Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20361
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: sex education

In article <Mar.26.02.54.26.1993.8940@athos.rutgers.edu> swansond@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Dennis Swanson) writes:
>In article <Mar.22.02.52.49.1993.330@athos.rutgers.edu> heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:
>>[...]
>>When I do programs, I spend
>>about half the time talking about absitinence [...]
>>I find that most people who object
>>to sex education actually object to the teaching *anything* other than
>>abstinencne, and that IMO is just as irresponsible as only talking
>>about comdom use.
>
>I'm under the impression that most sex ed instructors and/or policy makers
>actually object to making any more than a passing reference to abstinence,
>wishing to spend time only on the "realistic" choices. 

In the "sex ed" portion of the  high school "health" course I took
in 1984, it was impressed that the only 100% positive way to *not*
get pregnant was to *not* have sex.

Other methods of contraception were discussed, in the framework of
a chart which showed both the _expected_ failure rate (theoretical,
assumes no mistakes) and the _actual_ failure rate (based on research).
Top of the chart was something like this:


 Method                  Expected         Actual 
 ------                 Failure Rate    Failure Rate
 Abstinence                 0%              0% 


And NFP (Natural Family Planning) was on the bottom. The teacher even
said, "I've had some students tell me that they can't use anything for
birth control because they're Catholic. Well, if you're not married and
you're a practicing Catholic, the *top* of the list is your slot, not 
the *bottom*.  Even if you're not religious, the top of the list is
safest."

Yes, this was a public school and after Dr Koop's "failing abstinence,
use a condom" statement on the prevention of AIDS.

-jen

-- 

#include <stdisclaimer>  //  jenk@microsoft.com  // msdos testing

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20362
From: by028@cleveland.freenet.edu (Gary V. Cavano)
Subject: Pantheism & Environmentalism

Hi...

I'm new to this group, and maybe this has been covered already,
but does anybody out there see the current emphasis on the
environment being turned (unintentionally, of course) into
pantheism?

I've debated this quite a bit, and while I think a legitimate
concern for the planet is a great thing, I can easily see it
being perverted into something dangerous.

As evidence, may I quote THE WALL STREET JOURNAL (of all
things!), April 2 (Editorial page):
"We suspect that's because one party to the (environmental)
dispute thinks the Earth is sanctified.  It's clear that much
of the environmentalist energy is derived from what has been
called the Religious Left, a SECULAR, or even PAGAN fanaticism
that now WORSHIPS such GODS as nature and gender with a
reverence formerly accorded real religions."  (EMPHASIS MINE).

Thoughts?  Reactions?  Harangues?

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20363
From: morgan@socs.uts.edu.au
Subject: re: technology

In article <Apr.2.02.36.53.1993.22906@athos.rutgers.edu> cathye@cs.uq.oz.au writes:
>I am fairly new to this group. 
>I was wondering about people's opinions on 
>ethical uses of the net, and of technology in general.

the classic references in this area are Jacques Ellul for a
liberal/evangelical perspective and Os Guiness for a straight
evangelical view.  If you want to look at non-christian sources
try Alvin Toffler as the perennial optimist.  His views while
blatently non christian explore where technology may be going.

>For example, there are some chain letters going
>around which claim to have been written by a Christian missionary, but
>which present a misleading image of the Christian religion. 

This is regardless of technology.  Be careful to separate the issues of
related to speed and dispersion of technology (how far the letter
went and how quickly it got there) and the message being passed in the
technology (something that seems to be totally wrong.)

>How can we help to make best use of computer technology ?

When lecturing in this area I challenge my (non-christan/atheistic) class
about the impact technology has on life, quality of life and the rights
that they consider important.  Depending on how you work out your
faith will determine your response to the use of technology.  For example
friends of mine are considering IVF due to a life threatening situation the
wife is going through; when it is over they will have the baby. (God
willing).  In this case the technology is available and my friends have to
decide what to do.  In all cases though you must decide if the technology
is against God's revealed word.

Regards
 David
--
David Morgan| University of Technology Sydney | morgan@socs.uts.edu.au _--_|\
            | Po Box 123 Broadway NSW 2007    | Ph: + 61 2 330 1864   /      \
            | 15-73 Broadway Sydney           | Fax: +61 2 330 1807   \_.--._/
"I paid good money to get my opinions; you get them for free"                v

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20364
From: qtm2w@virginia.edu (Quinn T. McCord)
Subject: Seven castaways w. Gilligan=Seven Deadly Sins

Gilligan = Sloth
Skipper = Anger
Thurston Howell III = Greed
Lovey Howell = Gluttony
Ginger = Lust
Professor = Pride
Mary Ann = Envy

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20365
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Subject: Daily Verse

Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the
kingdom of heaven. 

Matthew 18:4

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20487
From: stanly@grok11.columbiasc.ncr.com (stanly)
Subject: Re: Elder Brother

In article <Apr.8.00.57.41.1993.28246@athos.rutgers.edu> REXLEX@fnal.gov writes:
>In article <Apr.7.01.56.56.1993.22824@athos.rutgers.edu> shrum@hpfcso.fc.hp.com
>Matt. 22:9-14 'Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find
>there, invite to the wedding feast.'...

>hmmmmmm.  Sounds like your theology and Christ's are at odds. Which one am I 
>to believe?

In this parable, Jesus tells the parable of the wedding feast. "The kingdom
of heaven is like unto a certain king which made a marriage for his son".
So the wedding clothes were customary,  and "given" to those who "chose" to
attend.  This man "refused" to wear the clothes.  The wedding clothes are
equalivant to the "clothes of righteousness".  When Jesus died for our sins,
those "clothes" were then provided.  Like that man, it is our decision to
put the clothes on.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20488
From: davem@bnr.ca (Dave Mielke)
Subject: Does God love you?

I have come across what I consider to be an excellent tract. It is a
bit lengthy for a posting, but I thought I'd share it with all of you
anyway. Feel free to pass it along to anyone whom you feel might
benefit from what it says. May God richly bless those who read it.
 
=======================================================================
 
                   D O E S  G O D  L O V E  Y O U ?
 
 
Q. What  kind  of  question  is that?   Anyone who can read sees signs,
   tracts, books, and bumper stickers that say, "God Loves You."  Isn't
   that true?
 
A. It  is  true that God offers His love to the whole world, as we read
   in one of the most quoted verses in the Bible:
 
      For  God  so  loved  the world, that he gave his only begotten
      Son, that whosoever believeth in him should  not  perish,  but
      have everlasting life.                               John 3:16
 
   However, God's love is qualified.  The Bible says:
 
      The way of the wicked is an abomination unto the LORD:  but he
      loveth him that followeth after righteousness.   Proverbs 15:9
 
      For  the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of
      the ungodly shall perish.                            Psalm 1:6
 
 
Q. But  I am not wicked.  I am a decent, moral person.  Surely the good
   I have done in my life far outweighs whatever bad I have done.   How
   can these verses apply to me?
 
A. By  God's  standard  of  righteousness even the most moral person is
   looked upon by God as a desperate sinner on his way to  Hell.    The
   Bible teaches that no one is good enough in himself to go to Heaven.
   On  the  contrary,  we  are all sinners and we are all guilty before
   God.
 
      As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:  There
      is  none  that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after
      God.                                            Romans 3:10-11
 
      The  heart  is  deceitful  above  all  things, and desperately
      wicked: who can know it?                         Jeremiah 17:9
 
 
Q. If I am such a wicked person in God's sight, what will God do to me?
 
A. The  Bible  teaches that at the end of the world all the wicked will
   come under eternal punishment in a place called Hell.
 
      For  a  fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the
      lowest hell, and shall consume the earth  with  her  increase,
      and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.  I will heap
      mischiefs upon them; I will spend mine arrows upon them.  They
      shall  be  burnt  with hunger, and devoured with burning heat,
      and  with  bitter  destruction:  I will also send the teeth of
      beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust.
                                                Deuteronomy 32:22-24
 
 
Q. Oh,  come  on now!   Hell is not real, is it?  Surely things are not
   that bad.
 
A. Indeed,  Hell is very real, and things are that bad for the individ-
   ual who does not know the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior.    The  Bible
   makes  many  references  to Hell, indicating that it is both eternal
   and consists of perpetual suffering.
 
      And  whosoever  was  not found written in the book of life was
      cast into the lake of fire.                   Revelation 20:15
 
      So  shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come
      forth, and sever the wicked from among  the  just,  And  shall
      cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and
      gnashing of teeth.                            Matthew 13:49-50
 
      ...    when  the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with
      his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking  vengeance  on  them
      that  know  not  God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord
      Jesus   Christ:    Who  shall  be  punished  with  everlasting
      destruction  from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory
      of his power;                            2 Thessalonians 1:7-9
 
 
Q. That is terrible!  Why would God create a Hell?
 
A. Hell  is  terrible,  and  it  exists  because  God created man to be
   accountable to God for his actions.  God's perfect  justice  demands
   payment for sin.
 
      For the wages of sin is death;                     Romans 6:23
 
      For  we  must  all  appear before the judgment seat of Christ;
      that every one may  receive  the  things  done  in  his  body,
      according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
                                                  2 Corinthians 5:10
 
      But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak,
      they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
                                                       Matthew 12:36
 
 
Q. Does that mean that at the end of the world everyone will be brought
   to life again to be judged and then to be sent to Hell?
 
A. Indeed  it  does;  that  is,  unless  we  can find someone to be our
   substitute in bearing the punishment of eternal  damnation  for  our
   sins.    That  someone  is  God  Himself, who came to earth as Jesus
   Christ to bear the wrath of God for all who believe in Him.
 
      All  we  like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one
      to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity  of
      us all.                                            Isaiah 53:6
 
      But  he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for
      our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace  was  upon  him;
      and with his stripes we are healed.                Isaiah 53:5
 
      For  I  delivered  unto  you  first  of  all that which I also
      received, how that Christ died for our sins according  to  the
      scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the
      third day according to the scriptures:    1 Corinthians 15:3-4
 
      For  he  hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that
      we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
                                                  2 Corinthians 5:21
 
 
Q. Are  you  saying that if I trust in Christ as my substitute, Who was
   already punished for my sins, then I will not have  to  worry  about
   Hell anymore?
 
A. Yes, this is so!  If I have believed in Christ as my Savior, then it
   is  as  if  I  have already stood before the Judgment Throne of God.
   Christ as my substitute has already paid for my sins.
 
      He  that  believeth  on  the Son hath everlasting life: and he
      that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but  the  wrath
      of God abideth on him.                               John 3:36
 
 
Q. But  what  does it mean to believe on Him?  If I agree with all that
   the Bible says about Christ as Savior, then am I saved from going to
   Hell?
 
A. Believing  on  Christ  means  a  whole lot more than agreeing in our
   minds with the truths of the Bible.  It means that we hang our whole
   lives  on Him.   It means that we entrust every part of our lives to
   the  truths  of the Bible.  It means that we turn away from our sins
   and serve Christ as our Lord.
 
      No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one,
      and  love  the  other;  or  else  he will hold to the one, and
      despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
                                                        Matthew 6:24
 
      Repent  ye  therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be
      blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from  the
      presence of the Lord;                                Acts 3:19
 
 
Q. Are  you  saying  that  there  is no other way to escape Hell except
   through Jesus?   What about all the other  religions?    Will  their
   followers also go to Hell?
 
A. Yes, indeed.  They cannot escape the fact that God holds us account-
   able  for  our  sins.   God demands that we pay for our sins.  Other
   religions  cannot  provide  a  substitute  to bear the sins of their
   followers.  Christ is the only one who is able to bear our guilt and
   save us.
 
      Neither  is  there  salvation  in any other: for there is none
      other name under heaven given among men, whereby  we  must  be
      saved.                                               Acts 4:12
 
   Jesus said:
 
      I  am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the
      Father, but by me.                                   John 14:6
 
      If  we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us
      our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
                                                          1 John 1:9
 
 
Q. Now I am desperate.  I do not want to go to Hell.  What can I do?
 
A. You  must  remember  that God is the only one who can help you.  You
   must throw yourself altogether on the mercies of God.   As  you  see
   your hopeless condition as a sinner, cry out to God to save you.
 
      And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much
      as  his  eyes  unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying,
      God be merciful to me a sinner.                     Luke 18:13
 
      ...  Sirs, what must I do to be saved?  And they said, Believe
      on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, ...
                                                       Acts 16:30-31
 
 
Q. But how can I believe on Christ if I know so little about Him?
 
A. Wonderfully,  God  not  only saves us through the Lord Jesus, but He
   also gives us the faith to believe on Him.  You can pray to God that
   He will give you faith in Jesus Christ as your Savior.
 
      For  by  grace  are  ye  saved  through faith; and that not of
      yourselves: it is the gift of God:               Ephesians 2:8
 
   God works particularly through the Bible to give us that faith.  So,
   if  you  really  mean  business  with  God about your salvation, you
   should  use  every opportunity to hear and study the Bible, which is
   the only Word of God.
   In  this  brochure,  all  verses  from the Bible are within indented
   paragraphs.  Give heed to them with all your heart.
 
      So  then  faith  cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of
      God.                                              Romans 10:17
 
 
Q. But does this mean that I have to surrender everything to God?
 
A. Yes.    God wants us to come to Him in total humility, acknowledging
   our sinfulness and our helplessness, trusting totally in Him.
 
      The  sacrifices  of  God  are  a broken spirit: a broken and a
      contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.      Psalm 51:17
 
   Because  we  are sinners we love our sins.  Therefore, we must begin
   to pray to God for an intense  hatred  of  our  sins.    And  if  we
   sincerely desire salvation, we will also begin to turn from our sins
   as  God  strengthens  us.    We know that our sins are sending us to
   Hell.
 
      Unto  you  first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him
      to bless you, in turning  away  every  one  of  you  from  his
      iniquities.                                          Acts 3:26
 
 
Q. Doesn't  the  Bible teach that I must attend church regularly and be
   baptized?  Will these save me?
 
A. If  possible,  we should do these things, but they will not save us.
   No work of any kind can secure our salvation.   Salvation  is  God's
   sovereign gift of grace given according to His mercy and good pleas-
   ure.  Salvation is
 
      Not of works, lest any man should boast.         Ephesians 2:9
 
 
Q. What else will happen at the end of the world?
 
A. Those  who have trusted in Jesus as their Savior will be transformed
   into their glorious eternal bodies and will be with Christ  forever-
   more.
 
      For  the  Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout,
      with the voice of the archangel, and with the  trump  of  God:
      and  the  dead  in Christ shall rise first:  Then we which are
      alive  and remain shall be caught up together with them in the
      clouds,  to meet the Lord in the air:  and so shall we ever be
      with the Lord.                         1 Thessalonians 4:16-17
 
 
Q. What will happen to the earth at that time?
 
A. God  will destroy the entire universe by fire and create new heavens
   and a new earth where Christ will reign with His believers  forever-
   more.
 
      But  the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in
      the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise,  and
      the  elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and
      the   works  that  are  therein  shall  be  burned  up.    ...
      Nevertheless  we,  according  to  his  promise,  look  for new
      heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
                                                     2 Peter 3:10,13
 
 
Q. Does  the  Bible  give us any idea of when the end of the earth will
   come?
 
A. Yes!    The end will come when Christ has saved all whom He plans to
   save.
 
      And  this  gospel  of the kingdom shall be preached in all the
      world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall  the  end
      come.                                            Matthew 24:14
 
 
Q. Can we know how close to the end of the world we might be?
 
A. Yes!   God gives much information in the Bible concerning the timing
   of the history of the world and tells us that while the Day  of  the
   Lord  will come as a thief in the night for the unsaved, it will not
   come  as  a  thief for the believers.  There is much evidence in the
   Bible  that  the  end  of  the world and the return of Christ may be
   very, very close.* All the time clues in the Bible point to this.
 
      For  when  they  shall  say,  Peace  and  safety;  then sudden
      destruction cometh upon them, as travail  upon  a  woman  with
      child; and they shall not escape.          1 Thessalonians 5:3
 
      Surely  the  Lord  GOD  will  do nothing, but he revealeth his
      secret unto his servants the prophets.                Amos 3:7
 
 
Q. But that means Judgment Day is almost here.
 
A. Yes,  it  does.    God  warned  ancient Nineveh that He was going to
   destroy that great city and He gave them forty days warning.
 
      And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he
      cried,  and  said,  Yet  forty  days,  and  Nineveh  shall  be
      overthrown.                                          Jonah 3:4
 
 
Q. What did the people of Nineveh do?
 
A. From  the  king on down they humbled themselves before God, repented
   of their sins, and cried to God for mercy.
 
      But  let  man  and  beast  be  covered with sackcloth, and cry
      mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his  evil
      way,  and  from  the violence that is in their hands.  Who can
      tell  if  God  will  turn  and  repent, and turn away from his
      fierce anger, that we perish not?                  Jonah 3:8-9
 
 
Q. Did God hear their prayers?
 
A. Yes.  God saved a great many people of Nineveh.
 
 
Q. Can  I still cry to God for mercy so that I will not come into judg-
   ment?
 
A. Yes.   There is still time to become saved even though that time has
   become very short.
 
      How  shall  we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which
      at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed
      unto us by them that heard him;                    Hebrews 2:3
 
      In  God is my salvation and my glory: the rock of my strength,
      and my refuge, is in God.   Trust in  him  at  all  times;  ye
      people,  pour  out  your heart before him: God is a refuge for
      us.                                               Psalm 62:7-8
 
 
 
 
            A R E  Y O U  R E A D Y  T O  M E E T  G O D ?
 
 
 
A  book  entitled  1994?,  written by Harold Camping, presents Biblical
information that we may be very near the end of time.  For  information
on  how to obtain a copy or to receive a free program guide and list of
radio  stations on which you can hear our Gospel programs, please write
to Family Radio, Oakland, California, 94621 (The United States of Amer-
ica), or call 1-800-543-1495.
 
               ----------------------------------------
 
 
The  foregoing  is a copy of the "Does God Love You?" tract printed by,
and available free of charge from, Family Radio.   A  number  of  minor
changes  have  been  made to its layout to facilitate computer printing
and  distribution.  The only change to the text itself is the paragraph
which  describes  the  way in which Biblical passages appear within the
text.    In  the  original  tract they appear in italic lettering; they
appear here as indented paragraphs.
 
 
I have read Mr. Camping's book, compared it with what the Bible actual-
ly  says, find it to be the most credible research with respect to what
the  future holds that I have ever come across, and agree with him that
there  is just too much data to ignore.  While none of us is guaranteed
one  more  second  of  life, and while we, therefore, should take these
matters  very seriously regardless of when Christ will actually return,
it  would appear that our natural tendency to postpone caring about our
eternal  destiny  until we feel that our death is imminent is even more
senseless  now  because,  in  all  likelihood, the law of averages with
respect  to life expectancy no longer applies.  If you wish to obtain a
copy  of  this book so that you can check out these facts for yourself,
you may find the following information helpful:
 
      title:       1994?
      author:      Harold Camping
      publisher:   Vantage Press
      distributor: Baker and Taylor
      ISBN:        0-533-10368-1
 
 
I  have  chosen  to share this tract with you because I whole-heartedly
agree with everything it declares and feel that now, perhaps more  than
ever  before,  this information must be made known.  To paraphrase Acts
20:27,  it  does not shun to declare unto us all the counsel of God.  I
am  always  willing  to  discuss  the  eternal truths of the Bible with
anyone who is interested as I believe them to be the only issues of any
real  importance since we will spend, comparatively speaking, so little
time  on this side of the grave and so much on the other.  Feel free to
get in touch with me at any time:
 
      e-mail: davem@bnr.ca
      office: 1-613-765-4671
      home:   1-613-726-0014
 
      Dave Mielke
      856 Grenon Avenue
      Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
      K2B 6G3

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20489
From: nichael@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Subject: Re: Dead Sea Scrolls

dhancock@teosinte.agron.missouri.edu (Denis Hancock) writes:
   > [A very nice article on the DSS, which I thought answered
   >  David Cruz-Uribe's original queries quite well]

   Here are some books I have read recently that helped me not only
   prepare for a 5 week series I taught in Sunday School, but greatly
   increased my knowledge of the Qumran scrolls. [...]

One other recent book I would heartily recommend is Joseph Fitzmyer's
_Response to 101 Questions about the Dead Sea Scrolls_ (Paulist,
1992).

Fitzmyer is one of the preeminent modern NT scholars.  He was also one
of the early workers on the DSS.  His book is written in a
straightforward Q&A that allows it to serve as a source for a great
wealth of clearly presented basic, up-to-the-moment information about
the DSS.

(This book is something of a companion volume to Raymond Brown's
_Response to 101 Questions about the Dead Sea Scrolls_.)

Nichael

Pop Quiz: What's wrong with the cover of this book?     ;)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20490
From: jemurray@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John E Murray)
Subject: quality of Catholic liturgy

I would like the opinion of netters on a subject that has been bothering my
wife and me lately: liturgy, in particular, Catholic liturgy.  In the last few
years it seems that there are more and more ad hoc events during Mass.  It's
driving me crazy!  The most grace-filled aspect of a liturgical tradition is
that what happens is something we _all_ do together, because we all know how to 
do it.  Led by the priest, of course, which makes it a kind of dialogue we 
present to God.  But the best Masses I've been to were participatory prayers.

Lately, I think the proportion of participation has fallen, and the proportion
of sitting there and watching, or listening, or generally being told what to do
(which is necessary because no one knows what's happening next) is growing.
Example.  Last Sunday (Palm Sunday) we went to the local church.  Usually
on Palm Sunday, the congregation participates in reading the Passion, taking
the role of the mob.  The theology behind this seems profound--when we say
"Crucify him" we mean it.  We did it, and if He came back today we'd do it
again.  It always gives me chills.  But last week we were "invited" to sit
during the Gospel (=Passion) and _listen_.  Besides the Orwellian "invitation", 
I was really saddened to have my (and our) little role taken away.  This seems
typical of a shift of participation away from the people, and toward the
musicians, readers, and so on.  New things are introduced in the course of the
liturgy and since no one knows what's happening, the new things have to be
explained, and pretty soon instead of _doing_ a lot of the Mass we're just
sitting there listening (or spacing out, in my case) to how the Mass is about
to be done.  In my mind, I lay the blame on liturgy committees made up of lay
"experts", but that may not be just.  I do think that a liturgy committee has a
bias toward doing something rather than nothing--that's just a fact of
bureaucratic life--even though a simpler liturgy may in fact make it easier for
people to be aware of the Lord's presence.

So we've been wondering--are we the oddballs, or is the quality of the Mass
going down?  I don't mean that facetiously.  We go to Mass every Thursday or
Friday and are reminded of the power of a very simple liturgy to make us aware 
of God's presence.  But as far as the obligatory Sunday Masses...maybe I should 
just offer it up :)  Has anyone else noticed declining congregational
participation in Catholic Masses lately?

John Murray

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20491
From: gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham)
Subject: Re: Prophetic Warning to New York City

Regarding David Wilkerson's prophecies.  While I'm not real sure of
his credibility, I do remember a book he wrote, called A VISION or
something like that.  He made a prediction that people who bought gold
would be hurt financially.  At the time, gold was up to about $800;
now it is less than half that.  This prediction stuck in my mind
because a lot of people where I worked were buying gold.

The problem is, we tend to remember predictions that come true and
forget ones that didn't (a la Jean Dixon).  Does anyone know if there
any of his predictions, perhaps from the book I mentioned, that can
pretty definitely be said to have not come true?
--
-Fred Gilham    gilham@csl.sri.com
"Peace is only better than war when it's not hell too.  War being hell
makes sense."
               -Walker Percy, THE SECOND COMING

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20492
From: leonard@aix3090b.uky.edu (Leonard Lauria)
Subject: Re: Prayer in Jesus' Name

munns@cae.wisc.edu (Scott Munns) writes:

>I am doing a dormitory bible "discussion" with my Christian roommate and
>2 of the non-Christian guys on my floor.  They are very close to
>accepting Christ, so we have started to disciple them (treat them like
>baby believers) and go into more indepth subjects than the parables, etc.
>Our first discussion was on prayer.  Eventually, we got around to how
>we should pray in Jesus' name.  Then, an excellent question came up, one
>that I don't have a real answer to.  The question was, "If we need to pray
>in Jesus' name, what about the people before Jesus?  They prayed to God
>and he listened then, in spite of their sins.  Why can't it be the same
>way now?"

