier for me to summarize Peck's.  But it is
an 'observed phenomenon.'  

later, david
--
David Hawkins    dhawk@netcom.com
Unfortunately, nothing in life is nothing but; it always something
more.  -- William Barrett
From: tim@polycarp (Tim McLarnan)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Francis Schaeffer
Date: 16 Dec 92 07:38:11 GMT
Organization: Earlham College

In article <Dec.15.04.10.53.1992.5081@geneva.rutgers.edu> kmarko@hpbs654.boi.hp.
   com (Kurt Marko) writes:
>...I am starting to read a few books by Francis Schaeffer....
>I'm wondering if someone could fill in some background on his life and work.
>...Anything else I should know?
>
>(I apologize for the vagueness, coming from an Orthodox background I'm
>just not too familiar with many modern Protestant theologians,
>although, from what I have heard about him, some of his thoughts on
>spirituality, sound fairly 'orthodox').

I don't know much about Schaeffer either, but it is interesting in
view of Kurt's comments that Schaeffer's son Frankie converted a year
or two ago to Orthodoxy.  People I know who have heard Frankie speak
tell me he is quite vigorous in his defense of Orthodoxy and quite
angry about his past Protestantism.

Sorry I can't say more,

Tim McLarnan, tim@math.earlham.edu
Department of Mathematics, Earlham College, Richmond, IN 47374 USA

My comments, not Earlham's nor the Orthodox Church in America's
From: ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Evangelizing Jewish friends
Date: 13 Dec 92 05:07:03 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium
Supersedes: <Dec.13.00.07.03.1992.798@geneva.rutgers.edu>

I have material which you can share with your Jewish friends
about their Messiah which does not insult their intelligence.

It consists of Messianic prophecies that Jesus fulfilled which 
do not rely on the New Testament account.

It comes in different sizes depending on their interest.  
(E.g. 1 page, 4 page, 7 page).  There is even one called 
Why do Christians evangelize Jews?

Drop me a line.

[I cringe when I see postings like this, because I know how our Jewish
readers are going to react.  The primary problem with use of prophecy
with Jews is not relying on the NT account, but reading the OT in ways
different than Jews (and Christian scholars) believe was the original
intent of the OT authors.  Particularly to be avoided if you want to
be taken seriously is use of Is 7:14, since its relevance is based on
what Jews (and many Christians) regard as flagrant mistranslation.  

This does not mean that I accept the claim that Christians and Jews
have nothing to say to each other, nor that Christians should not talk
with Jews about Jesus.  But I would think the starting point would
better be the Gospel, rather than attempting to convince Jews that
their Scriptures are really Christian.

--clh]
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Cremation
Date: 13 Dec 92 05:18:49 GMT
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey

Dean Lavdas writes that the Greek Orthodox Church forbids cremations, on
the grounds that "the body is the Temple of God and is considered very
important."  He asks for arguments to support this position, or opinions
from people who disagree with it.  Herewith is one of the latter.  (I'm
always happy to oblige.  8-)

Cremation will do a lot of damage to your body, but the only difference
between this and burial is how long it takes.  If you are buried in a wood
box, it will eventually rot -- and so will you.  If, on the other hand, you
are buried in an airtight metal casket or sealed concrete vault, then
anaerobic bacteria will go to work on you.  In that case, you will be
putrefied -- that is, you will be partially liquefied.

In either case, shortly after you're buried, your body is going to be in
pretty bad shape.  Burning it will destroy it more quickly, of course, but
burying it (or sealing it in an above-ground crypt) is not going to preserve
it very long.  At the Resurrection, you're going to need either a complete
overhaul or an entirely new body anyway, so burning the old one doesn't seem
to present any complications which weren't already there.

I suppose you might argue that burning a body is actively destroying it, and
letting it rot slowly is at least passive destruction.  But on the other hand,
rotting slowly seems to me a less dignified fate than cremation; one may also
argue in reply that burning a body prevents other animals from using it for
food.  (One of those impregnable steel sarcophagi will stop the worms and bugs
from eating you, but the bacteria will get you one way or the other.)

In short, I don't see that cremation is necessarily disrespectful, and (unless
you freeze it solid) the corpse is going to decompose one way or the other.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"Mausoleum, n.  The final and funniest folly of the rich."
                                -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: WHY JEWS RESENT PROSELYTIZING
Date: 20 Dec 92 22:00:47 GMT
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks

In article <Dec.15.04.26.20.1992.5199@geneva.rutgers.edu> 
 djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson) writes:
>[somebody wrote:]
>>Please consider this as simply an explanation why 
>>Christianity can never find common ground with Judaism.  It is my
>>hope that this will shed light on why Jews are so deeply offended 
>>by, and resentful of, Christian proselytising.
>
>Well, one could also say that Christianity flies in the face
>of Judaism, as well as Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Atheism, etc.
>I'm sure other religions have the right to be even more offended
>and resentful :-)

I would suggest that Christianity has a lot to answer for before
we should presume to tell the Jews anything.  Not only do we
not resemble the fullfuillment  of "prophecies" which we have
historically taken way out of context, but Christianity has
been a major force in supporting anti-semitism. Even today,
it has roots in Christian theology.

I would suggest reading in this connection Rosemary Ruether's book
(I think the title is) "Faith and Fratricide".  She talks
about the historical and theological issues.

Some of my personal consciousness-raising has come from participating
in a Christian community that has welcomed interfaith couples --
trying to offer their childern (and ours) an environment that respected
other faith traditions and did not pressure them one way or the
other.

I am opposed to the model of "spiritual imperialism", of the "army
of god" going forth on "crusades". I think we need the theological
equivalent of a peace movement between the various traditions.

I would be satisfied if we could make Christians better Christians,
Jews better Jews, Buddhists better Buddhists, and so forth.

-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
                      |  Feminist   |.......|.........................
From: harling@miki.pictel.com (Dan Harling)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Help For Jehovah's Witnesses
Date: 20 Dec 92 22:32:51 GMT
Organization: PictureTel Corporation

In article <Dec.17.00.07.37.1992.9657@farside.rutgers.edu> jwindley@asylum.cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
>...The
>sad fact is that many well-meaning folks merely quote high-profile,
>"debunk"-style authors like Walter Martin under the presumption that
>since it's in print it must be true.  Well-meaning promulgators of
>these authors are similarly innocent victims of shoddy scholarship and
>deceptive reporting.

I don't intend to get involved debating the scholarship of another's
book, but I find the extensive notes and attributions (over one hundred
in some chapters) of Walter Martin's _Kingdom of the Cults_ to be
indicative of anything but "shoddy scholarship and deceptive
reporting."  Ruth Tucker's _Another Gospel_ points out places where
Martin's book sounds confrontational, but both authors emphasize that
members of these groups should be treated with love and respect, even
in doctrinal disagreements.
____________________________________________________________________________
Daniel A. Harling                        (harling@pictel.com)
PictureTel Corp.             Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of
Peabody, MA  01960                   PictureTel Corp. (so there!)