I'll take a try at this...

From the discussions I have been in, and from how *I* have interpreted
the bible, I feel that one can pray either way.  BUT remember this,
before Jesus, the people talked to God (no other way) and he talked 
back.  (audible and dreams, etc.)  Today we have the bible to know 
Gods will, and we have his son you died for US.  He was given as our
savior, and while we still do things according to Gods will, we pray
THROUGH his son.  In the bible it says that if we are not known to 
Jesus, we are not known to God.  (sorry I do not have the verses
with me)  So, if we are to be granted eternal life, we must present
ourselves to Jesus first, who will then present us to God.

Leonard



--

===========================================================================
   -This space intentionally left blank.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20493
From: KSTE@vm.cc.purdue.edu (Kerry Stephenson)
Subject: Request for research subjects

Please excuse the interruption.
 
I am seeking pro-life activists to fill out a 13-page questionnaire
on attitutes, opinions, and activities.  If you would be willing
to participate in this research, please email me privately at
KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET.  All replies and questionnaires will be
made anonymous prior to printout and will be kept confidential.
 
Thank you very much for your help.
 
--Kerry at Purdue

[Note that I don't normally accept postings on abortion.  So this
isn't an invitation to a discussion in this group.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20494
From: HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com
Subject: Re: Deification

Aaron Bryce Cardenas writes:

>Basically the prophet's writings make up the Old Testament, the apostles' 
>writings make up the New Testament.  These writings, recorded in the Bible, 
>are the foundation of the church.

hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes) writes:

>That seems a most peculiar interpretation of the text. The "apostles and
>prophets" were PEOPLE, rather than writings. And there were new testament
>prophets as well, who built up the churches.

Remember the OT doctrine of 2 witnesses?  Perhaps the prophets
testified He is coming.  The Apostles, testified He came.
 
After all, what does prophesy mean?  Secondly, what is an Apostle?  Answer:
an especial witness--one who is suppose to be a personal witness.  That means
to be a true apostle, one must have Christ appear to them.  Now lets see
when did the church quit claiming ......?

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20495
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Subject: Daily Verse

Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above
yourselves.

Romans 12:10

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20496
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Revelations

In article <Apr.9.01.11.00.1993.16923@athos.rutgers.edu> topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) writes:

>Now, as to the suggestion that all prophecy tends to be somewhat cyclical,
>can you elaborate?  I'm not exactly sure what you mean.  How does the
>suggestion relate to Isaiah's prophecy of the birth of Christ by a virgin? 
>I don't see any cycles in that prophecy.

Maybe cyclical is not the best word.  That is one aspect of it.  In the
case of the virgin birth prophecy, it applied to the then and there, and
also prophetically to Christ.  The army that threatened the king would 
cease to be a threat in a very short time.  Yet it also prophecied of 
Christ.

Several prophecies that refered to Christ also had application at the
time they were made.  "Out of Egypt have I called my Son" refers both
to Israel, and prophetically to Christ.   "Why do the heathen rage"
was said of David and also of Christ.  

Another example would be the Scripture quoted of Judas, "and his bishoprick
let another take."  Another example is something that Isaiah said of His
disciples which is also applied to Christ in Hebrews, "the children thou
hast given me."

How does the preterist view account for this phenomenon.

Link


Link Hudson.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20497
From: mussack@austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Subject: Re: Sin

In article <Apr.8.00.59.20.1993.28493@athos.rutgers.edu>, jadaley@cwis.unomaha.edu (Jill Anne Daley) writes:
> What exactly is a definition of sin and what are some examples. How does a
> person know when they are committing sin?
> 

Anything that does not bring me closer to God is a sin. 
(If you think this is too strict, just consider how ambiguous it is.)

This implies that staying the same is a sin. A Christian should
never be satisfied. It does not imply that
having fun is a sin. It does not imply that sleeping is a sin.
It does imply that I sin every day.

A perhaps simpler definition:
Anything that is counter to the two Great Commandments: 
love God, love your neighbor, is a sin.
Anything I do that is not from love is a sin.

The same action can be a sin sometimes and not a sin sometimes.

I could yell at my kids as discipline, all the time loving them,
considering only to teach them proper behavior, or I could yell at my
kids out of anger or selfishness.

I could post an excellent article because I am interested in sharing
my opinions and getting feedback and learning, or I could post an
article because I want everyone to realize how wise I am.

Chris Mussack

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20498
From: jkellett@netcom.com (Joe Kellett)
Subject: Re: Opinions asked about rejection

William Mayne (mayne@pipe.cs.fsu.edu) wrote:
: In article <Apr.1.02.34.21.1993.21547@athos.rutgers.edu> jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas) writes:

: >People who reject God don't want to be wth Him in heaven.  We spend our 
: >lives choosing to be either for Him or against Him.  God does not force 
: >Himself on us.

: I must say that I am shocked. My impression has been that Jayne Kulikaskas
: usually writes this much less offensive and ludicrous than this. I am not
: saying that the offensiveness is intentional, but it is clear and it is
: something for Christians to consider.

Jayne stands in pretty good company.  C.S. Lewis wrote a whole book
promoting the idea contained in her first sentence quoted above.  It is
called "The Final Divorce".  Excellent book on the subject of Heaven and
Hell, highly recommended.  It's an allegory of souls who are invited, indeed
beseeched to enter Heaven, but reject the offer because being with God in
Heaven means giving up their false pride.

-- 
Joe Kellett
jkellett@netcom.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20499
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Prophetic Warning to New York City

In article <Apr.9.01.10.38.1993.16892@athos.rutgers.edu> evensont@spot.Colorado.EDU (EVENSON THOMAS RANDALL) writes:

>Which brings me around to asking an open question.  Is the Bible a closed
>book of Scripture?  Is it okay for us to go around saying "God told
>me this" and "Jesus told me that"?  Wouldn't that imply that God is STILL
>pouring out new revelation to us?  I know that some people will feel
>that is okay, and some will not.  The concept of a closed canon would
>certainly cast a shadow on contemporary prophets.  On the other hand,
>an open canon seems to be indicated sometimes.

There are a lot of people running around saying "God told me this" and 
"God told me that" these days.  Some people really have heard God, and others
heard their glands.  Mario Murrillo mentioned this in a sermon once.  He
said someone told him, "The Lord gave me a song."  He said that it was
the worst song he had ever heard.

"I know why he gave you that song," Murillo said, "He didn't want it anymore."

But God does still speak to His people today, and the idea is contrary to the
idea of a closed cannon.  Ireneaus wrote about all the gifts of the Spirit
in the church of His day (2nd and 3rd century) and he was one of the first
to put forth a New Testament cannon, which was almost identical to the one
we have today.  He believed in a closed cannon.  

Many prophets prophesied prophecies which were not recorded in the Scriptures.
For example, one prophet in Kings, whose name starts with an "M" who
prophecied that the king would lose a battle.  That is the only prophecy
he gave recorded in Scripture, and we no that he had given other prophecies
because the king complained before he heard the prophecy, "He never prophesies
anything good about me."  Yet only one little paragraph of all of his 
lifetime of prophecies are recorded in Scripture.  There are numerous examples.
Barnabas was a prophet, Acts says, before he was even sent out as an 
apostle.  Yet his writings are not recorded in Scripture.  Only two of
Agabus prophecies are mentioned in Scripture.  He was already a prophet
before he gave them.  

So prophecy may be genuine and from God, but that does not make it 
Scripture.  

>Also interesting to note is that some so called prophecies are nothing new
>but rather an inspired translation of scripture.  Is it right to call
>that prophecy?  Misleading?  Wouldn't that be more having to do with
>knowledge?

I don't know about translations of Scripture, but I am familiar with 
prophecies that give applications for Scripture.  There are also 
similar examples in the Bible.  Several times Peter interprets prophecies
in a seemingly prophetic way, for example, "And his bishoprick let another
take" concerning Judas office.

A clearer example can be found in Matthew 24.  Jesus is prophesying about
what will happen before His return and He quotes a passage out of Joel
about the sun being darkened and the moon turning to blood.  So Scriptural
prophecy can be used in later prophecy.  

Sometimes this sort of thing can cross over into being a word of knowledge,
but gifts of the Spirit seem to overlap.  Words of knowledge and wisdom
can overlap.  The word of knowledge and prophecy can overlap.  
Interpretation of tounges is very similar to prophecy.  Healings are often
considered miracles.  So sometimes the distinction between gifts is a 
bit hazy.  Imho, it doesn't usually matter that much if we are able to
label a phenomenon, as long as we recognize them as the work of the 
Spirit, and use them according to His leading.

Link Hudson.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20500
From: conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt)
Subject: Re: christians and aids

In article <Apr.8.00.57.49.1993.28271@athos.rutgers.edu> marka@travis.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley) writes:
>In article <Apr.7.01.55.33.1993.22762@athos.rutgers.edu> kevin@pictel.pictel.com (Kevin Davis) writes:
>>Many Christians believe in abstinence, but in a moment will be overcome
>>by desire.  We all compromise and rationalize poor choices (sin).  Last
>>week I was guilty of anger, jealousy, and whole mess of other stuff,
>>yet I am forgiven and not condemned to suffer with AIDs.  To even
>>suggest that AIDS is "deserved" is ludicrous.
>
>Some rules are made because at some point man is too stupid
>to know better. Yet, eventually man learns. But only after
>getting a lesson from experience.

Yes, it's important to realize that all actions have consequences,
and that "rules" were made for our own good.  But to suggest that a
*disease* is a *punishment* for certain types of sin I think is 
taking things much too far.  If we got some kind of mouth disease
for lying, would any of us have mouths left?  What if we developed
blindness every time we lusted after someone or something?  I dare
say all of us would be walking into walls.
>
>I wonder if AIDS would be a problem now if people didn't get
>involved in deviant sexual behaviour. Certainly, people who
>received tainted blood are not to blame. But it just goes
>to show that all mankind is affected by the actions of a few.

Yes, sin can have terrible consequences, but we need to be *real*
careful when saying that the consequences are a *punishment* for 
sin.  The Jews of Jesus's time believed that all sickness was the
result of a sin.  Then Jesus healed a blind man and said that man was
blind to show the glory of God, not because of sin.  If AIDS, or any
other STD is a *punishment" for sexual sin, what do we do with 
diseases like cancer, or multiple sclerosis, which are just as
debilitating and terrible as AIDS, yet are not usually linked to a
specific behavior or lifestyle?
>
>In addition, IMHO forgiveness is not the end of things.
>There is still the matter of atonement. Is it AIDS ?
>I don't know.

Atonement is *extremely* important, but I think you've missed the mark
about as far as you can by suggesting that AIDS is an atonement for sin.
The atonement for sin is JESUS CHRIST - period.  This is the central
message of the Gospel.  A perfect sacrifice was required for our sins,
and was made in the Lamb of God.  His sacrifice atoned for *all* of
our sins, past present and future.  God does not require pennance for
our sins, nor does he require us to come up with our own atonement.  He
has graciously already done that for us.  To suggest that AIDS or 
some other consequence is an atonement for sins is literally spitting
on the sacrifice that Jesus made.

In case you couldn't tell, I get *extremely* angry and upset when
I see things like this.  Instead of rationalizing our own fears and
phobias, we need to be reaching out to people with AIDS and other
socially unacceptable diseases.  Whether they got the disease through
their own actions or not is irrelevant.  They still need Jesus Christ,
no more and no less than we do.  I've said this before, but I think
it's a good analogy.  People with AIDS are modern-day lepers.  Jesus
healed many lepers.  He can also heal people with AIDS, maybe not on
this earth, but in an ultimate sense.  My next-door neighbor has AIDS.
She has recently come to have a much deeper and more committed 
relationship with God.  Her theology isn't what I would want it to be,
but God's grace covers her.  The amazing thing is that she is gaining
weight (she's had the disease for over 2 years) and her health is
excellent apart from occassional skin rashes and such.  She attributes
her improvement in her health to God's intervention in her life.  Who
are we to suggest that her disease is some kind of punishment?  It
seems to me that God is being glorified through her disease.

Paul Overstreet, the country singer, has a good song title that I 
think applies to all of us - But for the Grace of God, There Go I
(or something like that).

May we all experience and accept God's grace.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Mark Ashley                        |DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed
>marka@gcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com      |here are my own; they do not
>..!uunet!gcx1!marka               |reflect the opinion or policies
>The Lost Los Angelino              |of Harris Corporation.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------


===============================================================================
Paul Conditt		Internet: conditt@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu
Applied Research	Phone:	  (512) 835-3422   FAX: (512) 835-3416/3259
  Laboratories		Fedex:	  10000 Burnet Road, Austin, Texas 78758-4423
University of Texas	Postal:	  P.O. Box 8029, Austin, Texas 78713-8029
Austin, Texas <----- the most wonderful place in Texas to live


  TTTTTTTTTTTTTTT              
  TTT   TTT   TTT                 
        TTT                    
   TTTTTTTTTTTTT                  Texas Tech Lady Raiders
   TT   TTT   TT                   1992-93 SWC Champions
        TTT                    1992-93 NCAA National Champions
        TTT
      TTTTTTT

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20501
From: harwood@umiacs.umd.edu (David Harwood)
Subject: Re: Essene New Testament

[William Christie asked about the Essene NT.
Andrew Kille reponded
>There is a collection of gospels which usually goes under the name of the
>"Essene Gospel of Peace."  These are derived from the gnostics, not the
>essenes, and are ostensibly translations from syriac texts of the fourth 
>and fifth centuries (I vaguely recall; I can't find my copy right now).
--clh]

There had been recent criticism of this in a listserv for academic
Biblical scholars: they all say the book(s) are modern fakes.
D.H.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20502
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Subject: Anybody out there?

I seldom see any posts in this group. Is anyone out there in Christendom
listening? If so, why don't we get some dialog going here?

Here's a topic to get things started. My daughter's Christian school sends
home a weekly update on school related topics. This week they sent
something *very* interesting. It was an article written by the leader of a
national (US) Christian school organization about a trip he recently made
to Jerusalem. While there, he was introduced to one of the rabbis who is
working on a project to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem. The article
included photos of the many furnishings that have already been made in
preparation for furnishing the rebuilt temple according to the
specifications given in the Bible. 

What was even more striking is the fact that the plans for the temple are
complete and the group is only awaiting permission from the Israeli
government before beginning the building. The other startling fact is the
very recent archeological discovery that the original site of the temple is
unoccupied and available for building. Previously it has been thought that
the original site was underneath what is now a mosque, making rebuilding
impossible without sparking a holy war. 

Now it appears that nothing stands in the way of rebuilding and resuming
sacrifices, as the Scriptures indicate will happen in the last days.
Although the Israeli government will give the permission to start, I think
it is the hand of God holding the project until He is ready to let it
happen. Brothers and sisters, the time is at hand. Our redemption is
drawing near. Look up!

[Postings are in the range of 30 to 50 per day, except weekends.
If people aren't seeing that, we've got propagation problems.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20503
From: daniels@math.ufl.edu (TV's Big Dealer)
Subject: Prayer in Jesus' name


	Hmm...makes you wonder whether prayer "in Jesus' name" means
"saying Jesus' name" or whether we're simply to do all things with the
attitude that we belong to Jesus.
					Frank D.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20504
From: rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe)
Subject: Re: What did Lazarus smell like?

In the discussion as to why Jesus spoke aloud the "Lazarus, come out",
I'm surprised that no one has noticed the verse immediately preceeding.

Jn 12:41  "Father, I thank you for listening to me, though I knew that
you always listen to me.  But I have said this for the sake of the
people that are standing around me that they may believe that you have
made my your messenger."  (Goodspeed translation)

My guess is that the "Lazarus, come out!" was also for the sake of the
crowd.
-- 
                                                    --- Tim Rolfe
                                                 rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu
                                                 rolfe@junior.dsu.edu
                                                RolfeT@columbia.dsu.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20505
From: luomat@alleg.edu (Timothy J. Luoma)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

In article <Apr.9.01.11.16.1993.16937@athos.rutgers.edu>  
emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:
[much of the excellent post deleted for space -- TjL]

)->With all the suffering and persecution that it meant to be a believer,  
it
)->would be quite probable that at least one of those in the supposed  
conspiracy
)->would come forward and confess that the whole thing was a big hoax.   
Yet
)->not one did.  It seems rather reasonable that the disciples did not  
make
)->up the resurrection but sincerely believed that Jesus had actually  
risen
)->from the dead; especially in light of the sufferings that came upon  
those
)->who believed.


I was at the "Jubilee" conference this year in Pittsburgh PA, and the  
speaker there spoke of this as well. He talked about many of the same  
things you mentioned in your post, but here he went into a little more  
detail.  I'll paraphrase as best I can:

"Suppose you were part of the `Christian consipracy' which was going to  
tell people that Christ had risen.  Never mind the stoning, the being  
burned alive, the possible crucifixion ... let's just talk about a  
scourging.  The whip that would be used would have broken pottery, metal,  
bone, and anything else that they could find attached to it.  You would be  
stood facing a wall, with nothing to protect you.

"When the whip hit you the first time, it would tear the flesh off you  
with instant incredibly intense pain.  You would think to yourself `All  
this for a lie?'  The second hit would drop you to your knees, you would  
scream out in agony that your raw back was being torn at again.  You would  
say to yourself: `All this for a lie?'  And you had 37 more coming.

"At the third hit you would scream out that it was all a lie, beg for them  
to stop, and tell them that you would swear on your life that it had all  
been a lie, if they would only stop...."

It is amazing enough that those who believed kept their faith under such  
torture.... but for a lie?  There is no one fool enough to do that.... And  
no one came forward.

Excellent post John, thanks for taking the time.


--
Tj Luoma <luomat@alleg.edu>	"God be merciful to 
"I have fought a good fight,	 me a sinner."--St Luke
 I have finished my course,	"For me to live is Christ, and
 I have kept the faith." 2 TIM   to die is gain"  -- PHILIPPIANS 1:21             

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20506
From: qtm2w@virginia.edu (Quinn T. McCord)
Subject: Questions from a newbie


	Is life a pass/fail course, and does God grade on a
curve?
	I'm new here, and only vaguely religious, but I want to
know what some of you people think.  Specifically, are there an
infinite number of Heavens, and a person goes to the one that
he/she deserves?  Or is it simply Heaven or nothing (Hell?)
Also, are we "graded" by those around us, or has there always
been some unchanging method?  Is the person's childhood taken
into account?
	I'm sure these must sound like over-simplifications to
most of you, but I figure that you're the experts.

						-Quinn

[Eschatology is an area on which Christians do not agree.  I suspect
that's because our primary source of information is prophets and
visionaries, and their writings tend to be highly symbolic.  However
both Jesus' teachings in the Gospels and books such as the Revelation
to John talk primarily about the difference between eternal life and
eternal death.  On a number of occasions Jesus does say things that
imply some sort of differentiation, e.g. Lk 10:14 and a number of
similar passages where Jesus says things like "even XXX will be better
off than you in the judgement."  Also, I Cor 3 talks about someone who
gets into heaven, but by the skin of his teeth, as it were.  But these
passages are not normally interpreted as suggesting separate heavens,
so much as differing levels of prestige or punishment in heaven or
hell (and not all Christians would even go as far as that).  The only
Christian group I know of that believes in multiple heavens is the
Mormons, and they are very far from mainstream Christianity (far
enough that many of our readers would not call them Christian).  Their
ideas in this area involve specific Mormon revelations, in addition
to the Bible and "Holy Tradition" of a more generic Christian sort.

Note that many Christians will cringe at the very thought of
associating grading with God.  The whole point of Christ was to free
us from the results of a test that we couldn't possibly pass.  If you
like test analogies, God grades on a very strict and unbending scale,
but he also cheats -- he replaces our test papers with an exam that
was prepared by the teacher, before actually doing the grading.
Because some people end up in heaven and others in hell, it's easy to
see why you'd be inclined to think of it as grading.  While there are
differences among branches of Christianity on details, I think we all
agree that in one way or another, God cheats.

I am personally very sceptical about anyone who claims to know exactly
how far God's cheating extends.  Will he accept people who don't
explicitly acknowledge Christ, but somehow still follow him in their
hearts?  Many Christians believe that this is possible, at least in
principle, but certainly not all do.  Jesus provided us with a clear
description of how to be saved, but it's not clear to me that he
provided an exact description of how he's going to place the dividing
line.  Certainly he made it clear that we can't expect to know whether
other individuals are saved or not.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20507
From: reid@cs.uiuc.edu (Jon Reid)
Subject: Re: Prophetic Warning to New York City

evensont@spot.Colorado.EDU (EVENSON THOMAS RANDALL) writes:

>Yes, I suppose it is true that people make mistakes.  It is interesting to
>note that in those long ago OT days, if you weren't 100% correct in
>your prophecies, people got very mad and you were no longer believed,
>even put to death.

This is one of the differences between OT prophecy and NT prophecy.  In the
NT, it is expected that when believers gather,
  - people will prophesy
  - the prophecy must be judged (1 Cor 14:29)
There is nothing about killing someone who makes a mistake.

>To say that we make mistakes is true.  To say that we make mistakes
>while filled with the spirit is not true.  Were that true, the entire
>Bible, having been written by men inspired by God would be subject also
>to those errors, for what is prophecy but like those revelations given
>in scripture?

Scripture is scripture; there is no "gift of scripture".  And I don't know
about you, but I know that _I_ have made mistakes while filled with the
spirit.  If you don't give grace to allow people to make mistakes, they
will never grow in the use of the spiritual gifts!

When we minister in my small group, I encourage people to speak out any
impressions or images they think might be from the Lord.  Only by trying
will they know whether they were right or wrong -- and in either case,
they'll have a better handle on it the next time.

Didn't you fall when you were learning to ride a bicycle?  But you kept on
trying, and you learned both from your failures and your successes.
Spiritual gifts are no different -- you get better with experience.

>Which brings me around to asking an open question.  Is the Bible a closed
>book of Scripture?  Is it okay for us to go around saying "God told
>me this" and "Jesus told me that"?  Wouldn't that imply that God is STILL
>pouring out new revelation to us?  I know that some people will feel
>that is okay, and some will not.  The concept of a closed canon would
>certainly cast a shadow on contemporary prophets.  On the other hand,
>an open canon seems to be indicated sometimes.

The canon of Scripture is complete.  Does this mean that God no longer
speaks?  I have heard his voice -- not audibly (though some have), but
clearly nonetheless.  Is what I heard equivalent to Scripture?  No.  I have
never heard contemporary prophets claim that what they receive from the
Lord is on the same level as Scripture; on the contrary, those who are
mature obey the Scriptures by submitting their prophecies to fellow
believers for judgement.  And the most reliable yardstick for judging
prophecies is, certainly, the Scriptures themselves.  The canon is closed
-- but God is not silent!

>Also interesting to note is that some so called prophecies are nothing new
>but rather an inspired translation of scripture.  Is it right to call
>that prophecy?  Misleading?  Wouldn't that be more having to do with
>knowledge?  I know, the gift of knowledge may not be as exciting to
>talk about, but shouldn't we call a horse a horse?

Does it matter what it is called?  The question is not how to label it, but
how to receive it.  Words of knowledge, incidentally, are similar to
prophecy (and sometimes the two overlap), but generally it is supernatural
knowledge of some fact that could not be known otherwise.
-- 
******************************************************************
*     Jon Reid     * He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep *
* reid@cs.uiuc.edu * to gain what he cannot lose.   - Jim Elliot *
******************************************************************

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20508
From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal F Lillywhite)
Subject: Re: Ancient Books

{I sent in something on this before but I believe it got lost in the
weekend accident the moderator described.  This is an improved
version anyway so no loss the first time.  HL}

The standard work on detecting forgeries of ancient documents 
is probably the writing of Friedrich Blass, "Hermeneutrik und 
Kritik," _Einleitende und Hilfsdisziplinen_, vol 1 of
_Handbuch der Klassischen Altertums- wissenshaft_ (Noerdlingen:
Beck, 1886).  Portions of this are described in Nibley, _The 
Prophetic Book op Mormon_, pp 219-242 (SLC:  Deseret Book, 1989).
(If you want to attempt reading this be forewarned.  Nibley
describes Blass as a typical German scholar who claims little
knowledge of his subject, then proceeds to exhaust both the subject
and the reader.)  Nibley's extract from Blass's work is in the form
of "rules for forgers."  It makes interesting reading.

I confess that I have not read Blass's work, only Nibley's extract
thereof.  My German falls far short of what would be required and
as far as I know there is no English translation available.  However,
I believe the techniques he describes are known widely enough that 
any competent classical scholar could examine a purportedly ancient
document and at least determine if it is consistent with what one 
would expect of a genuine document of that time frame.  We will not 
be able to prove who wrote it but at least we should be able to 
determine with reasonable confidence if it is from that time and 
culture or is a later forgery.

Actually there are 2 types of purportedly ancient documents:

1.  Alleged actual holographs or early copies thereof.  For example
the Dead Sea Scrolls.  These can be tested by various scientific
means to determine the age of the paper, inks, and objects found
with them.  This can provide a pretty clear dating of the actual
physical objects.

2.  Documents claiming to be copies of ancient works although the
copy itself may be much more recent.  For example we might find a
document which monks in a monastary claim is a copy of something
from centuries ago (perhaps even having been through several
generations of copists).  This is more of a problem but can still 
be tested (although the test is not likely to be simple).  We cannot
expect a test of the age of the physical objects to tell us much so
we must confine our testing to the text itself.

It is important to remember that none of these tests can tell us if
the document is really what it claims to be.  They can only date the
document and identify its culture of origin.  For example I've heard
of a letter supposed to have been written by Jesus himself to a king
in what is now Iraq.  If this document were to actually turn up
scholars could date the paper and ink (assuming they have the
holograph).  They could check the language, content and writing
style to see if they are consistent with what would be expected of a
Palestinian Jew of that time.  However even if all test results were
positive there is no way to determine if Jesus himself actually
wrote it.  We would know what time and culture it came from but
(barring a known sample of Jesus handwriting or other clues for 
comparison) scholarship must stop there.  There is seldom any way to
determine who the actual author was.

As I say, I'm no expert on Blas's work.  I do remember some of the
tests which can be applied to alleged copies of ancient works.  
Specifically we might ask:

1.  Is the document internally consistent?  Does it contradict
itself?  If the work it is short it would be relatively easy to 
maintain internal consistency, even if it is a forgery.  The 
longer the forgery the more difficult it is to maintain consistency.
For this reason most successful forgers stick to short documents.

2.  Is it consistent with the history and geography of the time?
Again a short, non-specific work might not be testable but if the
writing is of any significant length no latter-day forger would be
able to escape detection.  Here we look for the minor, inconspicuous
things which someone from that culture would get right without even
thinking about it but which a later forger would find too numerous 
and trivial to check.  The devil is in the details.

3.  What about the literary style of the work, figures of speech
etc.  Any ancient writer would almost certainly speak in ways that 
seem strange to us.  Are there any such odd phrases in this book?  
If so do they fit in with the culture?

Of course there are complications if the document has been
translated, or possibly even if somebody just updated language
when he copied it.  A few cases of language not from the culture
claimed may be allowed in recent copies.  They cause problems and
reduce certainty to be sure but don't necessarily prove forgery.

These tests can be quite effective (given enough material to work 
with) but they are not easy.  They require the skills of the 
historian, the linguist, the anthropologist etc.  The questions to 
ask are, "Is every aspect of this document consistent with what we 
know about the culture of claimed origin?"  If there are things 
which don't fit how significant are they?  Are problem areas due to
our lack of knowledge, later changes by copists or are they really 
significant?  There will often be some ambiguity since we never
know everything about the culture.

The end result of any such testing is occasionally certain
(particularly in the case of holographs or other ancient copies).
However often it may just be a probability or an indication that
the document (or maybe parts of it) is probably authentic (or
sometimes maybe other parts are later additions).  This is often 
unsettling to a generation raised on TV where all problems are
solved in 30 to 60 minutes with time out for commercials.  It is, 
however, the real world and what scholarship has to offer.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20509
From: anasaz!karl@anasazi.com (Karl Dussik)
Subject: Re: Is "Christian" a dirty word?

In article <Mar.25.03.53.08.1993.24855@athos.rutgers.edu> @usceast.cs.scarolina.edu:moss@cs.scarolina.edu (James Moss) writes:
>I was brought up christian, but I am not christian any longer.
>I also have a bad taste in my mouth over christianity.  I (in
>my own faith) accept and live my life by many if not most of the
>teachings of christ, but I cannot let myself be called a christian,
>beacuse to me too many things are done on the name of christianity,
>that I can not be associated with.  

A question for you - can you give me the name of an organization or a
philosophy or a political movement, etc., which has never had anything
evil done in its name?  You're missing a central teaching of Christianity -
man is inherently sinful.  We are saved through faith by grace.  Knowing
that, believing that, does not make us without sin.  Furthermore, not all
who consider themselves "christians" are (even those who manage to head
their own "churches").  "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will
enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who
is in heaven." - Matt. 7:21.

>I also have a problem with the inconsistancies in the Bible, and
>how it seems to me that too many people have edited the original
>documents to fit their own world views, thereby leaving the Bible
>an unbelievable source.

Again, what historical documents do you trust?  Do you think Hannibal
crossed the Alps?  How do you know?  How do you know for sure?  What
historical documents have stood the scrutiny and the attempts to dis-
credit it as well as the Bible has?

>I don't have dislike of christians (except for a few who won't
>quit witnessing to me, no matter how many times I tell them to stop), 
>but the christian faith/organized religion will never (as far as i can 
>see at the moment) get my support.

Well, it's really a shame you feel this way.  No one can browbeat you
into believing, and those who try will probably only succeed in driving
you further away.  You need to ask yourself some difficult questions:
1) is there an afterlife, and if so, does man require salvation to attain
it.  If the answer is yes, the next question is 2) how does man attain this
salvation - can he do it on his own as the eastern religions and certain
modern offshoots like the "new age movement" teach or does he require God's
help?  3) If the latter, in what form does - indeed, in what form can such
help come?  Needless to say, this discussion could take a lifetime, and for
some people it did comprise their life's writings, so I am hardly in a
position to offer the answers here - merely pointers to what to ask.  Few,
of us manage to have an unshaken faith our entire lives (certainly not me).
The spritual life is a difficult journey (if you've never read "A Pilgrim's
Progress," I highly recommend this greatest allegory of the english language).

>Peace and Love
>In God(ess)'s name
>James Moss

Now I see by your close that one possible source of trouble for you may be a
conflict between your politcal beliefs and your religious upbringing.  You
wrote that "I (in my own faith) accept and live my life by many if not most
of the teachings of christ".  Well, Christ referred to God as "My Father",
not "My Mother", and while the "maleness" of God is not the same as the
maleness of those of us humans who possess a Y chromosome, it does not
honor God to refer to Him as female purely to be trendy, non-discriminatory,
or politically correct.  This in no way disparages women (nor is it my intent
to do so by my use of the male pronoun to refer to both men and women - 
english just does not have a decent neuter set of pronouns).  After all, God
chose a woman as his only human partner in bringing Christ into the human
population.

Well, I'm not about to launch into a detailed discussion of
the role of women in Christianity at 1am with only 6 hours of sleep in the
last 63, and for that reason I also apologize for any shortcomings in this
article.  I just happened across yours and felt moved to reply.  I hope I
may have given you, and anyone else who finds himself in a similar frame of
mind, something to contemplate.

Karl Dussik

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20510
From: dleonar@andy.bgsu.edu (Pixie)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article <Apr.7.01.55.50.1993.22771@athos.rutgers.edu>,
vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.) wrote:

> 
> 	"We affirm the absolutes of Scripture, not because we are arrogant
> moralists, but because we believe in God who is truth, who has revealed His
> truth in His Word, and therefore we hold as precious the strategic importance
> of those absolutes."


					Pardon me, a humble atheist, but exactly what is the difference
between holding a revealed truth with blind faith as its basis (i.e.
regardless of any evidence that you may find to the contrary) as an
absolute truth, fully expecting people to believe you and arrogance?

     They sound like one and the same to me.

     And nearly every time I meet a christian (or for that matter, any
other theist) who tries to convert me, I find this proven over and over
again.

     I see no wisdom whatsoever in your words


                                       Unfaithfully yours,

                                       Pixie


     p.s.  If you do sincerely believe that a god exists, why do you follow
it blindly?  

     Do the words "Question Authority" mean anything to you?

     I defy any theist to reply.      

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20511
From: gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric Molas)
Subject: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."

Firstly, I am an atheist. I am not posting here as an immature flame
start, but rather to express an opinion to my intended audience.

The meaning of my existence is a question I ask myself daily.  I live 
in fear of what will happen when I  die.   

I bet some of you are licking your lips now, because you think that
I'm a person on the edge of accepting jeezus.             

I was raised in a religious atmosphere, and attended 13 years of
religious educational institutions..  I know the bible well. So well
I can recognize many passages from memory.  

<<****Strong opinions start here...****>>

1) The human being is an _animal_ who has, due to his/her advanced
mental facilities, developed religious as a satisfiable solution to
explain the unexplainable.  (For example the ancient Greeks believed
that Apollo drove his chariot across the sky each day was real.  Due
to the advancement of our technology, we know this to be false.  

Christianity is an infectious cult.  The reasons it flourishes are 
because 1) it gives people without hope or driven purpose in life
a safety blanked to hide behind.  "Oh wow..all i have to do is 
follow this christian moral standard and I get eternal happiness."
For all of you "found jeezus" , how many of you were "on the brink?"

but i digress...   The other reason christianity flourishes is its
infectious nature.  A best friend of mine breifly entered a christian
group and within months, they set ministry guidelines for him which
basicaly said this -->Priority #1 Spread the Word.


We are _just_ animals.  We need sleep, food, and we reproduce.  And we
die.      

Religion (especially Christianity) is nothing more than a DRUG.
Some people use drugs as an escape from reality.  Christians inject
themselves with jeezus and live with that high. 

It pities me how many millions of lives have been lost in religious
wars, of which Christianity has had no small part.

When Christians see a "non-believer", they say that person is blind
to the truth, but they cannot realize that it is _they_ who live
with this mask of fakeness each day.  Jesus was just prophet #37696 
who happened to have a large influence because at that time the Romans
were (circa 69ad) dispersing the Jewish population and communities
needed some sort of cohesive element to keep them strong in that time
of dire need.

I must go.  These are but a few of my thoughts on Christianity.



-- 
//Damien Endemyr the Unpure Knight of Doom                          //
//"So I've acquired a taste for blood and have adopted a nocturnal  //
//lifestyle.  That Doesnt mean I'm a vampire....."                  //

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20512
From: caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.) writes:

> 	I just thought I'd share some words that I received in a letter 
> from Moody Bible Institute a couple of months ago.  The words are by
> James M. Stowell, the president of MBI.
> 
> 	"The other day, I was at the dry cleaner and the radio was playing.
> It caught my attention because a talk show guest was criticizing evangelical
> Christians, saying we believe in absolutes and think we are the only ones
> who know what the absolutes are.
> 
> 	"He missed the point.

No, IMO, Mr. Stowell missed the point.

> 	"We affirm the absolutes of Scripture, not because we are arrogant
> moralists, but because we believe in God who is truth, who has revealed His
> truth in His Word, and therefore we hold as precious the strategic importance
> of those absolutes."

Mr. Stowell seems to have jumped rather strangely from truth to absolutes.
I don't see how that necessarily follows.  

Are all truths also absolutes?
Is all of scripture truths (and therefore absolutes)?

If the answer to either of these questions is no, then perhaps you can 
explain to me how you determine which parts of Scripture are truths, and
which truths are absolutes.  And, who is qualified to make these 
determinations?  There is hardly consensus, even in evangelical 
Christianity (not to mention the rest of Christianity) regarding 
Biblical interpretation.

I find Mr. Stowell's statement terribly simple-minded.

Carol Alvin
caralv@auto-trol.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20513
From: whheydt@pbhya.pacbell.com (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: Ancient Books

In article <Apr.9.01.11.35.1993.16957@athos.rutgers.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
> But, since the manuscripts are so close to the actual event, especially as 
> compared with ancient "non-Christian" history, could it help show that we have
> accurate copies of the original texts?  

That's a very weak argument--due the lack (with regard to critical
events) of independent supporting texts.

As for the dating of the oldest extant texts of the NT....  How would
you feel about the US Civil War in a couple of thousand years if the
only extant text was written about *now*?  Now adjust for a largely
illiterate population, and one in which every copy of a manuscript is
done by hand....

	--Hal

-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |  If you think the system is working,
510-823-5447                 |  Ask someone who's waiting for a prompt.
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |    

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20514
From: teama@bucknell.edu (meyers@bucknell.edu)
Subject: Doug Sturm

Is anyone familiar with Doug Sturm?

If so, please post what you think.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20515
From: jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas)
Subject: Re: technology

mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:

> ...the computer is not a fantasyland where one's responsibilities
> disappear.  The people on the net are real; slander and deception carried
> out by net are just as wrong as they would be if carried out on paper
> or face to face.

Well said, Michael!

The Catholic traditon has a list of behaviours called the Spiritual 
Works of Mercy:

admonish the sinner
instruct the ignorant
counsel the doubtful
comfort the sorrowful
bear wrongs patiently
forgive all injury
pray for the living and the dead (yes, I know there is some controversy 
                           on this and I don't want to argue about it.)

These are all things that have a direct application to usenet.  People 
ask questions and express doubts.  Some are in need of comfort or 
prayers.  Imagine what would happen to flame wars if we bore wrongs 
patiently and forgave injuries.   I would add that it is probably more 
appropriate to do any admonishing by private email than publicly.

Jayne Kulikauskas/ jayne@mmalt.guild.org

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20516
From: jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas)
Subject: Re: post

jono@mac-ak-24.rtsg.mot.com (Jon Ogden) writes:

> My advice is this:  If you know someone that you have the hots for who is
> NOT a Christian, befriend them and try to develop just a friendship with
> them.  At the same time, witness and share the gospel with them, not so
> that you can date them, but so that they can be saved.  Once they become a
> Christian, then it is quite possible to let the relationship progress
> beyond friendship.  However, if they don't accept Christ, you still have a
> good friendship and you haven't wasted a lot of emotional energy and gotten
> hurt.

While I agree with most of Jon says (I deleted those parts, of course), I 
have serious reservations about this advice.  Maintaining a `just 
friends' level of relationship is much easier said than done.  People 
usually end up getting hurt.  This is especially likely to happen when 
they start off with feelings of attraction.  

When people feel attracted those feelings can cloud their judgement.  
I've had the experience of going quickly from believing that I shouldn't 
date non-Christians to believing that dating this man would be okay to 
believing that premarital sex is fine when people really love each 
other.  When the relationship ended my beliefs immediately returned to 
their original state.  

This is an especially extreme case because I was young and away from home 
and fellowship.  I don't think it would work exactly this way for most 
people.  However, it's important not to underestimate the power of 
feelings of attraction.  

Jayne Kulikauskas/ jayne@mmalt.guild.org

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20517
From: jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas)
Subject: re: Pantheism and Environmentalism

KEVXU@cunyvm.bitnet writes:

[deleted]
> first paragraph and the mention of pantheism.  Is pantheism "perverted"
> and "dangerous", or just not one's cup of tea?  None of this is clear.

I can't speak for Mr. Cavano, but I understood his comment to refer to 
the idea that unrecognized pantheism is dangerous to Christians.  If we 
unthinkingly adopt pantheistic ideas that are opposed to Christianity, 
we can pervert our faith.  When we clearly recognize pantheism when we 
encounter it we have the opportunity to embrace what is consistent with 
Christianity and reject what isn't.    

We need to be alert, always thinking and questioning.  We must examine 
the underlying assumptions of every book we read, tv program we watch 
and socio-political movement we participate in.  Ideas are important.  
Philosophies and doctrines are what give form to the events of our 
lives.  They are the basis from which we live our lives of love and 
service.  The command to love God with all one's mind means no fuzzy-
headed drifting from idea to idea. 

> and that consumerism and our rapacious style of living
> are so rarely called by their appropriate name: Greed.

One Christian who acknowledges this is the Pope.  It is a frequent theme 
in his writings.  Indeed, thoughtful Christians from most traditions 
recognize that consumerism has no place in the lives of Christians.  It 
too is a perversion and dangerous to our faith.  Thank you, Jack, for 
pointing out the parallel. 

Jayne Kulikauskas/ jayne@mmalt.guild.org

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20518
From: jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas)
Subject: Easter: what's in a name? (was Re: New Testament Double Standard?

seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson) writes:

> In Quebec French, the word for the celebration of the resurrection is
> "Pa^ques"--this is etymologically related to Pesach (Passover) and the
> pascal lamb.  So is the French Canadian (mostly Roman Catholic) celebration
> better because it uses the right name?

I was at my parents' Seder and noticed the labelling on one of the 
packages was English, Hebrew and French.  In the phrase "kosher for 
passover" the French word used was "Pa^ques."   We've deliberately 
mistranslated this at the Kulikauskas home and keep referring to foods 
being kosher for Easter. :-)

Back to the original questions in this thread concerning Christians of 
Jewish descent and the Law:  I always wonder when I see posts on this 
subject whether the writers are Christians of Jewish descent relating 
the life-decisions God has led them to or people who take only an 
academic interest in the topic.  (Having known Seanna since she was nine 
years old, I do know in this case.)  I admit that the answer to this 
question affects the amount of weight I give to the writer's statement.

Jayne Kulikauskas/ jayne@mmalt.guild.org

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20519
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: sex education

In article <Apr.7.23.20.08.1993.14209@athos.rutgers.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>In <Apr.5.23.31.32.1993.23904@athos.rutgers.edu> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>
>> Method                  Expected         Actual 
>> ------                 Failure Rate    Failure Rate
>> Abstinence                 0%              0% 
>
>
>    These figures don't seem to take account of rape. Or is a woman who
>is raped considered not to have been abstaining?

I no longer have the textbook, but abstinence was defined as something
like "no contact between the penis and the vagina, vulva, or area 
immediately surrounding the vulva, and no transfer of semen to the
vagina, vulva, or area surrounding the vulva".  

That is, abstinence wasn't discussed as "sex outside of marriage is
morally wrong" but as keep  the sperm away from the ovum and conception 
is impossible. The moral question I recall the teacher asking was,
"is it okay to create a child if you aren't able to be a good parent
yet?"

-jen

-- 

#include <stdisclaimer>  //  jenk@microsoft.com  // msdos testing

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20520
From: halsall@murray.fordham.edu (Paul Halsall)
Subject: Weirdness of Early Christians


	I am a good Catholic boy. A convert no less, attracted by the
rational tradition [Aquinas et al] and the emotional authenticity
[in comp. with the faddishness of Anglicanism] to Roman Catholicism. I
never had much time for the pope - or any other heirarchs - but I did, and
do, believe in the sacremental system. I always felt quite happy to
look down my nose at those such as John Emery [a few posts back] who
had to engage in circuitous textual arguments to prove their faith, entirely
oblivious to the fact that a dozen other faiths can do the same [with
miracles too], and that since their arguments depend on the belief in the
Bible as God's sole revelation, it was not very good logic to argue
that the Bible proved God. No, I was happy to accept the CHURCH as God's
revelation. It was the Church after all that existed before the Bible, the
Church that choose [under grace of course] the canon of scripture. Protestant
ludicrosity, I thought, was shown by Protestants breathtaking acceptance
of Luther's right to reject a dozen or so books he disliked.
	But recently I read Peter Brown's _Body and Society_. It is very
well researched, and well written. But is raises some very upsetting
questions. The early Christians were weird - even more so than today's
carzy fundies. They had odd views on sex, odder views on the body, 
totally ludicrous views about demons, and distinctly uncharitable
views about other human beings. 
	now the question is this: were the first Christians just as
weird, but we've got used to them, or did the pristine "Fall of the
Church" happen within one generation. It certainly did'nt have to
wait until the Triumph of the Church under Constantine. If so,
wha does  this say about God's promise to always support the Church.
It's no use throwing the usual Protestant pieties about the Church
not being an organization at me. It's a community or it is nothing,
and it was the early communities that were weird. The institional
church was a model of sanity by comparison.
	I would be interested in serious Catholic and Orthodox responses to
this entirely serious issue. I'm not sure it is an issue for Protestants
with their "soul alone with Jesus" approach, but for we who see the
"ecclesia" as a "koinoia" over time and space, the weird early
Christians are a problem.

[This is an exaggeration of the Protestant view.  Many Protestants
have a strong appreciation for the role of the Church.  "The soul
alone with God" is certainly important for Protestants, but it's by no
means the whole story.

I have read the sort of history you talk about.  As you point out,
Protestants don't have quite the same problem you do, because we
believe that the church had a Fall at some point.  However Protestant
mythology typically places the Fall around the time of Constantine (or
more likely, regard it as happening in a sort of cumulative fashion,
starting from Constantine but getting worse as the Pope accumulated
power during the medieval period.)  The consequences of having it
earlier are somewhat worrisome even to us.  Most Protestants accept
the theological results of the early ecumenical councils, including
such items as the Trinity and Incarnation.  Indeed in the works of
Reformers such as Luther and Calvin, you'll find Church Fathers such
as Augustine quoted all the time.  I think you'll find many
Protestants resistant to the idea that the Early Church as a whole was
"wierd".  (There is an additional problem for Protestants that I don't
much want to talk about in this context, since it's been looked at
recently -- that's the question of whether one can really think of
Augustine and other Fathers as being proto-Protestants.  Their views
on Mary, the authority of the Pope, etc, are not entirely congenial to
Protestant thought.)

One thing that somewhat worries me is a question of methodology.
There are certainly plenty of wierd people in the early church.  What
concerns me is that they may be overrepresented in what we see.  We
see every Christian who courted martyrdom.  But I think there's good
reason to believe that most ordinary Christians were more prudent than
that.  We see the heroic virgins.  But I think there's good reason to
think that many Christians were happily married.  I can't help
suspecting that the early church had the same range of wierdos and
sane people that we do now.  I think there's also a certain level of
"revisionism" active in history at the moment.  I don't mean that
they're manufacturing things out of whole cloth.  But don't you think
there might be a tendency to emphasize the novel?

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20521
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: Hell

Quoth the Moderator:

>I have to say that I some qualms about giving you this explanation,
>because it raises additional problems: If God is the source of all
>existence, then a complete separation from him would make existence
>itself impossible.  So, does God maintain just enough connection with
>those who are rejected to keep them in existence so he can punish
>them?

In a short poem ("God in His mercy made / the fixed pains of Hell"),
C. S. Lewis expresses an idea that I'm sure was current among others,
but I haven't be able to find its source:

that even Hell is an expression of mercy, because God limits the amount
of separation from Him, and hence the amount of agony, that one can
achieve.

-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington         internet mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs       phone 706 542-0358 :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia                fax 706 542-0349 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20522
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

The two historic facts that I think the most important are these:

(1) If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then he must have done something
else equally impressive, in order to create the observed amount of impact.

(2) Nobody ever displayed the dead body of Jesus, even though both the
Jewish and the Roman authorities would have gained a lot by doing so
(it would have discredited the Christians).

-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington         internet mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs       phone 706 542-0358 :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia                fax 706 542-0349 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20523
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Legitimate bawdy humor; was: Re: sex education - it's a joke !

In article <Apr.8.01.01.06.1993.28740@athos.rutgers.edu> Lubosh.Hanuska@anu.edu.au (ljh) writes:

>"Well, my son, the best advice I can give you is this: Eat a lot of
>carrots!"
>"Oh, do you really think that will work ?!? And should it be before or
>after intercourse?"
>"INSTEAD, my son, INSTEAD!"
...
>Disclaimer: As a single Catholic I didn't have any business to post this
>kind of joke to this group, so if you found it inappropriate [...]

But what was wrong with it?  It won't tempt anyone to any kind of sin, as
far as I can tell.  It doesn't belittle anyone.  It does not substitute
offensiveness for humor (it's genuinely funny).

We shouldn't assume that _all_ jokes that mention sexuality are "dirty"
merely because so many are.

And we should never mistake prudery for spirituality.  It can be the direct
opposite -- a symptom of the _lack_ of a healthy perspective on God's
creation.


-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington         internet mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs       phone 706 542-0358 :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia                fax 706 542-0349 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20524
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: Easter: what's in a name? (was Re: New Testament Double Standard?

In article <Apr.10.05.33.25.1993.14413@athos.rutgers.edu> jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas) writes:
>seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson) writes:
>
>> In Quebec French, the word for the celebration of the resurrection is
>> "Pa^ques"--this is etymologically related to Pesach (Passover) and the
>> pascal lamb.  So is the French Canadian (mostly Roman Catholic) celebration
>> better because it uses the right name?
>
>I was at my parents' Seder and noticed the labelling on one of the 
>packages was English, Hebrew and French.  In the phrase "kosher for 
>passover" the French word used was "Pa^ques."   We've deliberately 
>mistranslated this at the Kulikauskas home and keep referring to foods 
>being kosher for Easter. :-)

however, the word "pa^ques" in french _is_ the word for easter.  ask
any francophone, whether from quebec or from paris.  besides, haven't
you heard of the phrase "the paschal lamb" (meaning jesus)?

sorry to nitpick on the more trivial part of this thread....

:) vera
*******************************************************************************
I am your CLOCK!     |  I bind unto myself today    | Vera Noyes
I am your religion!  |  the strong name of the	    | noye@midway.uchicago.edu
I own you!	     |  Trinity....		    | no disclaimer -- what
	- Lard	     |	- St. Patrick's Breastplate | is there to disclaim?

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20525
From: xx155@yfn.ysu.edu (Family Magazine Sysops)
Subject: WITNESS & PROOF OF CHRIST'S RESURRECTION


     IMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM;
     :        T H E   W I T N E S S   &   P R O O F   O F        :
     :                                                           :
     :   J E S U S   C H R I S T ' S   R E S U R R E C T I O N   :
     :                                                           :
     :                 F R O M   T H E   D E A D                 :
     HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM<

* The WITNESS Of The LORD JESUS CHRIST:

Mark 8:31 And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer
     many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests
     and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Mark 9:31 For He was teaching His disciples and telling them, "The Son
     of Man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will
     kill Him; and when He has been killed, He will rise three days
     later."                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     ^^^^^
Mark 10:34 "And they will mock Him and spit upon Him, and scourge Him,
     and kill Him, and three days later He will rise again."
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Mark 12:26 "But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you
     not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning
     bush, how God spoke to him, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, and
     the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'?

Luke 18:33 and after they have scourged Him, they will kill Him; and
     the third day He will rise again. "
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Luke 24:46 and He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ
     should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day;^^^^^^
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
John 11:25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he
     who believes in Me shall live even if he dies,

John 20:9 For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He
     must rise again from the dead.                              ^^
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Acts 17:3 ...explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to
     suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus whom
     I am proclaiming to you is the Christ."

* The WITNESS Of The APOSTLE PAUL:  1 Corinthians 15:1-26

 1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to
   you, which also you received, in which also you stand,

 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I
   preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,
   that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day
   according to the Scriptures,     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one
   time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;

 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;

 8 and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me
   also.

 9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not fit to be called an
   apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did
   not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I,
   but the grace of God with me.

11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead,
   how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has
   been raised;

14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your
   faith also is vain.

15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we
   witnessed against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise,
   if in fact the dead are not raised.

16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised;

17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are
   still in your sins.

18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.

19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most
   to be pitied.

20 BUT NOW CHRIST HAS BEEN RAISED FROM THE DEAD, the first fruits of
   those who are asleep.

21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection
   of the dead.

22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.

23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those
   who are Christ's at His coming,

24 then comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to the God and
   Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.

25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.

26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death.


             LOGICAL PROOFS OF JESUS CHRIST'S RESURRECTION

            1.  Jesus's enemies *would not* have stolen His
                body because that would have perpetrated the
                resurrection--the very opposite of what they
                desired.

            2.  Jesus' disciples *could not* have stolen His
                body because Pontius Pilate established guards
                to stand watch over the tomb lest His body be
                stolen.

            3.  Sadly (and ironically), many of Jesus' disciples
                did not believe in the Resurrection until Jesus
                had risen from the dead.

            4.  In nearly 20 centuries, no body has ever been
                produced to refute Jesus' assertion that He
                *would indeed* rise from the dead.

            5.  The probability of being able to perpetrate such
                a hoax successfully upon the entire world for
                nearly 20 centuries is astronomically negative!
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20526
From: rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe)
Subject: Re: quality of Catholic liturgy

In <Apr.10.05.30.16.1993.14313@athos.rutgers.edu>
jemurray@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John E Murray) writes:

>I would like the opinion of netters on a subject that has been bothering my
>wife and me lately: liturgy, in particular, Catholic liturgy.  In the last few
>years it seems that there are more and more ad hoc events during Mass.  It's
>driving me crazy!  The most grace-filled aspect of a liturgical tradition is
>that what happens is something we _all_ do together, because we all know how 
>to do it.  Led by the priest, of course, which makes it a kind of dialogue we 
>present to God.  But the best Masses I've been to were participatory prayers.

[ . . . ]

Having lived through the kicking and screaming in the 60s and 70s as the
Catholics were invited to participate in the liturgy instead of counting
their rosary beads during Mass, I find this comment interesting.  There
is a _massively_ longer tradition for proclaiming the Passion accounts
without active participation.  If you know the Latin, one really
beautiful way to hear the Passion is it's being chanted by three
deacons:  the Narrator chants in the middle baritone range, Jesus chants
in the bass, and others directly quoted are handled by a high tenor.
This is actually the basis for the common proclamation of the Passion
that John would prefer.

But there is always a judgement call based on pastoral considerations.
Each pastor makes his own decisions (it isn't a church-wide conspiracy
against participation).  The Palm Sunday liturgy, with its initial
blessing and distribution of the palms and procession, is already
getting long before you get to the Passion; some pastors feel that they
should not make the people stand through that long narrative.  Also, the
orchestrated proclamation with multiple readers and public participation
in the crowd quotations runs longer than the single-reader proclamation
--- in churches with multiple Masses for the Sunday, it might be
necessary to go with the briefer options just to "get 'em in and get 'em
out".

Each parish is different.  Catholics are no longer canonically tied to
their geographic parishes.  It is possible that another Catholic parish
in the Columbus area (based on the Ohio State address) has a liturgy
closer to your preferences.  Or talk to some of your fellow
parishioners and see how common your preferences are --- pastors
generally ARE willing to listen to non-confrontational requests.  Though
you probably should bring along a paramedic in case he reacts too strongly
to the shock of people asked for a _longer_ Sunday Mass.

Perhaps the problem is that recent liturgical development hasn't follow
the continuous evolution model (the accumulation of small changes, no
single one of which is too hard to take) but rather the punctuated
equilibrium model (things stay the same and we get accustomed to them,
then the marked mutation hits).  {My apologies if I am mis-remembering
the names of the evolutionary theories.}
-- 
                                                    --- Tim Rolfe
                                                 rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu
                                                 rolfe@junior.dsu.edu
                                                RolfeT@columbia.dsu.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20527
From: shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker)
Subject: Re: christians and aids

In article <Apr.8.00.57.49.1993.28271@athos.rutgers.edu> marka@travis.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley) writes:
>In article <Apr.7.01.55.33.1993.22762@athos.rutgers.edu> kevin@pictel.pictel.com (Kevin Davis) writes:
>>Many Christians believe in abstinence, but in a moment will be overcome
>>by desire.  We all compromise and rationalize poor choices (sin).  Last
>>week I was guilty of anger, jealousy, and whole mess of other stuff,
>>yet I am forgiven and not condemned to suffer with AIDs.  To even
>>suggest that AIDS is "deserved" is ludicrous.
>
>When man was told not to have sex with relatives, did they listen ?
>NO! And man found out why !

So what's your point?  Mark's comment still is valid.  To suggest that
AIDS is "deserved" IS ludicrous.  I sin.  I can resolve to abstain from 
sin, and do weekly (more often, actually).  Yet I routinely fail.
I surely do deserve what I get, yet God compassionately provided 
the Incarnate Logos, Jesus, as a rememdy and a way out of our situation.
If AIDS is deserved, I surely deserve instant death just as much, as do
we all, as St. Paul so cogently remids us.

To willingly judge "others" as deserving punishment seems to me
to be the height of arrogance and lack of humility.  
 
>I wonder if AIDS would be a problem now if people didn't get
>involved in deviant sexual behaviour. Certainly, people who
>received tainted blood are not to blame. But it just goes
>to show that all mankind is affected by the actions of a few.

So what's the point here?  I can get AIDS and NEVER engage in
"deviant" sexual behavior.  In fact, I could engage in LOTS
of deviant sexual behavior with HIV+ people and never be
infected.  AIDS is a consequence of particular behaviors,
many of which are not sexual.  And not all sexual behaviors
carry the risk of transmission.  
 
>In addition, IMHO forgiveness is not the end of things.
>There is still the matter of atonement. Is it AIDS ?
>I don't know.

The end of all things is to know, love and serve God, growing
daily closer through prayer, meditation and discipline.  Even so
I could get AIDS.  Anyone could, unless they remain forever celibate,
IV-drug-free, and transfusion free.

Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com)
-- 
-------
Lawrence Overacker
Shell Oil Company, Information Center    Houston, TX            (713) 245-2965
llo@shell.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20528
From: aaronc@athena.mit.edu (Aaron Bryce Cardenas)
Subject: Re: christians and aids

Paul Conditt writes:
>Yes, it's important to realize that all actions have consequences,
>and that "rules" were made for our own good.  But to suggest that a
>*disease* is a *punishment* for certain types of sin I think is 
>taking things much too far.  
[text deleted]
>Yes, sin can have terrible consequences, but we need to be *real*
>careful when saying that the consequences are a *punishment* for 
>sin.  

I wish that you had followed this thread before jumping to conclusions.
I haven't seen anybody write that AIDS was a *punishment* for certain
types of sin (this includes Mark Ashley who you were responding to
here).  I myself wrote that when you don't do things God's way that
curses will come on you and others.  Although one definition of 'curse'
is 'retribution', I only meant 'harm or misfortune' when I used the
word.  Because God loves us he has told us the best way to live in his
Bible.  God doesn't cause curses, he warns us of them.

Kevin Davis wrote (a while ago):
>Last week I was guilty of anger, jealousy, and whole mess of
>other stuff, yet I am forgiven and not condemned to suffer with
>AIDs.  To even suggest that AIDS is "deserved" is ludicrous.

The Bible makes it clear that we all equally deserve death (which is
much worse than AIDS) -- we have all hurt God with our sin.

Paul Conditt reveals his feelings:
>In case you couldn't tell, I get *extremely* angry and upset when
>I see things like this.  Instead of rationalizing our own fears and
>phobias, we need to be reaching out to people with AIDS and other
>socially unacceptable diseases.  Whether they got the disease through
>their own actions or not is irrelevant.  They still need Jesus...

The first issue you bring up is your anger.  It is "obvious"ly wrong to
be angry (Gal 5:19-20) for any reason, especially *extremely* angry
which is on par with hatred.  Jesus has every reason to be angry at us
for putting him on the cross with our sin, yet his prayer was "forgive
them Father, they know not what they do."  Knowing how forgiving Jesus
has been with me calls me to be more forgiving with everyone out of
love for Him.  Please don't give in to anger, it will only cause
foolish quarrels and more bad feelings.

It's okay if you read something that bothers you, but you need to
address it in a loving way.  If right now, I felt like someone out
there was saying that God punishes gay or sexually immoral people with
AIDS because they deserve punishment that others don't then I would
frame a response something like this:

"It makes me feel very sad for someone to believe that AIDS, which is
simply a harmful disease not so unlike any other, is God's punishment
for people who have committed certain sins.  God loves all of his
children equally and rejoices when a single one comes back to him.  We
will all be judged after we die, but until then we all have the
opportunity to accept God's grace by earnestly seeking after him with
all of our hearts, believing the gospel's testimony, repenting of our
sin, confessing that Jesus is Lord at baptism, and living a new life
for him.
 Let us not judge someone to be eternally condemned.  God's arm is not
to short to save.  He will do anything he can to move a hardened heart
or a misled person.  He works for the good of all men.  Even through
the worst of situations, he has set the times and places for all men
that they may perhaps reach out and find him."

The second issue you bring up is seeing people rationalize their fears
of people with AIDS.  Fortunately, what you describe as seeing is
actually misperceiving.  You have been missing the points made in the
earlier posts and reacting in anger to attitudes that haven't been
expressed.  I know that its sometimes hard to discount your
perceptions, but please try to be open-minded.

You are quite correct in saying that we should reach out to all people
because they all need Jesus.  This is what my brothers and sisters and
I do on a daily basis.  If you would like to send me the name of the
city and state you live in, I will find and get you in touch with some
brothers who have AIDS or know people with AIDS and live nearby you so
that you can see the loving attitudes for yourself.

The third issue you bring up is the importance of how some individual
contracted AIDS.  How someone gets AIDS is only relevant to their
salvation in that there may be repetence involved.

The important point to be made, however, is that not listening to God's
commands (or advice or warnings), i.e. sinning, causes harm or
misfortune to yourself and others.  For this reason, a good way to
prevent the misfortune of AIDS, which can be transmitted in sinful ways,
is to listen to God's advice and have sex only with your wife or
husband.

I hope that you are feeling better now, Paul.

Love,

Aaron Cardenas

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20529
From: chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie)
Subject: Re: Essene New Testament

In <Apr.10.05.31.12.1993.14351@athos.rutgers.edu> harwood@umiacs.umd.edu (David Harwood) writes:

>There had been recent criticism of this in a listserv for academic
>Biblical scholars: they all say the book(s) are modern fakes.
>D.H.

Which listsev was this and is the discussion still current?  My questioning
is based on some information presented from the Essene NT that challenges
some of my eating choices.  As the info came from a biased (opposed to my
preferences) third party I am looking for info as to whether I should
dismiss this work or put some consideration into it.  Thanks again for info!
-- 
     Will Christie       |    AATCHOO!      | PHILOSOPHY: the principles and 
 University of Manitoba  |    Uh-oh...      |  science of thought and reality
  Winnipeg, MB, Canada   |   I'm leaking    | PHILOSOPHER: someone who thinks
chrstie@ccu.UManitoba.CA | brain lubricant. |  they're useful to society

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20530
From: tbrent@florin.ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent)
Subject: Re: Pantheism & Environmentalism

In article <Apr.9.01.09.29.1993.16586@athos.rutgers.edu> jono@mac-ak-24.rtsg.mot.com (Jon Ogden) writes:

>So we see that we are masters of this planet.  It IS ours to care for and
>ours to look after.  We will be judged on how well we do this task.
>C.)  We are not to be in the business of spreading lies.  What we tell
>others we must be sure is true.  We should check out the information,
>verify it with scientific fact and go from there.
			   ^^^^

Just what are these "scientific facts"?  I have never heard of such a thing.
Science never proves or disproves any theory - history does.

-Tim

 ______________________________________________________________________________
|				|				       	       |
|       Timothy J. Brent        |   A man will come to know true happiness,    |
|   BRENT@bank.ecn.purdue.edu   |   only when he accepts that he is but a      |
|=========$$$$==================|   small part of an infinite universe.	       |
|       PURDUE UNIVERSITY       |			  	   -Spinoza    |
| MATERIALS SCIENCE ENGINEERING |			 	 [paraphrased] |
|_______________________________|______________________________________________|

[I hope we don't get embroiled in a discussion over words here.  When
somebody says "get the facts", I'm not sure we need to get into
arguments over the philosophy of science.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20531
From: cpage@two-step.seas.upenn.edu (Carter C. Page)
Subject: Re: Prayer in Jesus' Name

In article <Apr.9.01.09.22.1993.16580@athos.rutgers.edu> munns@cae.wisc.edu (Scott Munns) writes:
>Eventually, we got around to how
>we should pray in Jesus' name.  Then, an excellent question came up, one
>that I don't have a real answer to.  The question was, "If we need to pray
>in Jesus' name, what about the people before Jesus?  They prayed to God
>and he listened then, in spite of their sins.  Why can't it be the same
>way now?"

	"And in that day you will ask Me no question.  Truly, truly, I say to 
	you, if you shall ask the Father for anything, He will give it to you 
	in my name.  Until now you have asked for nothing in My name; ask, and 
	you will receive, that your joy may be made full."
				-John 16:23-24

I don't believe that we necessarily have to say " . . . In Christ's name.  
Amen," for our prayers to be heard, but it glorifies the Son, when we 
acknowledge that our prayer is made possible by Him.  I believe that just as 
those who were saved in the OT, could only be saved because Jesus would one day
reconcile God to man, He is the only reason their prayers would be heard by 
God.

	For all of us have become like one who is unclean,
	And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment;
	And all of us wither like a leaf,
	and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.
				-Isaiah 64:6, NAS

Our prayers like the rest of our deeds are too unholy to go directly to the
Father because they are tainted by our sin.  Only by washing these prayers with
Christ's blood are they worthy to be lifted to to the Father.

	"First, I thank my God through Christ Jesus . . ."
				-Romans 1:8, NAS

Some scholars believe that this is Paul recognizing that even his thanks are 
too unholy for the Father.
	Basically, prayer is a gift of grace, I believe that only through Jesus
do our prayers have any power; thus, praying in His name glorifies and praises 
Jesus for this beautiful and powerful gift He has given us.

+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=
Carter C. Page           | Of happiness the crown and chiefest part is wisdom,
A Carpenter's Apprentice | and to hold God in awe.  This is the law that,
cpage@seas.upenn.edu     | seeing the stricken heart of pride brought down,
                         | we learn when we are old.  -Adapted from Sophocles
+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=+-=-+-=+-=-+=-+-=-+-=-+=-+-=

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20532
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe)
Subject: Re: Easter: what's in a name? (was Re: New Testament Double Standard?

seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson) writes:
> Since the_day_upon_which_most_Christians_celebrate_the_resurrection_of_Jesus
> is approaching, I thought I would comment on this:
> 
> In article <Mar.29.03.23.31.1993.19711@athos.rutgers.edu> dsegard@nyx.cs.du.edu (Daniel Segard) writes:
> >
> What is the objection to celebration of Easter?  It is celebration of the
> resurrection of Jesus.  I don't recall a command in Scripture for us to
> celebrate the resurrection, but it is the sole and only reason that we
> are Christians--how could we not celebrate it?  If it is only the name

Not quite correct.  Biblical teaching expects us to celebrate the
resurrection of Christ not once a year but every time someone is baptized.
 Col. 2:12-Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him
through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the
dead."  Rom. 6:4-Therefore we are buried with him in baptism into death:
that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the
Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."
Those really want to celebrate the resurrection should by faith walk in
newness of life after baptism.  It is not necessary to celebrate a pagan
goddess in the process.

> >      So, as we see from Scripture, those who are of Israel will observe
> >the 7th Day *FOREVER*.  The Gentiles who believe in the Messiah of Israel
> >are welcome to observe the 7th Day as well, but it is not required of them
> >since the are adopted into the Commonwealth of Israel.  The Gentiles who
> >are grafted into the Commonwealth of Israel are only required to observe
> >the basic commands given to those who came before Abram (see also Acts
> >15).  No further requirements are placed upon them once they come to faith
> >in Messiah.
> > 
> So from this I infer that there are different rules for Christians of Jewish
> descent?  What happened to "there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free,
> male nor female, for all are one in Christ Jesus"?  Jewish Christians/Messianics
> may find certain forms of worship and certain disciplines meaningful because
> of their cultural background, but I have a hard time understanding the 
> justification for applying rules or commandments to those who have been 
> justified by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
> 
Paul answered your question in Romans 9.  In v. 4 he stated that the
adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of
God, and the promises were given to the Israelites.  It is a package deal.
 He goes on to identify those who are true Israelites.  Vs 6-8 makes it
plain that the true Israelites are not those who are born that way but
those who accept the promise of God.  Paul continued to emphasize that he
was an Israelite in 2 Cor. 11:22, then in Gal 3:29 he says that all those
who belong to Christ are Abraham's seed, and heirs to all the promises
given to the Israelites.  The promises come with the law.  It is all or
nothing.  Why is it that you only want to discard one part of the law? 
Certainly you would want your husband to be faithful to you.  Or do you
believe that adultery is no longer forbidden?  Same law.

BTW  please give a reference for your statement that the Gentiles are only
required to observe the basis commandmants.  Could you list those
please.  Acts 15 deals with circumcision and the law of Moses which was
added because of transgression of God's eternal law (Gal 3:19; Rom 4:15)

++++++++++++
Darius A. Lecointe                     | I got my BA when I was Born Again
Department of Educational Research     | And my MA when I was Made Anew
Florida State University               | Now I'm getting my PhD as I become 
Tel: (904) 644-0706                    | A Patient, Humble, Disciple.
E-mail: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20533
From: cpage@two-step.seas.upenn.edu (Carter C. Page)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."

In article <Apr.10.05.32.36.1993.14391@athos.rutgers.edu> gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric Molas) writes:
>Firstly, I am an atheist. . . .

(Atheist drivel deleted . . .)

			Untitled
			========

	A seed is such a miraculous thing,
	It can sit on a shelf forever.
	But how it knows what to do, when it's stuck in the ground,
	Is what makes it so clever.
	It draws nutrients from the soil through it's roots,
	And gathers its force from the sun
	It puts forth a whole lot of blossoms and fruit,
	Then recedes itself when it is done.
	Who programmed the seed to know just what to do?
	And who put the sun in the sky?
	And who put the food in the dirt for the roots?
	And who told the bees to come by?
	And who makes the water to fall from above,
	To refresh and make everything pure?
	Perhaps all of this is a product of love,
	And perhaps it happened by chance.
				Yeah, sure.

			-Johnny Hart, cartoonist for _B.C._

+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=
Carter C. Page           | Of happiness the crown and chiefest part is wisdom,
A Carpenter's Apprentice | and to hold God in awe.  This is the law that,
cpage@seas.upenn.edu     | seeing the stricken heart of pride brought down,
                         | we learn when we are old.  -Adapted from Sophocles
+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=+-=-+-=+-=-+=-+-=-+-=-+=-+-=

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20534
From: cpage@two-step.seas.upenn.edu (Carter C. Page)
Subject: Re: Reason vs. Revelation

In article <Apr.8.00.58.08.1993.28309@athos.rutgers.edu> trajan (Stephen McIntyre) writes:
>In article <Apr.2.01.58.09.1993.17541@athos.rutgers.edu> writes:
>
>> I can only reply with what it says in 1 Timothy 3:16 :

>I'm not here to discount parts of the Bible.  Rather, I'm
>     here only to discount the notion of "revelation."
>     The author of 1 Timothy told what he thought was the
>     truth, based on his belief in God, his faith in Jesus
>     as the resurrected Son, and his readings of the Old
>     Testament.  But again, what had been revealed to him
>     was based on (at best) second-hand information, given
>     by friends and authors who may not have given the
>     whole truth or who may have exaggerated a bit.
 
First of all, the original poster misquoted.  The reference is from 2 Tim 3:16.
The author was Paul, and his revelations were anything but "(at best) 
second-hand".

	"And is came about that as [Saul] journeyed, he was approaching
	 Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; and
	 he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul,
	 why are you persecuting Me?"  And he said, "Who art Thou, Lord?"  And
	 He said, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, . . ."
		(Acts 9:3-5, NAS)

Paul received revelation directly from the risen Jesus!  (Pretty cool, eh?)  He
became closely involved with the early church, the leaders of which were 
followers of Jesus throughout his ministry on earth.

>Now, you may say, "The Holy Spirit revealed these things
>     unto him," and we could go into that argument, but
>     you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that the Holy
>     Spirit exists.  

I agree.  I don't believe anyone but the Spirit would be able to convince you 
the Spirit exists.  Please don't complain about this being circular.  I know
it is, but really, can anything of the natural world explain the supernatural?
(This is why revelation is necessary to the authors of the Bible.)

>     Additionally, what he has written is
>     again second-hand info if it were given by the Spirit,
>     and still carries the chance it is not true.

The Spirit is part of God.  How much closer to the source can you get?
The Greek in 2 Timothy which is sometimes translated as "inspired by God", 
literally means "God-breathed".  In other words, God spoke the actual words 
into the scriptures.  Many theologians and Bible scholars (Dr. James Boice is 
one that I can remember off-hand) get quite annoyed by the dryness and 
incompleteness of "inspired by God".

>The only way you would be able to escape this notion of
>     "second-hand" info is to have had the entire Bible
>     written by God himself.  And to tell the truth, I've
>     studied the Bible extensively, and have yet to 
>     hear of scholars who have put forth objective evidence
>     showing God as the first author of this collection of
>     books.

That's what the verse taken from 2 Timothy was all about.  The continuity of a 
book written over a span of 1500 years by more than 40 authors from all walks 
of life is a testimony to the single authorship of God.

>> And as for reason, read what it says in 1 Corinthians 1:18-31 about
>> human wisdom. Basically it says that human wisdom is useless when
>> compared with what God has written for our learning.

>If you knew of Jesus as well as you know the Bible, you'd
>     realize he reasoned out the law and the prophets for 
>     the common man.  

What source to you claim to have discovered which has information of superior
historicity to the Bible?  Certainly not Josephus' writings, or the writings 
of the Gnostics which were third century, at the earliest.

>     And though some claim Jesus was 
>     he was human, with all of the human wisdom the
>     apostle Paul set out to criticize.  Yet, would you not
>     embrace the idea that Jesus was wise?

Jesus was fully God as well.  That's why I'd assert that he is wise.

>> I realise that you may not accept the authority of the Bible. This is
>> unfortunate to say the least, because there is no other way of learning
>> about God and Christ and God's purpose with the earth than reading the
>> Bible and searching out its truth for yourself.
>
>For your information, I was raised without any knowledge of
>     God.  By the time some of the faithful came to show me
>     the Word and share with me its truth, I was living
>     happily and morally without acknowledging the existence
>     of a supreme being.  I have, though, read the Bible
>     several times over in its entirety and have studied it
>     thoroughly.  It contains truth in it, and I consider
>     Jesus to be one of the most moral of human beings to
>     have lived (in fact, I darn-near idolize the guy.)  But
>     there's no rational reason for me to except God's
>     existence.

Please rethink this last paragraph.  If there is no God, which seems to be your
current belief, then Jesus was either a liar or a complete nut because not
only did he assert that God exists, but he claimed to be God himself!  (regards
to C.S. Lewis)  How then could you have the least bit of respect for Jesus?
	In conclusion, be careful about logically unfounded hypotheses based
on gut feelings about the text and other scholars' unsubstantiated claims.  
The Bible pleads that we take it in its entirety or throw the whole book out.
	About your reading of the Bible, not only does the Spirit inspire the
writers, but he guides the reader as well.  We cannot understand it in the 
least without the Spirit's guidance:

	"For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit 
	searches all things, even the depths of God."  (1 Cor 2:10, NAS)
 
Peace and may God guide us in wisdom.

+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=
Carter C. Page           | Of happiness the crown and chiefest part is wisdom,
A Carpenter's Apprentice | and to hold God in awe.  This is the law that,
cpage@seas.upenn.edu     | seeing the stricken heart of pride brought down,
                         | we learn when we are old.  -Adapted from Sophocles
+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=+-=-+-=+-=-+=-+-=-+-=-+=-+-=

[Other theologians get quite annoyed at the misleadingess of
"God-breathed."  It's true that the Greek word has as its roots "God"
and "breath".  However etymology doesn't necessarily tell you what a
word means.  Otherwise, "goodbye" would be a religious expression
(since it comes from "God be with ye").  You have to look at how the
word was actually used.  In this case the word is used for wisdom or
dreams that come from God.  But "God-breathed" is an overtranslation.
--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20535
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Salvation by deeds

Another guess to your salvation riddle would be "saved".

Joe Fisher

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20536
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Deification

In article <Apr.10.05.30.35.1993.14329@athos.rutgers.edu> HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com writes:
>Aaron Bryce Cardenas writes:
>After all, what does prophesy mean?  Secondly, what is an Apostle?  Answer:
>an especial witness--one who is suppose to be a personal witness.  That means
>to be a true apostle, one must have Christ appear to them.  Now lets see
>when did the church quit claiming ......?

Actually, an apostle is someone who is sent.  If you will, mailmen could
be called apostles in that sense.  However, with Jesus, they were
designated and were given power.  Remember that there were many
thousands of people who witnessed what Jesus did.  That didn't make them
apostles, though.

Joe Fisher

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20537
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Revelations

He doesn't contradict himself.  The church is to last for all time.
However, there are those who use the church to bolster themselves.  This
is evident in many letters.  For instance, Paul talks about the
"super-apostles" to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 11-12), he mentions
how people will be led away by miracles, signs, and wonders (2
Thessalonians 2:9-12), he tells Timothy that it is clear that some will
abandon the faith and teach lies (1 Timothy 4:1-3) and that some will
search for teachers to suit what they want to hear (2 Timothy 4:3-4).
Such passages go throughout the letters and Jesus does warn about them
(Matthew 24:4-14).  But look at the promise in this last part.  Verse
14:  "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world
as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."  Even today,
there are false teachings.  I can name two which I am well familiar
with:  the non-need of baptism and the "praying of Jesus into your life
for salvation".  Both are taught.  Both are DEAD wrong.  They have been
taken out of context from some verses, interpreted from others, and just
plain made up.  The ONLY way Jesus taught is given in Luke 9:23-26 and
Luke 14:25-33.  He then commands baptism in Matthew 28:18-20.  The
church Jesus founded, though, is alive and well.  It's not being
persecuted as much as back then (the laws won't allow it yet), but it is
being persecuted.

Joe Fisher

>
>Peace,
>Lou
>
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>+       Lou Nunez   (e-mail lnunez@vaxa.stevens-tech.edu)       +
>+   + Ps 42(43):4 + Ps 90(91):5-6 +  Dn 3:52-90 + Ml 1:11 +     +
>+  + Ad Altare Dei + Ad Deum Qui Laetificat Juventutem Meam +   +
>+  + 1Cor 4:15 + MT 16:13-19 + 1Cor 13:1-13 + Luke 10:25-37 +   + 
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20538
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Ancient Books

Of course, I'd still recommend that Michael read _True and Reasonable_
by Douglas Jacoby.

Joe Fisher

Oh, and Michael, I wait to see any dents in any armor and my faith
hasn't wavered since the day I became a disciple.  You may want to try
it sometime.  It's life-changing!

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20539
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Sin

Sorry for taking this off of Sharon's resp, but I'd also like to add
some more verses to that and perhaps answer the second Q.

Verses:
   1 Corinthians 6:9-10
   Colossians 3:5-10

As for knowing when, that's a bit tricky.  People normally have
consciences which warn them about it.  However, as in my case, a
conscience can be hardened by sin's deceitfulness (Hebrews 3:12:13) so
that the person has no idea (or doesn't care about it) that they are
sinning.  Of course, there are those sins which we do when we don't know
that they're sinful to begin with.  Those take searching and examining
of Scripture to find out that they are sinful and then repent and
change.  The best question to ask in every circumstance to judge sinful
possibilities is:  "Would Jesus wholeheartedly do this at this point in
time?"  I know, it sounds like a cop-out, but it truly is a stifling
question.

Joe Fisher

Oh, I missed one.  1 John 1:8-2:11,15-23.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20540
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Unity

In article <Apr.8.00.59.50.1993.28560@athos.rutgers.edu> Maarten.van.Loon@cwi.nl (Maarten van Loon) writes:
>Hello fellow-netters and fellow christians,
>about the subject of unity between christians and christian churches.
>to a bible study group. Alltough I do have a personal opinion on this
>issue, I thought it would be nice to hear opinions of fellow christian
>brothers and sisters from different countries and in different situations.
>
>My background: member of a (orthodox) Reformed Church. Let us say a little
The ONLY unity I've found which is true is when all parties involved are
disciples.  I came out of a church in which even the different
congregations were always competing and arguing about which one was
better and who had the better messages (while none of them put anything
into practice from those messages).  Since becoming a disciple, I've
found that when I travel to another church in the same movement, they
are just as accepting there as any other.  We had a retreat back in
January when some of the congregation from Louisville, KY came up (this
retreat was for college students) and it was as though I had known even
the people from Louisville for years (and I had only become a disciple
the previous April and had never been to the church in Kentucky).  One
of the keys to unity is unselfish love and self-sacrifice.  That is only
one area in which disciples stand out from "Christians".  Also, another
part of unity is a common depth of conviction.  I've also been a part of
some "Christian" campus fellowships who were focused on unity between
churches and saw that those churches had one thing involved:  a lack of
conviction about everything they believed.  That was why they could be
unified, they didn't care about the truth but delighted in getting along
together.

>The problem here in The Netherlands is that there are two other churches
>(denominations) with the same characteristics. Both have the same
>confessions; there are only some differences with respect to - for
>example - the matter of appropriation of salvation and how to "use"
>our creeds. In essence a lot of people of these three churches have to
>same faith and feel that they should become one church. But how, that is
>the question.
>
Creeds?  What need is there of creeds when the Bible stands firmly
better?

>So, here is a first question:
>- can the congregation of Christ be separated by walls of different
>  denominations? Or is this definitely an untolerable situation
>  according to the Scriptures?

According to the Scriptures, splits and differences of opinion are going
to be there.  As per a previous note, I mentioned that there are those
who teach falsely by many means.  There are also differences of opinion
and belief.  However, Scripture states:  
   In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your
meetings do more harm than good.  In the first place, I hear that when
you come together as a church, there re divisions among you, and to some
extent I believe it.  No doubt there have to be differences among you to
show which of you have God's approval (1 Corinthians 11:17-19).

How will God show his approval?  By fruitfulness (see Acts 2:47), but
before that, there are these qualities:
   devotion to the apostles teaching
   fellowship
   communion
   filling with awe for God
   all having everything in common.
   glad and sincere hearts
   praising God
   enjoying the favor of the people
All these are mentioned in Acts 2:42-47.  God also shows that those who
have these qualities are persecuted.  Look at Stephen, "a man full of
faith and of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 6:5) who was later stoned (Acts
7:54-60).  

>- can one say that only one of these three churches is the
>  true church of Jesus Christ?

One can say that a church is the true church only if that church is
perfect not only in the congregation but worldwide as a movement.  I
have yet to find that, but the closest one I've found is the Boston
Church of Christ movement, which constantly strives to have errors
pointed out and corrected.  It is also the only one I've seen which is
totally sold out to God.

>
>A problem closely related to these question is:
>- can we cooperate with other Christians - from these two churches - 
>  before there is a unity? This question is especially important
>  for those who think that only one church can be the "true one".
>
As for cooperation, that can always occur.  Unity, on the other hand may
never occur.  As for those who think about only one church being the
"true one", I remind them that Mark 9:38-41 states that there are
disciples who are not a part of the main group to begin with, but they
will not lose their reward.  As with the Boston movement, I've heard
numerous times this exact same thing, that there are disciples out there
that are not a part of the Boston movement but that does not make them
any less disciples.  Of course, few people admit that they've ever run
into someone who has the qualities of a disciple outside the movement.
I know I haven't.

>Maybe this last problem sounds a little strange to most of you.
>For your information: we have a lot of organizations here which
>are founded by people of one specific church and whose members
>are all members of that church. This has been considered as
>"correct" for years. Only a few years ago people started to
>discuss about this and now we are in the middle of this process.
>Some organizations are opening their doors for people from
>other churches etc.
>
I must warn that this sounds cliquey to me.  A clique is a group which
runs around together to some extent exclusively.  This causes problems
in fellowship and causes divisions.  I would not say at all that this is
something "correct" for a church/group to do for any reason.  In one of
the churches I attended, for example, there was an internal clique of
people who were on the 14 different groups/committees/organizational
heads of the congregation.  They rarely talked to anyone else outside of
the committees and seldom were voted out of office without another
office being "opened up" so that they would have to step right back in.
Their degree of exclusion was such that when the new pastor came, he
nearly had to wipe out everything and start from scratch (I wish he
would've since they still have no clue about what it means to be a
disciple).  Anyway, this rigidity in the clique is beginning to be
broken down, but is still there.  So, I must warn against such division
within.  There's enough division without.

>Thanks for your opinions in advance!
>
>Maarten

Joe Fisher

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20541
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: Weirdness of Early Christians

Were the early Christians weird?  Yes!  So were their non-Christian
contemporaries (the more familiar you are with late Republican Rome
or the Pricipate, the weirder those people will seem -- forget the
creative filtering done by Renaissance and Eighteenth Century hero
worship.)  So are modern non-Christians.  And Christians.

You are pretty weird, yourself, with your rather acid dismissal of
Luther and of Protestantism -- and in apparently buying into a
simplistic propaganda model about Catholicism *not* being faddish.  
Sure, it's so large that global fads take longer cycles than they
do in smaller denominations (and local ones are not usually visible
unless you do a lot of traveling to exotic lands :-)).  May I recom-
mend, as a salutary antidote to this nonsense Philippe Aries' book
_The Hour of our Death_, a longitudinal study of death customs in 
Western [specifically Catholic] Christendom?

And it won't help to escape into the obscurity of the first Christian
century.  Paul was pretty weird, too; as were Peter and the others in
the (apparently quite weird) circle around Jesus.

What I think you might find helpful is a bit more charity -- try to
understand these weirdos and nutcases with the same respect and love
you would expect others to show YOUR notions.  We *are* commanded to
love one another, after all.  And Brown's book is, in fact, a heroic
attempt to SEE the groupings he talks about as motivated in love and
the gospel and their social contexts.  (If anything, Brown is *too*
heroic here -- he manages to overstrain himself at times :-))

I don't suggest that we *follow* any of these old cult paths -- and
it raises hard questions from the skeptic inside me that so much of
early Christianity *was* like the weird (Christian and non-Christian)
cults we see today.  To that extent, I think you raise a serious
problem (and perhaps your phrasing is implicitly self-deprecatory
and ironic.)

But the first principle for *answering* these questions is respect and
love for those we do not understand.  And it helps to *work* at under-
standing (as long as we do not get overwhelmed by revulsion and begin
to withdraw our respect for them as people.)  I would advise, in other
words, MORE historical reading (Brown's other books are also good, most
especially his bio. of Augustine; also try Robin Lane Fox's _Christians
and Pagans_, maybe the Paul Veyne ed. _History of Private Life_, some
of Foucault's books on sexuality in the ancient world ...)

Humanity *is* weird -- we have known ONE sane person, and we killed Him.
Fortunately for us, this has proved a Comedy rather than a Tragedy.

Easter, 1993.

(yes; this is a tad early -- our Vigil service here has been moved forward
because so many churches in the area have taken to doing their own Vigils,
and the seminarians must therefore worship-and-run if they are to do it
here and there as well.  Think of this as an Anglican fad.  :-))
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		We must know the truth, and we must
mls@ulysses.att.com		love the truth we know, and we must
     - or -			act according to the measure of our love.
mls@panix.com		  				-- Thomas Merton

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20542
From: Steve.Hayes@f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
Subject: Confession & communion

04 Apr 93, David Cruz-Uribe writes to All:

 DC> Also, what is Orthodox practice regarding communion?  I read
 DC> a throw-away remark someplace that the Orthodox receive less
 DC> frequently than Catholics do, but was is their current practice?
 DC> Have their been any variations historically?

I think Orthodox practice varies from place to place, from parish to parish and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In some parishes here in South Africa the only ones who receive communion are infants (i.e. children under
 7). In our parish it is expected that one will have been to Vespers and confessional prayers the evening before, and that one will have been fasting. As we have to travel 70km to the church, we don'
t receive communion every Sunday, but about every third Sunday.

Steve

--- GoldED 2.40

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20543
From: Steve.Hayes@f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
Subject: Sin

09 Apr 93, Jill Anne Daley writes to All:

 JAD> What exactly is a definition of sin and what are some examples. How does
 JAD> a person know when they are committing sin?

To answer briefly: sin is falling short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)

Steve

--- GoldED 2.40

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20544
From: Steve.Hayes@f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
Subject: Pantheism & Environmentalism

09 Apr 93, Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik writes to All:

 >> "We suspect that's because one party to the (environmental)
 >> dispute thinks the Earth is sanctified.  It's clear that much
 >> of the environmentalist energy is derived from what has been
 >> called the Religious Left, a SECULAR, or even PAGAN fanaticism
 >> that now WORSHIPS such GODS as nature and gender with a
 >> reverence formerly accorded real religions."  (EMPHASIS MINE).

 SHK> First of all, secular and pagan are not synonyms.  Pagan, which is
 SHK> derived from the latin paganus, means "of the country."  It is, in
 SHK> fact, a cognate with the Italian paisano, which means peasant.
 SHK> Paganism, among other things, includes a reverence for the planet and
 SHK> all life on the planet -- stemming from the belief that all life is
 SHK> interconnected.  So, rather than be something secular, it is something
 SHK> very sacred.

I would go further, and say that much of the damage to the environment
has been caused by the secular worldview, or by the humanist
worldview, and especially by the secular humanist worldview.

This is not to say that ALL secular humanists are necessarily avid
destroyers of the environment, and I am sure that there are many who
are concerned about the environment. But at the time of the
Renaissance and Ref ormation in Western Europe man became the centre,
or the focus of culture (hence "humanism"). This consciousness was
also secular, in the sense that it was concerned primarily with the
present age, r ather than the age to come. Capitalism arose at the
same time, and the power of economics became central in philosophy.
This doesn't mean that economics did not exist before, simply that it
began to dominate the conscious cultural values of Western European
society and its offshoots. This cultural shift was, in its later
stages, accompanied by industrial revolutions and the values that
justified
 them.

There was a fundamental cultural shift in the meaning of "economics" -
from the Christian view of man as the economos, the steward, of
creation to the secular idea of man as the slave of economic forces
and powers. There were denominational differences among the new
worshippers of Mammon. For some the name of the deity was "the free
rein of the market mechanism", while for others it was "the
dialectical forces of history". But in both the capitalist West and
the socialist East the environment was sacrificed on the altar of
Mammon. The situation was mitigated in the West because thos e who
were concerned about the damage to the environment had more freedom to
oppose what was happening and state their case.

Steve

--- GoldED 2.40

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20545
From: atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez)
Subject: Re: Ancient Books

cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:

>If I talk with an atheist and tell him the New Testament is an historically 
>reliable document, what reasons would I give him?

  I have found that this isn't a very effective argument.  Most atheists are
perfectly willing to acknowledge the existence and ministry of Jesus--but are
quite capable of rationalizing the miracles and the resurrection into 
misunderstandings, hoaxes, or simple fabrications.  They can always make an
analogy with the _Iliad_, a book that tells the story of the historical Trojan
War, but also talks about gods and goddesses and their conversations.
  I don't think it's possible to convince atheists of the validity of 
Christianity through argument.  We have to help foster faith and an
understanding of God.  I could be wrong--are there any former atheists here who
were led to Christianity by argument?

Alan Terlep				    "Incestuous vituperousness"
Oakland University, Rochester, MI			
atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu				   --Melissa Eggertsen
Rushing in where angels fear to tread.		

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20546
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe)
Subject: Re: Revelations

hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

> Biblical prophecy tends to be somewhat cyclical.  For example, the virgin
> prophecy of Isaiah also prophecied of Christ.  How does this apply to the 
> book of Revelation in regard to the perterist view?

Much of the OT prophecies have a double application: to the Jewish
captivity, and to the end of time.  But if Rev. is dated at AD96 its
prophecies could not apply to the AD70 destructioin of Jerusalem.

Darius

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20547
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Prayer in Jesus' Name

In article <Apr.9.01.09.22.1993.16580@athos.rutgers.edu> munns@cae.wisc.edu (Scott Munns) writes:
>I am doing a dormitory bible "discussion" with my Christian roommate and
>in Jesus' name, what about the people before Jesus?  They prayed to God
>and he listened then, in spite of their sins.  Why can't it be the same
>way now?"
>

[insert huge deletion of all following material since it had little
relevance to what I've found]

OK.  The people before Jesus didn't have Jesus, right (so far, I've
announced that space is a vacuum)?  The people who lived during the time
Jesus lived (especially disciples) were taught this:  "I tell you the
truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing.  He
will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the
Father.  And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may
bring glory to the Father.  You may ask me for anything in my name, and
I will do it." (John 14:12-14)
So, Jesus asked them to pray for things in his name.  Since that time,
the request has been the same, not to ask for intercession from other
beings, but from Jesus.  Remember that "there is one God and one
mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as
a ransom for all men--the testimony given in its proper time." (1
Timothy 2:5-6.  Also, "there have been many of those priests [talking
about priests among the Hebrews], since death prevented them from
continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a
permanent priesthood.  Therefore he is able to save completely those who
come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them."
(Hebrews 7:23-25).  Hebrews is also full of areas talking about Jesus
being our mediator rather than any other man.

Joe Fisher

["The people before Jesus didn't have Jesus, right" may not be as
obvious as you think.  In what sense to you mean didn't have?
Christian thought has generally said that they had Jesus in the sense
that they were saved by his death.  God is not bound by our
chronology.  So in some real spiritual sense they did "have Jesus".
Even in terms of knowledge, while they surely didn't have the explicit
knowledge that we have, Christians have normally seen messianic
prophecy as knowledge of Jesus, even if knowledge from afar.
--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20548
From: xx155@yfn.ysu.edu (Family Magazine Sysops)
Subject: THE EMPTY TOMB...


 
                   THE EMPTY TOMB:  CAN WE TRUST IT?

                   by the late Wilbur M. Smith, D.D.
                              (1894-1977)

          When Jesus was on Earth, He made an amazing prediction about
     Himself, and frequently repeated it.  Let me quote it for you:

                 Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son
               of Man shall be betrayed unto the chief
               priests and unto the scribes, and they shall
               condemn Him to death, and shall deliver Him
               to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and
               to crucify Him; and the third day He shall
               rise again" (Matthew 20:18-19).

          Wholly different from the normal experience of men, Jesus,
     who had *never* done anything worthy of death, even deserving
     reproval, knew He would die before He was 40 years of age.  He
     knew the very city where He would die.  He knew that the religious
     leaders of His own race would condemn Him to death.  He knew that
     one of His own would betray Him.  He knew that before His actual
     death took place He would be mocked and scourged.  He knew exactly
     how He would die--*by crucifixion.*

          All this is in itself remarkable.  But more amazing than the
     minute particulars of His foreknowledge was what He predicted
     would follow shortly after He was buried--*that He would rise
     again.*  He even designated the time--on the third day.

          But since it is on this central fact--the death and resurrec-
     tion of Jesus Christ--that the whole truth or untruth of Chris-
     tianity turns, let us examine it more closely.

          The body of Jesus was embalmed in long sheets of cloth
     between the layers of which a great abundance of spices and
     ointments was distributed.  The body was placed in a tomb which
     had never before been used, and a great stone was rolled against
     the entrance.  The Jewish authorities, fully aware that Jesus had
     predicted He would rise again, had the stone officially sealed and
     on Saturday placed a guard before the tomb to prevent the
     disciples from carrying away the body.  Early Sunday morning some
     of the women who were faithful followers of Christ went out to the
     tomb to further anoint the body.  To their utter astonishment,
     they found the stone rolled away, the body gone.  They rushed back
     to tell the disciples.  Shortly two of Jesus' friends, Peter and
     John, utterly skeptical about the whole affair, came and found the
     tomb empty, just as the women had said.  Even the guards came
     hurrying into the city to tell the Sanhedrin that had hired them
     to guard the tomb that the body was gone (Matthew 28:11).

          How did this tomb become empty?

          One of the most famous New Testament scholars in America--
     professor of New Testament literature in a large theological
     seminary--wrote to the author in answer to my question of *how*
     the tomb became empty, and wrote it in a letter *not* marked by
     bitterness or sarcasm, that he could no more explain how the tomb
     became empty than he could explain how Santa Claus comes down the
     chimney at Christmas time.

          But he didn't realize that Santa Clause never did come down
     any chimney at Christmas time, *because there never was a Santa
     Claus!*  ...And there *is* a Jesus.  He died; He was buried in the
     tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, and on Sunday the body was gone.

          Those are facts of history.  No one can escape the responsi-
     bility of coming to some conclusion about what really happened by
     mentioning a myth we all abandoned before we were eight years old.

          Another professor, Dr. Kirsopp Lake of Harvard University,
     tried to explain the empty tomb by saying (what no other scholar
     in the field of New Testament criticism has ventured to adopt)
     that the women went to the wrong tomb.

          The facts are these:

          First, so far as we know, there was no other tomb nearby to
     which by mistake they could have gone.

          Second, it is contrary to all similar experience for three or
     more people to forget the place where they have buried their
     dearest loved one within less than three days.  Even if the women
     did miss the tomb, when Peter and John came, did they too go to
     the wrong tomb?

          Third, were the soldiers *guarding* the wrong tomb?

          There is, of course, a record of an attempt to escape the
     evidence of the empty tomb in the New Testament itself.

                  Now when they were going, behold, some
               of the watch came into the city and showed
               unto the chief priests all the things that
               were done.  And when they were assembled
               with the leaders and had taken counsel, they
               gave large money unto the soldiers, Saying,
               Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole
               Him away while we slept.  And if this come to
               the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and
               secure you.  So they took the money, and did
               as they were taught:  and this saying is com-
               monly reported among the Jews until this day
               (Matthew 28:11-15).

          This is a good illustration of many later attempts to escape the
     fact that the tomb was empty.

          You will notice at once that the chief priests and the elders never
     questioned but that the tomb *was* empty.  They never even went out to
     see if what the guards had reported was true--they *knew* it was true.

          Another fact about this story makes it ridiculous to maintain that
     the tomb was empty--the soldiers were told to say that Jesus' disciples
     came and stole the body away *while they* (the soldiers) *were asleep!*

          How could they know what was going on while they were asleep?
     Obviously, such testimony would be valueless in any court.

          Even aside from the shallowness and sordidness that make us reject
     the explanation, the very character and the later history of the
     disciples compel us to believe they did not steal and secretly carry away
     the body of Jesus.

          First, as Professor Heffern points out, the leaders of Judaism in
     Jerusalem, who had put the Lord Jesus to death, had nothing to offer to
     contradict these disciples as they continued to preach Jesus and His
     resurrection--because all Jerusalem knew the tomb was empty.  If there
     had been trickery here, sooner or later it would have been suspected,
     then proved.

          Second, surely *one* of the disciples, even *most* of them, would
     have confessed the fraud under the terrific persecution they underwent.
     It may be possible to live a lie, but men seldom die for a lie--and most
     of these men did.

          The result ultimately would have been that the message that Christ
     had risen would have suffered the fate of all such unfounded stories--it
     would have lost it *power.*  Instead, this truth swept the world, closed
     pagan temples, won millions of disciples, brought hope to a despairing
     humanity, was the very foundation truth of the early church, and is today
     as believable and as freshly glorious as ever.

          But not only did Jesus come alive again, He did not disappear to
     leave the disciples speculating through all the subsequent days as to
     what had happened to Him.

          Instead, He appeared to them--literally, visibly, frequently.

          He appeared to the women at the tomb on Resurrection morning
     (Matthew 28:1-10); later that day to Mary Magdalene alone (John 20:11-
     18); and to Simon Peter, also alone (Luke 24:34).  In the afternoon He
     walked with two of His followers toward Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35); and that
     night He appeared to ten of the apostles gathered together in an upper
     room at Jerusalem (Mark 16:14-16; Luke 24:36-40; etc.).

          A week later He appeared to all eleven of the apostles, probably at
     the same place (John 20:26-28).  Once He was seen by above 500 brethren
     on a mountain in Galilee (I Corinthians 15:6); and finally to the
     apostles just before His ascension (Mark 16:19; Luke 24:50-52; Acts 1:3-
     8).

          As with the fact of the empty tomb, so in regard to these histor-
     ically recorded appearances, all kinds of theories have been proposed
     attempting to deny their literalness.  But these theories are
     unreasonable, without supporting evidence.  None has ever won the
     unanimous approval of those who refuse to believe in the reality of the
     appearances.

          Moreover, while it is true we are living in an age when may of our
     leading scientists and agnostics and many of our philosophers are
     antisuperanaturalistic, let us not forget that some of the greatest
     thinkers of the ages have firmly believed in this great miracle.
     Increase Mather, president of Harvard; Timothy Dwight, president of Yale;
     Nathan Lord, president of Dartmouth; Edward Hitchcock, president of
     Amherst; Mark Hopkins, president of Williams; John Witherspoon, president
     of Princeton--these men and countless others have believed it.

          But suppose Christ *did* rise from the dead, what of it?  What has
     it to do with *my* life?  What has it to do with *your* life?  Just this:
     it seals with certitude the teachings of Christ.

          Jesus taught many great truths--especially many about Himself.  He
     claimed to have come down *from* God.

          He said He was the way *to* God.

          He said He was the Son of God, who alone knew God perfectly.

          He said that whoever believed on Him had eternal life, and no one
     else had it.

          He said that whatever we ask God in His name, He would grant it to
     us.

          Thus when He did rise from the grave on the third day, He revealed
     that in these amazing, unparalleled predictions, *He spoke the truth!*

          Do you know any reason, *any good reason,* why we should not believe
     that His words are all true?

          The point is, does not the truth of the Resurrection convince us
     that He is none other than the One He claimed to be--the Son of God?

          And then, of course, the fact that Christ rose from the dead
     testifies that He has broken the power of death, and that He will some
     day raise us also up from the grave, as He promised.

          In other words, if this Person, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, in all
     this, He should be the cornerstone of the foundation of your life.  For
     He said a life built on Him would know forgiveness of sins, His compan-
     ionship and help, a joy that no circumstances can ever take away, and a
     hope that shineth more and more unto a perfect day.

          Those who have tried it down through the ages--*and there have been
     many*--have given their testimony.  And we today who believe also know.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20549
From: topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Subject: Re: old vs. new testament

REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov writes:

>We can jillustrate this by pointing to the way God administers His judgment. 
>In the OT, sins were not forgiven, but rather covered up.  In the age of the
>Church not only are sins forgiven (taken away), but the power of SIN is put to
>death.  ...

My, this distinction seems quite arbitrary.

  Blessed is the man whose iniquities are forgiven, whose sin is covered.
  (Ps. 32:1).

and quoted by the apostle Paul:

  Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God
  imputeth righteousness without works,
  Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins
  are covered.
  Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.  (Rom. 4:6-8)

The biblical perspective seems to be that foregiveness and covering are
parallel/equivalent concepts in both testaments.  The dispensational
distinction is unwarranted.

>        During the millenium, we read that sins are dealt with immediately
>under the present (ie that Christ is present on earth) rulership of Christ.

I'm sure Rex has Scripture to back this up.  You're suggesting Jesus is
going to travel around dealing with individual violations of His law -- for
millions perhaps billions of people.  Such activity for Moses the lawgiver
was considered unwise (cf. Ex. 18:13ff).  It makes for interesting
speculation, though.

I'll leave comments on the so-called "bema seat" vs. "throne" judgments to
someone else.  This also seems like more unnecessary divisions ala
dispensationalism.

--
Tom Albrecht

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20550
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Christ references in OT

Adam, I just finished a study on this, not only looking at the
prophecies themselves, but where they were fulfilled.  While going only
through the OT, I found 508 references.  After starting to show their
fulfillment, I found out that I had missed some, so needless to say I
cannot post them here.  However, the study I did I intend to publish (I
am in the process of organizing and showing the fulfillments, then I
will be ready to write and send it to a publisher).  With any luck
(and/or free time) I should have it finally done sometime around
September (I hope).

Joe Fisher

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20551
From: atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez)
Subject: Re: A question that has bee bothering me.

wquinnan@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Malcusco) writes:

>Especially as we approach a time when Scientists are trying to match God's 
>ability to create life, we should use the utmost caution.

  I question the implications of this statement; namely, that there are certain
physical acts which are limited to God and that attempting to replicate these
acts is blasphemy against God.  God caused a bush to burn without being
consumed--if I do the same thing, am I usurping God's role?  
  Religious people are threatened by science because it has been systematically
removing the physical "proofs" of God's existence.  As time goes on we have to
rely more and more on faith and the spiritual world to relate to God becuase
science is removing our props.  I don't think this is a bad thing.

Alan Terlep				    "Incestuous vituperousness"
Oakland University, Rochester, MI			
atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu				   --Melissa Eggertsen
Rushing in where angels fear to tread.		

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20552
From: atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez)
Subject: Re: Pantheism & Environmentalism

by028@cleveland.freenet.edu (Gary V. Cavano) writes:

>...does anybody out there see the current emphasis on the
>environment being turned (unintentionally, of course) into
>pantheism?

>I've debated this quite a bit, and while I think a legitimate
>concern for the planet is a great thing, I can easily see it
>being perverted into something dangerous.

  Many pagans are involved in environmentalism--this is only natural, since
respect for the earth is a fundamental tenet of all pagan denominations.  This
doesn't mean that environmentalism is wrong, any more than supporting peace in
the Middle East is wrong because Jews and Muslims also work for it.

  Nonetheless, paganism is certainly on the rise, and we as Christians should
address this and look at what draws people from paganism to Christianity.  Like
it or not, pagan religions are addressing needs that Christianity should be,
and isn't.  
  I believe that paganism has hit upon some major truths that Christianity has
forgotten.  This doesn't mean that paganism is right, but it does mean that we
have something to learn from the pagan movement.
  First, paganism respects the feminine.  Christianity has a long history of
oppressing women, and many (if not most) male Christians are still unable to
live in a non-sexist manner.  The idea that God is sexless, or that Christ 
could have been a women and still accomplished his mission, is met with a great
deal of resistance.  This insistance on a male-dominated theology (and the 
male-dominated society that goes with it) drives away many young women who have
had to put up with sexist attitudes in their churches.
  Second, paganism respects the physical world.  This is an idea with great
ramifications.  One of these is environmentalism--respect for our surroundings
and our world.  Another is integration of sexuality.  Christianity has a long
tradition of calling ALL sexual feeelings sinful and urging people to suppress
and deny their sexuality.  This is too much--sex is clearly a part of human
experience and attempting to remove it is simply not a feasible option.  
Christianity has only begun to develop a workable sexual ethic, and paganism
is an attractive option.
  I'm not advocating that Christian doctrines (no sex before marriage, etc.)
should be changed--just that Christians work toward a more moderate ethic of
sexuality.  Denial of sexuality places as much emphasis on sex as unmoderated
sexuality, and neither one does much to bring us closer to God.

Alan Terlep				    "Incestuous vituperousness"
Oakland University, Rochester, MI			
atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu				   --Melissa Eggertsen
Rushing in where angels fear to tread.		

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20553
From: atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez)
Subject: Re: Opinions asked about rejection


  Here's how I talk to non-Christians who are complaining about Hell.

ME:	"Do you believe you're going to Heaven?"
HIM:	"I don't believe in Heaven."
ME:	"So are you going there?"
HIM:	"If there was a heaven, I would."
ME:	"But since there isn't a Heaven, you're not going there, are you?"
HIM:	"No."

  The point is that Heaven is based on faith--if you don't believe in heaven,
there's no way you're going to be in it.
  Of course, the next step is, "I don't believe in Hell either, so why will I
be there?"  It seems to me that Hell is eternal death and seperation from God.
Most atheists do believe that when they die they will die forever, and never
see God--so they do, in fact, believe that they're going to Hell.
  Hell doesn't have to be worse than earth to be Hell--because it's eternal, 
and it's a lot worse than Heaven.  That's the only comparison that matters.

Alan Terlep				    "Incestuous vituperousness"
Oakland University, Rochester, MI			
atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu				   --Melissa Eggertsen
Rushing in where angels fear to tread.		

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20554
From: mhsu@lonestar.utsa.edu (Melinda . Hsu   )
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

I'd like to share my thoughts on this topic of "arrogance of
Christians" and look forward to any responses.  In my
encounters with Christians, I find myself dismayed by their
belief that their faith is total truth.  According to them,
their beliefs come from the Bible and the bible is the word of
God and God is truth - thus they know the truth.  This stance
makes it difficult to discuss other faiths with them and my own
hesitations about Christianity because they see no other way.
Their way is the 'truth.'

But I see their faith arising from a willful choice to believe
a particular way.  That choice is part faith and part reason,
but it seems to me a choice.

My discussions with some Christians remind me of schoolyard
discussions when I was in grade school:

A kid would say, "All policemen are jerks!"  I'd ask, "How do
you know?"  "Because my daddy told me so!"  "How do you know
you're daddy is right?"  "He says he's always right!"

Well the argument usually stops right there.  In the end,
aren't we all just kids, groping for the truth?  If so, do we have
the authority to declare all other beliefs besides our own as
false?

-------------

This is only my third time browsing through this newsgroup.  I
apologize if I'm covering tired old ground.  Some of the
discussions on this topic have piqued my interest and I welcome
any comments.

| Louis J. Kim                      ---  _ O                PH:512-522-5556 |
| Southwest Research Institute    ---  ,/  |\/'            FAX:512-522-3042 |
| Post Office Drawer 28510      ----      |__                 lkim@swri.edu |
| San Antonio, TX 78228-0510   ----    __/   \    76450.2231@compuserve.com |
-- 

[I'm sort of mystified about how a Christian might respond to this.  I
can understand criticisms of Christianity that say there's not enough
evidence to believe it, or that there's just as good evidence for
other religions.  I don't agree, but clearly there are plenty of
intelligent people who don't find the evidence convincing.  But that
doesn't seem to be your point.  Rather, you seem upset that people who
believe Christianity is true also believe that things which contradict
it are false.

This suggests a model of spiritual things that's rather different than
the Christian one.  It sounds more like an existentialist view, where
people choose what value to follow, but there's no actual independent
spiritual reality, and so no way to say that a specific choice is in
some unique sense right.  This sort of model -- with modifications of
one sort or another -- may be appropriate for some religions.  But
Christianity is in its essense a "historical" religion.  That is, it's
based on the concept that there are actual spiritual entities out
there, that one of them has intervened in history in specific ways,
and that we see evidence of that in history.  In the "mundane" world,
we are not free to choose how things work.  When we drop something, it
falls (aside from well-defined situations where it doesn't).  The
Christian concept is that spiritual matters, there is also an actual
external reality.  I hope we're all honest enough not to claim that we
have perfect understanding.  But while we may not think we know
everything, we are confident that we know some things.  And that
implies that we think things that contradict them are false.  I don't
see how else we could proceed.

This needn't result in arrogance.  I'm certainly interested in talking
with people of other religions.  They may have things to teach me, and
even if they don't, I respect them as fellow human beings.  But it's
got to be possible to respect people and also think that on some
matters they are wrong.  Maybe even disasterously wrong.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20555
From: topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Subject: Re: Revelations

phil.launchbury@almac.co.uk (Phil Launchbury) writes:

> >The "apostate church" of Revelation most likely refers to the 1st century
> >Jews who rejected their Messiah and had Him crucified.  John refers to them

> I'm afraid not. It refers to the church that Christ founded. Many, many
> times he warns that the church will fall away into heresy as do the
> apostles. For an example look at the parables in Matthew 13:31-33. They
> refer to 'the kingdom of heaven' (the church) and the process of how
> they will be corrupted.

Sorry, but I think this interpretation of the Matthew 13 parables is
nonsense. I.e.,

> 'yeast' - *ALWAYS* stands for sin/corruption/heresy. For example 'beware
> of the yeast of the Pharisees'. ...

Matthew 16:12 explains that by "leaven of the Pharisees" Jesus was simply
referring to their teaching; not sin/corruption/heresy.

Jesus gaves His apostles the keys of the kingdom and said that
the gates of hell would not prevail against His church.

--
Tom Albrecht

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20556
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Environmentalism and paganism

I would like to see Christians devote a bit less effort to _bashing_
paganism and more to figuring out how to present the Gospel to pagans.

Christ is the answer; the pagans have a lot of the right questions.
Unlike materialists, who deny the need for any spirituality.


-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20557
From: wquinnan@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Malcusco)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article <Apr.10.05.32.15.1993.14385@athos.rutgers.edu> dleonar@andy.bgsu.edu (Pixie) writes:
>In article <Apr.7.01.55.50.1993.22771@athos.rutgers.edu>,
>
>					Pardon me, a humble atheist, but exactly what is the difference
>between holding a revealed truth with blind faith as its basis (i.e.
>regardless of any evidence that you may find to the contrary) as an
>absolute truth, fully expecting people to believe you and arrogance?
>     They sound like one and the same to me.

>                                       Pixie
>
>
>     p.s.  If you do sincerely believe that a god exists, why do you follow
>it blindly?  

	Why do we follow God so blindly?  Have you ever asked a
physically blind person why he or she follows a seeing eye dog?
The answer is quite simple--the dog can see, and the blind person
cannot.

	I acknowledge, as a Christian, that I am blind.  I see,
but I see  illusions as well as reality.  (Watched TV lately?)
I hear, but I hear lies as well as truth.  (Listen to your 
radio or read a newspaper.)  Remember, all that tastes well is
not healthy.  So, I rely one the one who can see, hear, and
taste everything, and knows what is real, and what is not.
That is God.

	Of course, you may ask, if I cannot trust my own senses,
how do I know whether what I see and hear about God is truth or
a lie.  That is why we need faith to be saved.  We must force
ourselves to believe that God knows the truth, and loves us
enough to share it with us, even when it defies what we think
we know.  Why would He have created us if He did not love us 
enough to help us through this world?

	I also do trust my experiences to some extent.  When
I do things that defy the seeming logic of my experience, 
because it is what my Father commands me to do, and I see
the results in the long term, I find that He has led me
in the proper direction, even though it did not feel right
at the time.  This is where our works as Christians are
important:  As exercises of the body make the body strong,
excercises of faith make the faith strong.  

	As for you, no one can "convert" you.  You must
choose to follow God of your own will, if you are ever to
follow Him.  All we as Christians wish to do is share with
you the love we have received from God.  If you reject that,
we have to accept your decision, although we always keep
the offer open to you.  If you really want to find out
why we believe what we believe, I can only suggest you try
praying for faith, reading the Bible, and asking Christians
about their experiences personally.  Then you may grow to
understand why we believe what we do, in defiance of the
logic of this world.

	May the Lord bring peace to you, 
			
			Malcusco         

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20558
From: jonh@david.wheaton.edu (Jonathan Hayward)
Subject: Re: Pantheism & Environmentalism

In article <Apr.5.23.31.36.1993.23919@athos.rutgers.edu> by028@cleveland.freenet.edu (Gary V. Cavano) writes:
>I'm new to this group, and maybe this has been covered already,
>but does anybody out there see the current emphasis on the
>environment being turned (unintentionally, of course) into
>pantheism?

Yes.

(I am adamantly an environmentalist.  I will not use styrofoam table service.
Please keep that in mind as you read this post - I do not wish to attack
environmentalism)

A half truth is at least as dangerous as a complete lie.  A complete lie will
rarely be readily accepted, while a half truth (the lie subtly hidden) is more
powerfully offered by one who masquerades as an angel of light.

Satan has (for some people) loosened the grip on treating the earth as something
other than God's intricate handiwork, something other than that on which the
health of future generations is based.  It is being treated with respect.  You
think he's going to happily leave it at that?  No.  When one error is rejected,
it is his style to push people to the opposite error.  Therefore the earth is
not God's intricate handiwork, not because it is rubbish, but because it is
God.  Mother earth is the one you are to primarily love and serve.

I see two facets of a response to it:

1: Care for the environment.  Treat it with proper respect, both because it is
   God's intricate handiwork and the health of future generation, and because
   showing the facet of one who is disregardful of such things does not
   constitute what the Apostle Paul called "becoming all things to all men so
   that by all possible means I might save some."

   Don't say "Forget the environment, I've got important things to spend my time
   on." - putting your foot in your mouth in this manner will destroy your
   credibility in expressing the things that _are_ more important.

2: Show that it is not the ultimate entity, that it is creature and not
   creator.  Show that its beauty and glory points to a greater beauty and
   glory.  Show that it is not the ultimate tapestry, but one of many cords
   woven in the infinite tapestry.

################################################################################
# "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            #
################################################################################

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20559
From: apodaca@spot.Colorado.EDU (mu'tafikah)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

I don't understand who this post is directed towards; who are you
trying to convince? By its subject i would assume you are directing
the argument towards people who do not believe that Christ rose
from the dead, but in your "proof," you use the bible exclusively.

The post is therefore immediately useless to anyone who doesn't
believe that the bible is an unadulterated truth, and to everyone
else, it is just a reaffirmation of a belief already held. As far
as i know, there is no disagreement between christians over
the resurrection of christ.

so my question is: what is the purpose of this post?

tomas

-- 
 "Because no battle is ever won he said. They are not even fought.
  the field only reveals to man his own folly and despair, and
  victory is an illusion of philosophers and fools."
  William Faulkner

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20560
From: vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."

In article <Apr.10.05.32.36.1993.14391@athos.rutgers.edu> gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric Molas) writes:
>
>I was raised in a religious atmosphere, and attended 13 years of
>religious educational institutions..  I know the bible well. So well
>I can recognize many passages from memory.  

[stuff deleted for brevity]

>Christianity is an infectious cult.  The reasons it flourishes are 
>because 1) it gives people without hope or driven purpose in life
>a safety blanked to hide behind.  "Oh wow..all i have to do is 
>follow this christian moral standard and I get eternal happiness."
>For all of you "found jeezus" , how many of you were "on the brink?"

Your very starting point is wrong.  Christianity is not based on following
a moral standard.  "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith...
NOT BY WORKS so that no man may boast."  (Eph. 2:7-8)  You say that
you know the Bible well, and can recognize (do you mean recite?) many
passages from memory.  That could very well be so.  However, it looks like
there are a few more passages that you should pay attention to.  (Titus 3:5
and James 2:10 are among them.)

Obedience to the moral law is imporant.  However, it is supposed to be the
result of turning your life over to Christ and becoming a Christian.  It is
by no means the starting point.

-- 
Virgilio "Dean" Velasco Jr, Department of Electrical Eng'g and Applied Physics 
	 CWRU graduate student, roboticist-in-training and Q wannabee
    "Bullwinkle, that man's intimidating a referee!"   |    My boss is a 
   "Not very well.  He doesn't look like one at all!"  |  Jewish carpenter.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20561
From: Deon.Strydom@f7.n7104.z5.fidonet.org (Deon Strydom)
Subject: Re: Prophetic Warning to New York City

--> Note:
Reply to a message in soc.religion.christian.

EVENSON THOMAS RANDALL wrote in a message to All:

> Which brings me around to asking an open question.  Is the
> Bible a closed book of Scripture?  Is it okay for us to go
> around saying "God told me this" and "Jesus told me that"? 

> Also interesting to note is that some so called prophecies
> are nothing new but rather an inspired translation of
> scripture.  Is it right to call that prophecy?  Misleading? 

Hi, You might want to read Charismatic Chaos by John MacArthur.  In it
he discussed exactly this queation, amongst others.  In my own words,
VERY simplified, his position is basically that one must decide, what
is the most important - experience or Scripture?  People tend to say
Scripture, without living according to that.  Their own
feeling/prophecy/etc tends to be put across without testing in the
light of Scripture.

There's a lot more than this, really worthwhile to read whether you're
Charismatic or not.

Groetnis (=cheers)
 Deon

--- timEd/B8
--  
INTERNET: Deon.Strydom@f7.n7104.z5.fidonet.org
via:  THE CATALYST BBS in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
       (catpe.alt.za)   +27-41-34-1122 HST or +27-41-34-2859, V32bis & HST.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20562
From: dwatson@cser.encore.com (Drew Watson)
Subject: Ethics vs. Freedom

Being a parent in need of some help, I ask that you bear with me while I
describe the situation which plagues me...

I am a divorced father. Chance would have it that "my weekend" with my 
daughter has fallen upon Easter Weekend this year.

Although I am Presbyterian, I had married a Catholic woman. We decided
that the Catholic moray of indoctrination of the spouse into the faith
was too confining (and restrictive due to time as we had already set a
date), and we were married in a Christian Church which was non-denominational.

During the years of our marriage, we did not often attend church. 

When our daughter was born, some years later, my wife insisted that she 
be baptised as Catholic. This wasn't a problem with me.

During a separation of five years, my ex-wife was taken ill with a disease
that affected her mental capacities. She was confined to a mental ward for
two months before it was diagnosed. It has since been treated "effectively".

In other words, professionals have deemed her a functioning member of society.

During the recuperation, my ex-wife has embraced Buddism. Her influence over
my daughter has been substantial, and has primarily allowed me only Saturday
visitation for a number of years. During this period I have read Bible study
books to my daughter, and tried to keep her aware of her Christian heritage.

Last fall, our divorce was finalized after a year of viscious divorce hearings.
At that time I was awarded visitation rights every other weekend. At that time,
I started taking my daughter to church quite often, although not every weekend.
I did this to attempt to strengthen the Christian ethic and expose her to a
religious community.

Today, Easter Sunday, I took my daughter to church. When it came time for 
Communion, my daughter took the bread (The body of Christ) but left the wine
(The blood of Christ) professing that she was too young for wine. She then
balled the bread up in her hand and tried to descretely throw it under the
pew in front of us.

I feel this was a slap in the face to me, my religion, and an afront to her
religious heritage. It can be construed as breaking several of the commandments
if you try. I really felt dishonored by the action.

My daughter is only nine years old, but I think she should have been old and
mature enough to realize her actions. I have difficulty blaming her directly
for religious teachings her mother swears to, but when I discussed this with
my daughter she made it clear she believed in Buddhism and not Christianity.

My initial response of anger (moderated) was to suggest if there is no faith
in Christ then why does she celebrate Easter, or Christmas? I suggested I
would never force her to practice my religious beliefs by celebrating holidays
with her again.

I do not want to "drive her from the fold", and would be willing to allow her
to continue practicing Buddhism (as though I had a choice seeing her only
for two days out of fourteen) but I want her to want to embrace Christianity.

Any suggestions?

If you have a response, please e-mail me a copy. (I'm not a regular reader
of this newsgroup.) (Naturally, feel free to post too!)

Thanks, and I hope you've had a happy Easter.

Drew

-- 
Drew Watson                 Systems analysis             Encore Computer Corp
dwatson@encore.com     (301)497-1800 || (703)691-3500       Customer services
=============================================================================

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20563
From: topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Subject: Re: Revelations

hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

> >Now, as to the suggestion that all prophecy tends to be somewhat cyclical,
> >can you elaborate?  I'm not exactly sure what you mean.  How does the
> >suggestion relate to Isaiah's prophecy of the birth of Christ by a virgin? 
> >I don't see any cycles in that prophecy.
> 
> Maybe cyclical is not the best word.  ...
> 
> Another example would be the Scripture quoted of Judas, "and his bishoprick
> let another take."  Another example is something that Isaiah said of His
> disciples which is also applied to Christ in Hebrews, "the children thou
> hast given me."
> 
> How does the preterist view account for this phenomenon.

Ah, double-fulfillment.  First of all I would say that I'm not sure all
the prophecies had double-fulfillment, e.g., the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy.

I would say that just because this happens on some occasions does not mean
it will occur always, especially with regard to NT prophecies. The apostles
who quoted the OT and applied those passages to Jesus were acting as divine
messengers and giving the inerrant Word of God to the Church.  No one has
that authority today.  No one has the apostolic authority to say that
such-and-such a prophecy has double-fulfillment.  If the imagry of
Revelation fits with events of the 1st century, it is folly for us to try
and make it apply to events 20 centuries later.

--
Tom Albrecht

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20564
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: Easter: what's in a name? (was Re: New Testament Double Standard?

(MODERATOR: THIS IS A REPLACEMENT FOR AN EARLIER, MORE CLUMSILY WORDED
SUBMISSION ON THE SAME TOPIC WHICH I SUBMITTED A FEW MINUTES AGO.)

I think we need to distinguish etymology from meaning.  Regardless of
how the word 'Easter' *originated*, the fact is that it does not *now*
mean anything to Christians other than 'the feast day of the Resurrection
of Jesus Christ'. 

The meaning of a word is _only_ what people understand it to mean.

And the same goes for other cultural practices.  The festival of Easter
may possibly have some historical association with some pagan festival,
but *today* there are, as far as I know, no Christians who *intend* to
honor any kind of "pagan goddess" by celebrating Easter.

It is nonsense to say "this word (or this practice) 'really' means so-
and-so even though nobody realizes it."  Words and practices don't mean
things, people do.  

(This is basic semantics; I'm a linguist; they pay me to think about
things like this.)
-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

[Further, Easter is specific to English.  In many other languages,
the word used is based on Passover or resurrection.  Is it OK to
celebrate it in countries using those languages, but not in those
using English?  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20565
From: halsall@murray.fordham.edu (Paul Halsall)
Subject: Catholic Liturgy


	The problems with Catholic liturgy are likely to continue for
some time.  The problem is, in a nutshell, this: the Liturgy is a
symbolic action - in other words Catholics do [or should] believe that
the _signs_ during the mass - Water, Blessings, Vestments, Altar,
Relics, etc - are real. That is the sprinkling of water bestows real,
almost tangible, holiness, the Vestments are a real indication of real
sacred time. The point of a _symbol_ is that it is understood by all
to be connected to an underlying REAL referent. This kind of thinking
precludes analysis; holy water is not holy because of anything, it
simply IS holy.

But, modern westerners find it extremely difficult, especially if
well- educated, to think of the mass as a symbol. We are more likely
to see it as a _sign_, ie an action that represents grace, but which
could be replaced with other signs. In concrete terms, this means the
mass has become a commercial for God's grace rather than the real
thing. You can mess around with a commercial in a way you wouldn't
dare with the real thing [ask Coca-Cola Co.!]. These attitudes have
been encouraged by Liturgy workshops, etc. which instead of focusing
on _how_ to do do liturgy, have focused on how to create a meaning in
liturgy. You can only create signs, symbols have to come from God [or
the heart, or somewhere deeper than analysis. The most dramatic
example of this shift in understanding has been in the treatment of
the sacred species [the consecrated host and wine]. Now, with pita
bread etc, it is common to come away from the altar with hands covered
in particles. If the Host is a sign of Grace, this isnt and issue; but
Catholics in the past would have been distraught at this real
desacration of the real symbol of Jesus' body.

Modern Catholic liturgy  is caught in this epistemological shift. We
try to perfrom the old rites, but then we have some liturgomaniac
priest get up and 'explain' what we are doing - so we stop doing it and
start pretending to do it. This is not a soul filling experience.
It doesn't help BTW that we have got stuck witha huge amount of two and
three chord ersatz-folk music [again a result of mis-analysis: complicated
tunes are in fact easier to remember than simple ones - this was the
genius of Wesley and the 19C Anglican hymn writers]. Taize' is only
slightly better.

What are we to do? Well I suggest rejecting the parish system if it
doesn't work for you. Search out a Church where the liturgy is well
prepared not well-explained. They exist in every city. This is not BTW
a matter of particular style: the music might be old or new. It is
the attitude of the church that counts. Also, note that a conservative
liturgy - harking back to pre-Vatican II days, does not necessarily mean
the Church will be socially conservative.

In NYC I can recommend:
	Corpus Christi - W 12st St.
	Corpus Christi - W 12st St. - very conservative liturgy, 
	St. Joseph's, Greenwich Village.  - Modern, "clean", largely gay
	Oratorian Church, Brooklyn - Very beautiful

Avoid, anywhere, anytime a church with electric candles.

Happy Easter: Christos Aneste', Christos Voskrezhne, Christ is Risen

Paul Halsall
Halsall@murray.fordham.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20566
From: heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath)
Subject: Re: Pantheism & Environmentalism

In article <Apr.11.01.02.34.1993.17784@athos.rutgers.edu> Steve.Hayes@f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org writes:

	I realize I'm entering this discussion rather late, but I do
have one question. Wasn't it a Reagan appointee, James Watt, a
pentacostal christian (I think) who was the secretary of the interior
who saw no problem with deforestation since we were "living in the
last days" and ours would be the last generation to see the redwoods
anyway?

-- 
Terrance Heath				heath@athena.cs.uga.edu
******************************************************************
YOUR COMFORT IS MY SILENCE!!!!! ACT-UP! FIGHT BACK! TALK BACK!
******************************************************************

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20567
From: dmn@kepler.unh.edu (There's a seeker born every minute.)
Subject: -= Hell =-


 atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez)  wrote:

>  Here's how I talk to non-Christians who are complaining about Hell.

>ME:	"Do you believe you're going to Heaven?"
>HIM:	"I don't believe in Heaven."
>ME:	"So are you going there?"
>HIM:	"If there was a heaven, I would."
>ME:	"But since there isn't a Heaven, you're not going there, are you?"
>HIM:	"No."

>  The point is that Heaven is based on faith--if you don't believe in heaven,
>there's no way you're going to be in it.

    Hmmm... people in the americas before the time of Christ, children who
die young, etc. ?


>  Of course, the next step is, "I don't believe in Hell either, so why will I
>be there?"  It seems to me that Hell is eternal death and seperation from God.


   But of course, the popular conception of hell (correct or incorrect) is
something akin to eternal perpetuation of consciousness, at the very least.


>Most atheists do believe that when they die they will die forever, and never
>see God--so they do, in fact, believe that they're going to Hell.

   I think a good number of atheists believe there is nothing beyond 
bodily death, but it is simply an abuse of language to say they believe
they're going to hell. They believe they're going to _die_. Understand
that you've turned Hell into a verb. Using the same logic, it also follows
that all animals are 'going to Hell.' Are you sure this is what you want
to say? (presumably animals don't have the opportunity to get to heaven,
but this still doesn't change the fact that they're going to Hell (die
a final death))

   I don't claim to know whether or not there is an afterlife of _some_
sort, but if Hell is as you described (final death, and
not eternal perpetuation of consciousness) it will be true that
there will never be a moment when I am aware of my non-existence. 
(assuming I 'go to Hell' and not to Heaven) In other words, I'll
never know I'm dead. Hmmm... 


>  Hell doesn't have to be worse than earth to be Hell--because it's eternal,

    Ever hear people say of a loved one who was ill, and has died:
 "At least she's not suffering any more; She's in Heaven now." ?

    Consider the following statement:
 "At least she's not suffering any more; She's in Hell now."

    The above statement sounds odd, but according to your definition of Hell, 
it would be a true statement. The person in Hell would not be suffering. 
Granted, they wouldn't be *anything* (wouldn't be having any
conscious experience whatsoever). 

    You say Hell (death) is eternal. However, this loses its meaning 
to a dead person. And to me, it seems that the threat of some sort 
of eternal punishment only makes sense/has force if one expects to
be conscious throughout this eternity. 

    Many atheists believe that the thirst for an afterlife is simply the
product of propaganda ("Friend, do you want the FREE gift of e-ternal life?"
It's my understanding that the early jews did not believe in an afterlife.
Can anyone back me up on this?) combined with the survival instinct all
animals share. The difference is we have consciousness, and once we get the
idea of eternal life drilled into our brains, we then desire a sort of
super-survival. 

 
>and it's a lot worse than Heaven.  That's the only comparison that matters.

    That would depend on what Heaven is like. If God is a King, and 
an eternity in heaven consists of giving thanks and praise to the King,
I might opt for Hell. I read a lovely account of a missionary trying to
convert Eskimos to Christianity in the book _The Illusion of Immortality_
by Corliss Lamont. The missionary started to speak about Heaven. 
"Are there seals in heaven? Will we be able to go hunting?" asked an
Eskimo. The missionary said no. The group of Eskimos then said something
to the effect of, "Well what good is your Heaven if there's no hunting?
Scram." I highly recommend the above book (IOI) to anyone who wants an
account of the other side of the immortality coin (that there is no 
immortality). 


>Alan Terlep				    "Incestuous vituperousness"
>Oakland University, Rochester, MI			
>atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu				   --Melissa Eggertsen
>Rushing in where angels fear to tread.		


   Pax,

    Dana

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20568
From: vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article <Apr.10.05.32.29.1993.14388@athos.rutgers.edu> caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin) writes:
>vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.) writes:
>
>No, IMO, Mr. Stowell missed the point.
>
>> 	"We affirm the absolutes of Scripture, not because we are arrogant
>> moralists, but because we believe in God who is truth, who has revealed His
>> truth in His Word, and therefore we hold as precious the strategic importance
>> of those absolutes."
>
>Mr. Stowell seems to have jumped rather strangely from truth to absolutes.
>I don't see how that necessarily follows.  
>
>Are all truths also absolutes?
>Is all of scripture truths (and therefore absolutes)?
>
>If the answer to either of these questions is no, then perhaps you can 
>explain to me how you determine which parts of Scripture are truths, and
>which truths are absolutes.  

The answer to both questions is yes.

All Scripture is true, being inspired by God.  The evidence for this
claim has been discussed ad nauseum in this group.

Similarly, all truth is absolute.  Indeed, a non-absolute truth is a 
contradiction in terms.  When is something absolute?  When it is always
true.  Obviously, if a "truth" is not always "true" then we have a
contradiction in terms.  

Many people claim that there are no absolutes in the world.  Such a
statement is terribly self-contradictory.  Let me put it to you this
way.  If there are no absolutes, shouldn't we conclude that the statement,
"There are no absolutes" is not absolutely true?  Obviously, we have a
contradiction here.

This is just one of the reasons why Christians defy the world by claiming
that there are indeed absolutes in the universe.

>There is hardly consensus, even in evangelical 
>Christianity (not to mention the rest of Christianity) regarding 
>Biblical interpretation.

So?  People sometimes disagree about what is true.  This does not negate
the fact, however, that there are still absolutes in the universe.  Moreover,
evangelical Christianity, at least, still professes to believe in certain
truths.  Man is sinful, man needs salvation, and Jesus is the propitiation
for mankind's sins, to name a few.  Any group that does not profess to
believe these statements cannot be accurately called evangelical.


-- 
Virgilio "Dean" Velasco Jr, Department of Electrical Eng'g and Applied Physics 
	 CWRU graduate student, roboticist-in-training and Q wannabee
    "Bullwinkle, that man's intimidating a referee!"   |    My boss is a 
   "Not very well.  He doesn't look like one at all!"  |  Jewish carpenter.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20569
From: armstrng@cs.dal.ca (Stan Armstrong)
Subject: Re: Prodigal Son

The parable of the Prodigal Son is not about who is and who isn't an
immoral person. It is about grace and the love of God. Most people
would agree with that concerning the younger son. The elder son is
simply a negative example of the some thing. He thinks that he must
earn his father's love, that he has earned it, that he is entitled
to it. His father tells him that he is on the wrong track. He has always
been loved--for the same reason his brother has always been: he is
his father's son.

We are too performance oriented to consistently get the point. We are
willing to be saved by grace, but once we are Christians we want to
go back to earning and deserving.

"Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying
 to attain your goal by human effort?" Gal 3:3 NIV
-- 
Stan Armstrong. Religious Studies Dept, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, N.S.
Armstrong@husky1.stmarys.ca | att!clyde!watmath!water!dalcs!armstrng

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20570
From: reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

In article <Apr.9.01.11.16.1993.16937@athos.rutgers.edu>, emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:
> The one single historic event that has had the biggest impact on the
> world over the centuries is the resurrection of Jesus.  At the same
> time, it is one of the most hotly contested topics....
> 
> Did Jesus Christ really rise from the dead?  Since the eyewitnesses
> are no longer living, we have only their written accounts. ...
> ...  Because of the magnitude of significance
> involved here, either the resurrection is the greatest event in the
> history of man or the greatest deception played on man.
> [massive amounts of data deleted]

John, 

While I will not take the time to rebut you point by point, I will suggest
three current works which I think will be helpful in your quest to answer
this question.  John Dominic Crossan (Professor of Religion at De Paul Univ)-
_The Cross That Spoke_ Harper and Row Pub. 1988, Also his latest work 
_The Historical Jesus - The Life of A Mediterranean Jewish Peasant_ Harper
and Row Pub. 1991,  Also two works of Burton Mack (Professor of New Testament
at the Claremont Graduate School) _A Myth of Innocence_ Fortress Press 1988,
And his latest book _The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins_
Harper and Row, 1992.  You might start with Mack's book on Q and then 
examine the others afterward.  However I think that once you do that you will
see that your "evidence" is not as sturdy as you'd like.  Most of the tired
arguements you stated, assume eyewitness accounts, such is not the case. But
Anyway look at Mack and Crossan and then get back to us.

randy

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20571
From: reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

In article <Apr.10.05.31.46.1993.14368@athos.rutgers.edu>, luomat@alleg.edu (Timothy J. Luoma) writes:
> In article <Apr.9.01.11.16.1993.16937@athos.rutgers.edu>  
> 
> "Suppose you were part of the `Christian consipracy' which was going to  
> tell people that Christ had risen.  Never mind the stoning, the being  
> burned alive, the possible crucifixion ... let's just talk about a  
> scourging.  The whip that would be used would have broken pottery, metal,  
> bone, and anything else that they could find attached to it.  You would be  
> stood facing a wall, with nothing to protect you.   ...
> scream out in agony that your raw back was being torn at again.  You would  
> say to yourself: `All this for a lie?'  And you had 37 more coming.
> 
> "At the third hit you would scream out that it was all a lie, beg for them  
> to stop, and tell them that you would swear on your life that it had all  
> been a lie, if they would only stop...."

No one was ever flogged, beaten, burned, fed to the lions, or killed in any
other way because of a belief in the resurrection - sorry to disappoint you.
The idea of resurrection is one which can be found in a host of different
forms in the religions of antiquity.  The problem was not the resurrection
which was a mediorce issue for a tiny fragment of the Jewish population 
(the Saducees) but was a non issues for everyone else.  The real problem was
that Christians were pacifist and preached there was only one god.  When the
state operates by a system of divinitation of the emperor -  monotheism 
becomes a capital offense.  The Jews were able to get exemption from this,
and were also not evangelistic.  Christians were far more vocal, and gentile,
and hence dangerous and were therefore targets of persecution.  Also since
Christians were a relatively powerless group, they made good scapegoats as is
seen by Nero's blaming them for the burning of Rome.  Let's not cloud the
issues with the resurrection.

randy

[I agree with you that Christians were not persecuted specifically
because they believed in resurrection.  However the beliefs that did
cause trouble were dependent on belief in the resurrection of Jesus.
Of course the problem with it is that there are alternatives other
than a great conspiracy.  The most common theory among non-Christians
scholars seems to be that the resurrection was a subjective event --
in effect, a delusion.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20572
From: vic@mmalt.guild.org (Vic Kulikauskas)
Subject: Eternity of Hell (was Re: Hell)

Our Moderator writes:

> I'm inclined to read descriptions such as the lake of fire as 
> indicating annihilation. However that's a minority view.
...
> It's my personal view, but the only denominations I know of that hold 
> it officially are the JW's and SDA's.

I can't find the reference right now, but didn't C.S.Lewis speculate 
somewhere that hell might be "the state of once having been a human 
soul"?

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20573
From: luom@storm.cs.orst.edu (Luo Martha BaoMing)
Subject: summer program

Does anyone know any good decipleship trainning program during min August 
to end of Sept.  Or any missionary programs.
I currently belong to the Missionary Alliance Church in Oregon.
Please reply by mail.

thanks.
----
luom@storm.cs.orst.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20574
From: jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas)
Subject: Re: Can sin "block" our prayers?

mike@boulder.snsc.unr.edu (Mike McCormick) writes:

> Not honoring our wives can cause our prayers to be hindered:
> 
>         You husbands likewise, live with your wives in
>         an understanding way, as with a weaker vessel,
>         since she is a woman;  and grant her honor as
>         a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your
>         prayers may not be hindered.  I Peter 3:7

One interpretation I've heard of this verse is that it refers to the sin 
of physically abusing one's wife.  The husband is usually physically 
stronger than his wife but is not permitted to use this to dominate her.  
He must honor her as his sister in Christ.  This would therefore be an 
example of a specific sin that blocks prayer.

This verse also makes me think of the kind of husband who decides what 
is God's will for his family without consulting his wife.  God reveals 
His will to both the husband and the wife.  There needs to be some 
degree of mutuality in decision making.  Even those whose understanding 
of the Bible leads to a belief in an authoritarian headship of the 
husband need to incorporate this in order to have a functional family.  
One way to look at it is that God speaks to the wife through the husband 
and to the husband through the wife.


Jayne Kulikauskas/ jayne@mmalt.guild.org

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20575
From: norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak)
Subject: Atheist's views on Christianity (was: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")

Eric ("Damien"?) was presenting his views on Christianity; I'll
respond to a few of his points:

In article <Apr.10.05.32.36.1993.14391@athos.rutgers.edu>, gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric Molas) writes:
|> Firstly, I am an atheist. I am not posting here as an immature flame
|> start, but rather to express an opinion to my intended audience.
|> 
|> <<****Strong opinions start here...****>>
|> 
|> 1) The human being is an _animal_ who has, due to his/her advanced
|> mental facilities, developed religion as a satisfiable solution to
|> explain the unexplainable.  (For example the ancient Greeks believed
|> that Apollo drove his chariot across the sky each day was real.  Due
|> to the advancement of our technology, we know this to be false.)

This is certainly a valid objection to religion-as-explanation-of-
nature.  

Fortunately for the convenience of us believers, there is a class of
questions that can never be reduced away by natural science.  For
example: why does the universe exist at all?  After all, the time-space
world didn't have to exist.  Why does *anything* exist? And: is it
possible for persons (e.g. man) to come into being out of a purely
impersonal cosmos?  These questions which look at the real mysteries of
life -- the creation of the world and of persons -- provide a permanent
indicator that the meaning of life in the material world can only be
found *outside* that world, in its Source.


|> We are _just_ animals.  We need sleep, food, and we reproduce.  And we
|> die.      
|> 
|> Religion (especially Christianity) is nothing more than a DRUG.
|> Some people use drugs as an escape from reality.  Christians inject
|> themselves with jeezus and live with that high. 

When you say that man is *only* an animal, I have to think that you are
presenting an unprovable statement -- a dogma, if you will.  And one
the requires a kind of "faith" too.   By taking such a hard line in
your atheism, you may have stumbled into a religion of your own.

But before you write off all Christianity as phony and shallow, I hope
you'll do a little research into its history and varieties, perhaps by
reading Paul Johnson's "A History of Christianity".  From your remarks,
it seems that you have been exposed to certain types of Christian
religion and not others.  Even an atheist should have enough faith in
Man to know that a movement of 2000 years has to have some depth, and
be animated by some enduring values.

With best wishes,
-- 
Richard Aquinas Chonak, norris@mit.edu, Usenet addict, INTP
I have very exclusive and nuanced opinions.  License info available on request.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20576
From: vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article <Apr.10.05.32.15.1993.14385@athos.rutgers.edu> dleonar@andy.bgsu.edu (Pixie) writes:
>Pardon me, a humble atheist, but exactly what is the difference
>between holding a revealed truth with blind faith as its basis (i.e.
>regardless of any evidence that you may find to the contrary) as an
>absolute truth, fully expecting people to believe you and arrogance?
>
>     They sound like one and the same to me.
>
>     I see no wisdom whatsoever in your words

I'm not surprised that you see no wisdom in them.  That is because your
premises are wrong from the word "Go".  You claim that Christianity is
based on blind faith, but this simply is not so.  Just look at the
current thread on the evidence for Jesus' resurrection for evidence
that Jesus was real and that he triumphed over death.

Furthermore, you say that Christians hold to their beliefs "regardless of
any evidence that you may find to the contrary."  Without any evidence
to support your claim, this statement is little more than an ad hominem 
argument.

Mind you, I don't mean this as a personal attack.  I'm merely pointing out
the intellectual dishonesty behind condemning Christianity in this fashion.
It would make much more sense if you could prove that all Christians do 
base their belief on empty nothings, and that they do ignore all evidence to 
the contrary.  Only then can you expect your attack to make sense.
 
-- 
Virgilio "Dean" Velasco Jr, Department of Electrical Eng'g and Applied Physics 
	 CWRU graduate student, roboticist-in-training and Q wannabee
    "Bullwinkle, that man's intimidating a referee!"   |    My boss is a 
   "Not very well.  He doesn't look like one at all!"  |  Jewish carpenter.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20577
From: lhep_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Leonidas Hepis)
Subject: Re: Prophecy on NYC

marka@travis.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley) writes:

In soc.religion.christian you write:

>Regarding David Wilkerson's prophecies.  While I'm not real sure of
>his credibility, I do remember a book he wrote, called A VISION or
>something like that.  He made a prediction that people who bought gold
>would be hurt financially.  At the time, gold was up to about $800;
>now it is less than half that.  This prediction stuck in my mind
>because a lot of people where I worked were buying gold.

Note that the above type of prediction does not require a God to be made.
An expert in a field can also predict things based on experience.
Beware of predictions like "The volcano will erupt tomorrow!"  Don't
follow the preacher because of such statements that come true.

Note also, that if I'm describing a (hypothetical) death of a friend as
a result of his passion for fast motorcycles, I might say "his mother
predicted he would die."  Of course, his father may have said "he 'll
make good money because of his hobby" and depending upon the final
outcome of the situation I end up mentioning the one that's
relevant.  A reader down the road will get the impression that the
mother or father had predicted accurately the event, when it was just
a casual statement.

Finally, on prophesies, note that there are many prophesies that can be
fulfilled my people, often to fool believers.  If I say, "Beware, the
terminal will unexpectedly be shut off!" and then after 2 secs I turn
it off (or have someone come out from another room and do it) there was
no prediction.  A similar situation arises with the establishment of
the Jewish state.  While pressing for it, prominent Jews argued that it
was predicted that they'd have a state again, and that the time has
come.  (I've read this somewhere, but can't think of the source - if
you can, please let me know.)  In this case, the establishment of the
state does not really fulfill the  prophesy since the prophesy was used
in order to push for the establishment of the state.

Deciding what was truely a fulfillment of prophesy is very tricky.

-leo

-- 
"My mother wanted to save herself until marriage.  Every |Leonidas Hepis
day I thank God that she didn't.  Because without pre-   |
marital sex, I would never have been born.  Premarital   |lhep_ltd@uhura
sex -- what a beautiful choice." - Greg Weeks            |.cc.rochester.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20578
From: Nabeel Ahmad Rana <rana@rintintin.colorado.edu>
Subject: RFD: soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya moderated

Dear Netters:

A new religious newsgroup "soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya" was pro-
posed  on  Oct  16,  1992. The discussion about this new proposed
newsgroup went on in various related groups.  The  proposal,  was
supposed to enter a vote during the last week of November 92. Due
to a false Call For Votes, by some opponent, the voting had to be
canceled.  I  quote  here  a  statement  from  the  moderator  of
new.announce.newgroups:


"The current Call For Votes (CFV) for an Ahmadiyya newsgroup
 is being canceled. A new call for votes will be issued within
 a few weeks, possibly with a new impartial vote  taker.  Discus-
 sion on the proposal is still open until the new vote is called..."
                                -- by Lawrence, Nov 20, 1992.


A lot of confusion arose among the netter as  to  whom  to  vote.
Therefore  it was decided to give a cool down period, so that all
confusions are over. It has been over 4 months  of  that  instant
and now we are again attempting to create this newsgroup. A fresh
RFD is hereby being issued. Please! take part in  the  discussion
under the same  title heading  and in  "news.groups"  or at least
cross-post it to "news.groups".


****************************************************************

                REQUEST  FOR  DISCUSSION

****************************************************************



NAME OF PROPOSED NEWSGROUP: 
==========================

     soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya


CHARTER: 
=======

     A religious newsgroup, which would mainly  discuss  the  be-
liefs,  teachings,  philosophy  and ideologies of all major reli-
gions of the world as  they  exist  to  foster  better  religious
knowledge  and  understanding among followers of all religions as
they share common basis. This newsgroup will be devoted to  build
a  peaceful  mutual  understanding  of  the  Ahmadiyya  branch of
Islam, its peacefull beliefs, ideology and philosophy and how  it
is  different  from  other  branches  of Islam in fostering world
peace and developing better understanding among religious people.
It may also be used to post important religious events within the
World Wide Ahmadiyya Islamic Community in general.


PURPOSE OF THE GROUP: 
====================

     The following are some of the main purposes this group will
     achieve:

     i)   To discuss the common beliefs of all major religions as
          they relate to Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.

     ii)  To discuss the doctrines, origin and teachings  of this
          puissant spiritual force on earth.

     iii) To examine Islamic teachings and beliefs in general  in
          light  of the Quran  and established Islamic traditions
          of 15 centuries from Ahmadiyya perspective.

     iv)  To discuss the similarities  between Ahmadi Muslims and
          people of other Religions  of the world and discuss how
          religious tolerance  and respect to other's  faiths can
          be brought about to  eliminate inter-religion rivalries
          and hatred among people of religions. 

     v)   To discuss the origin and teachings of all religions in
          general and Islamic and Ahmadiyya Muslims in particular
          to foster better understanding among Ahmadi Muslims and
          other religious people.

     vi)  To discuss current world problems and solution to these
          problems as offered by religion.

     vii) To exchange important news and views about the Ahmadiyya
          Muslim Community and other Religions.

     viii)To add diversity in the religious newsgroups present
          on Usenet.

     ix)  To discuss why  religious persecution is on the rise  in
          the world  and find  solutions to remedy the ever deter-
          iorating  situation  in the  world in general and in the 
          Islamic world in particular.

     x)   To discuss the contributions of founders of  all  reli-
          gions and their  people for humanity, society and world 
          peace in general and by the International Ahmadiyya Mus
          -lim Community in particular.


TYPE: 
====

The group will be MODERATED for orderly and free religious dialo-
gue.   The moderation will NOT prevent disagreement or dissent to
beliefs, but will mainly be used  to  prevent  derogatory/squalid
use  of  dialect  and irrelevant issues. The moderators have been
decided through personal e-mail and through a  general  consensus
among  the proponants by discussion in news.groups. The following
moderators have been proposed and agreed upon:

Moderator:     Nabeel A. Rana  (rana@rintintin.colorado.edu)  
Co-Moderator:  Dr. Tahir Ijaz  (ijaz@ccu.umanitoba.ca)



A BRIEF DESCRIPTION ABOUT AHMADIYYA/ISLAM:
=========================================


        The Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam, an international organi-
sation, was founder in 1989 in Qadian, India. The founder of this
sect, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908), proclaimed to be the
Promised Reformer of this age as foretold in almost all the major
religions of the world today (Islam, Christianity, Judiasm,  Hin-
duism).  He  claimed  to  be  the  long awaited second comming of
Jesus Christ (metaphorically), the Muslim Mahdi, and the Promised
Messiah.  He  claimed that the prophecies contained in almost all
the great religions of the world about the advent of a  messenger
from God have been fulfilled.

        The claims Hazrat Ahmad raised storms  of  hostility  and
extreme  oposition from many priestlike people of Muslims, Chris-
tians, Jews and Hindus of that age. Such opposition is often wit-
nessed  in  the history of divine reformers. Even today this sect
is being persecuted specially in  some  of  the  Muslim  regimes.
Dispite  the  opposition  and persecution, this sect has won many
adherents in 130 countries. It has over 10 million followers, who
come from a diverse ethnic and cultural background.

        The sect is devoted to world peace and in bringing  about
a better understanding of religion, and the founders of all reli-
gions. Its mission is to unite mankind into one Universal  broth-
erhood  and  develop  a  better  understanding  of  faith. Ahmadi
Muslims have always been opposed to all kind of violence and spe-
cially religious intollerance and fundamentalism.

        Among its many philanthropic activities, the sect has es-
tablished  a network of hundreds of schools, hospitals, and clin-
ics in many third world countries. These institutions are staffed
by  volunteer  professional  and are fully financed by the sect's
internal resources.

        The Ahmadiyya mission is to bring about a universal moral
reform,  establish  peace and justice, and to unite mankind under
one universal religion.


NEWSGROUP CREATION: 
==================

        When the Call For Votes is called,  the  discussion  will
officially  end.   Voting  will be held for about three weeks. If
the group gets 2/3rd majority AND  100  more  "YES/Create"  votes
than  "NO/don't  create"  votes;  the group shall be created. Any
questions or comments  may  be  included  in  the  discussion  or
directly sent to: rana@rintintin.colorado.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20579
From: aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In a previous article, dleonar@andy.bgsu.edu (Pixie) says:

>     Do the words "Question Authority" mean anything to you?
>
>     I defy any theist to reply.      

Well, despite what my mother told me about accepting dares, here goes.
 
You have to be very careful about what you mean by "question authority".
Taken literally, it is nonsense. That which is authoratative is authoratative,
and to say "I question to word of this authority" is ridiculous. If it is 
open to question, it isn't an authority. On the other hand, it is perfectly
reasonable to question whether something is an authority. The catch phrase
here should be "authenticate authority." Once you have authenticated
your authority, you must believe what it says, or you are not treating it as
an authority. 

The difficulty is that authenticating an authority is not easy. You 
can perhaps discredit a claim to authority by showing logical inconsistency
in what it teaches, or by showing that it does not obey its own rules of
discourse. But the fact that I cannot discredit something does not, in
inself, accredit it. (Nor does the fact that I can convince myself and 
other that I have discredited something necessarilly mean that it is false.)
I cannot accredit an authority by independantly verifying its teachings, 
because if I can independantly verify its teachings, I don't need an 
authority. I need an authority only when there is information I need which
I cannot get for myself. Thus, if I am to authenticate an authority, I must
do it by some means other than by examining its teachings. 

In practical matters we accept all kinds of authorities because we don't
have time to rediscover fundamental knowledge for ourselves. Every scientist
woring today assumes, on the authority of the scintific community, all sorts
of knowledge which is necessary to his work but which he has not time to 
verify for himself.

In spiritual matters, we accept authority because we have no direct source 
ofinformation. We select our authorities based on various criteria. (I am
a Catholic, in part, because the historical claims of the RC church seem
the strongest.) Without authorities there would be no subject matter for
belief, unless we simply made something up for ourselves (as many do).

The atheist position seems to be that there are no authorities. This is a
reasonable assertion in itself, but it leads to a practical difficulty.
If you reject all authority out of hand, you reject all possibility of
every receiving information. Thus the atheist position can never possibly
change. It is non-falsifiable and therefore unscintific. 

To demand scintific or rational proof of God's existence, is to deny
God's existence, since neither science, nor reason, can, in their very
nature, prove anything.



-- 
==============================================================================
Mark Baker                  | "The task ... is not to cut down jungles, but 
aa888@Freenet.carleton.ca   | to irrigate deserts." -- C. S. Lewis
==============================================================================

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20580
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: Pantheism & Environmentalism

In article <Apr.12.03.44.17.1993.18833@athos.rutgers.edu> heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:
>
>	I realize I'm entering this discussion rather late, but I do
>have one question. Wasn't it a Reagan appointee, James Watt, a
>pentacostal christian (I think) who was the secretary of the interior
>who saw no problem with deforestation since we were "living in the
>last days" and ours would be the last generation to see the redwoods
>anyway?

I heard the same thing, but without confirmation that he actually said it.
It was just as alarming to us as to you; the Bible says that nobody knows
when the second coming will take place.

-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20581
From: jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas)
Subject: RE: Does God love you?

davem@bnr.ca (Dave Mielke) writes,

>  However, God's love is qualified.  The Bible says:
> 
>      The way of the wicked is an abomination unto the LORD:  but he
>      loveth him that followeth after righteousness.   Proverbs 15:9
> 
>      For  the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of
>      the ungodly shall perish.                            Psalm 1:6
 
  
I am extremely uncomfortable with this way of phrasing it.  God's love 
is unconditional, unqualified, unfathomable.  We are capable of 
rejecting God's love but He never fails to love us.

These verses do not show that God's love is qualified but rather that He 
is opposed to evil.

I am uncomfortable with the tract in general because there seems to be 
an innappropriate emphasis on Hell.  God deserves our love and worship 
because of who He is.  I do not like the idea of frightening people into 
accepting Christ.  

I see evangelism as combining a way of living that shows God's love with 
putting into words and explaining that love.  Preaching the Gospel 
without living the Gospel is no better than being a noisy gong or a 
clanging cymbal.

Here's a question:  How many of you are Christians because you are 
afraid of going to Hell?  How many are responding to God's love?

Jayne Kulikauskas/jayne@mmalt.guild.org

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20582
From: jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas)
Subject: quality of Catholic liturgy

jemurray@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John E Murray) writes:

> I would like the opinion of netters on a subject that has been bothering my
> wife and me lately: liturgy, in particular, Catholic liturgy.  In the last fe
> years it seems that there are more and more ad hoc events during Mass.  It's
> driving me crazy!  The most grace-filled aspect of a liturgical tradition is
> that what happens is something we _all_ do together, because we all know how 
> do it.  Led by the priest, of course, which makes it a kind of dialogue we 
> present to God.  But the best Masses I've been to were participatory prayers.

On the one hand there are advantages to having the liturgy stay the 
same.  John has described some of these.  On the other hand, some people 
seem to start tuning out `the same old words' and pay attention better 
when things get changed around.  I think innovative priests and liturgy 
committees are trying to get our attention and make things more 
meaningful for us.  It drives me crazy too. 

Different people have differing preferences and needs in liturgy.  My 
local parish is innovative.  I prefer to go to Mass at the next parish 
over.  Sometimes we don't have the option of attending a Mass in the 
style which best suits us.  John put a smiley on it but to "just offer 
it up" probably is the solution.

A related issue, that it sounds like John does not have to deal with, is 
that spouses may have different liturgical tastes.  My husband does like 
innovative litury.  It is a challenge to meet both of our spiritual 
needs without just going our separate ways.  When you include the factor 
of also trying to satisfy our children's needs, things get pretty 
complicated.

One thing to remember is that even the most uncongenial Mass is still 
Mass.

Jayne Kulikauskas/ jayne@mmalt.guild.org

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20583
From: jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas)
Subject: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."

gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric Molas) writes:

> Firstly, I am an atheist. I am not posting here as an immature flame
> start, but rather to express an opinion to my intended audience.
[deleted] 
> 
> We are _just_ animals.  We need sleep, food, and we reproduce.  And we
> die.      

I am glad that I am not an atheist.  It seems tragic that some people 
choose a meaningless existence.  How terrible to go on living only 
because one fears death more than life.  I feel so sorry for Eric and 
yet any attempts to share my joy in life with him would be considered as 
further evidence of the infectious nature of Christianity.    

As a Christian I am free to be a human person.  I think, love, choose, 
and create.  I will live forever with God.

Christ is not a kind of drug.  Drugs are a replacement for Christ.  
Those who have an empty spot in the God-shaped hole in their hearts must 
do something to ease the pain.  This is why the most effective 
substance-abuse recovery programs involve meeting peoples' spiritual 
needs.

Thank you, Eric for your post.  It has helped me to appreciate how much 
God has blessed me.  I hope that you will someday have a more joy-filled 
and abundant life.

Jayne Kulikauskas/jayne@mmalt.guild.org

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20584
From: maridai@comm.mot.com (Marida Ignacio)
Subject: Re: Every Lent He suffers to save us

The story I related is one of the seven apparitions
approved by our Church as worthy of belief.  It happened
in La Salle, France.

The moral lesson of the story is:

The Lamb of God has been sacrificed and His blood has 
been used to cleanse us of our sins every moment as God perceives
worthy of being done in Heaven.  Mary weeps for The Lamb and
for the rest of her offsprings.  This will continue while we 
disobey God or sin against Him.  Mary, as a messenger, 
has been given the task to make us be 'aware' of the evil
serpent (communism, wars, famine, unfaithful, disobedience
to God, etc.) running after the rest of her offsprings.   
The children who went astray by disobedience led by the dragon is 
brought back by her peace and loving messages, reparations for sins, 
to obey God's commandments and be more worthy to be in the presence 
of The Lamb.

As she was conceived without sin to be worthy of bearing the
Son of God in her womb, Mary has been preparing us, the Church,
the Body of Christ, for His second coming (making sure we are 
protected from the dragon).  Also, she has been preparing the new 
Eden, by reversing the deed of the ancient Eve.  The new Eden will be
the sanctuary of the righteous as judged by Christ in His
next coming.
    
I relate the story again:
    I believe this and Mary, in one of her apparitions  
    in 19th or 20th century, she appeared to these      
    two children who tends goats and cows (I forgot     
    the exact place).  She was  weeping and telling the 
    children that she is afraid she's "going to lose her
    Son's arm".  She is mourning too for these          
    townfolks because it was their fault that there     
    would be drought in their harvest; not much good    
    food again this year as it was last year.           
                                                        
    Mary tells the children:                            
*    Most of the townfolks in this place worked whole    *
*    week even on Sundays when they should be in church  *
*    honoring God.  These townfolks swears and           *
*    uses her Son's name in bad words.  That is          *
    why her Son's arm is so heavy in pain.              
    Then she asked them if they pray.  The children     
    said "hardly".  She asked them to pray every        
    morning and night.  When the children went back     
    from work they had to tell somebody about this.     
    When the news was spred and after thorough          
*    investigation of the incident, the townfolks        *
*    were converted and faith and obedience to God       *
*    were restored in their community.                   *


Once again, the Lamb succeeds.

-Marida
  "...spreading God's words through actions..."
    -Mother Teresa

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20585
From: trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre)
Subject: Re: Atheist's views on Christianity (was: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")

norris@athena.mit.edu  writes:

> This is certainly a valid objection to religion-as-explanation-of-
> nature.  

> Fortunately for the convenience of us believers, there is a class of
> questions that can never be reduced away by natural science.  For
> example: why does the universe exist at all?  

Must there be a "why" to this?  I ask because of what you also
     assume about God-- namely, that He just exists, with no "why"
     to His existence.  So the question is reversed, "Why can't
     we assume the universe just exists as you assume God to
     "just exist"?  Why must there be a "why" to the universe?"

> After all, the time-space
> world didn't have to exist.  Why does *anything* exist? And: is it
> possible for persons (e.g. man) to come into being out of a purely
> impersonal cosmos?  These questions which look at the real mysteries of
> life -- the creation of the world and of persons -- provide a permanent
> indicator that the meaning of life in the material world can only be
> found *outside* that world, in its Source.

It may be that one day man not only can create life but can also
     create man.  Now, I don't see this happening in my lifetime,
     nor do I assert it is probable.  But the possibility is there,
     given scientists are working hard at "decoding" out "genetic
     code" to perhaps help cure disease of a genetic variation.
     Again, though, must there be "why" or a "divine prupose" to
     man's existence?

> When you say that man is *only* an animal, I have to think that you are
> presenting an unprovable statement -- a dogma, if you will.  And one
> the requires a kind of "faith" too.   By taking such a hard line in
> your atheism, you may have stumbled into a religion of your own.

As far as we can tell, man falls into the "mammal" catagory.  Now,
     if there were something more to the man (say, a soul), then
     we have yet to find evidence of such.  But as it is now, man
     is a mammal (babies are born live, mother gives milk, we're
     warm-blooded, etc.) as other mammals are and is similar in
     genetic construction to some of them (in particular, primates).
     For more on this check out talk.origins.

> But before you write off all Christianity as phony and shallow, I hope
> you'll do a little research into its history and varieties, perhaps by
> reading Paul Johnson's "A History of Christianity".  From your remarks,
> it seems that you have been exposed to certain types of Christian
> religion and not others.  Even an atheist should have enough faith in
> Man to know that a movement of 2000 years has to have some depth, and
> be animated by some enduring values.

Well, then, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Judaism,
     Zoerasterism, Shintoism, and Islam should fit this bit of logic
     quite nicely... :-)  All have depth, all have enduring values,
     thus all must be true...

Stephen

    _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   _/       _/    * Atheist
   _/        _/    _/   _/ _/ _/ _/     * Libertarian
  _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   _/   _/  _/      * Pro-individuality
       _/  _/     _/  _/       _/       * Pro-responsibility
_/_/_/_/  _/      _/ _/       _/ Jr.    * and all that jazz...

-- 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20586
From: jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas)
Subject: Weirdness of Early Christians

halsall@murray.fordham.edu (Paul Halsall) writes:

> 	But recently I read Peter Brown's _Body and Society_. It is very
> well researched, and well written. But is raises some very upsetting
> questions. The early Christians were weird - even more so than today's
> carzy fundies. They had odd views on sex, odder views on the body, 
> totally ludicrous views about demons, and distinctly uncharitable
> views about other human beings. 

If possible (last I heard, it was out of print but they were considering 
reprinting) read Barbara Hambly's _Search the Seven Hills_.  It is 
historical fiction, set in Rome at the time of the early Church.  She 
captures the weirdness of the early Christians and yet gives glimpses of 
the holiness too.  Some of their odd views make a lot more sense in the 
context of the society they lived in.  I found it a remarkably positive 
view of Christianity considering that the author is not a Christian 
herself.  Another plus is that each chapter begins with an 
original-source quote so that it makes a good starting point for serious 
research.

Jayne Kulikauskas/ jayne@mmalt.guild.org

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20587
From:  (Phil Bowermaster)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article <Apr.10.05.32.15.1993.14385@athos.rutgers.edu>,
dleonar@andy.bgsu.edu (Pixie) wrote:
> 
> In article <Apr.7.01.55.50.1993.22771@athos.rutgers.edu>,
> vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.) wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 	"We affirm the absolutes of Scripture, not because we are arrogant
> > moralists, but because we believe in God who is truth, who has revealed His
> > truth in His Word, and therefore we hold as precious the strategic importance
> > of those absolutes."
> 
> 
> 					Pardon me, a humble atheist, but exactly what is the difference
> between holding a revealed truth with blind faith as its basis (i.e.
> regardless of any evidence that you may find to the contrary) as an
> absolute truth, fully expecting people to believe you and arrogance?

If you would bother to check in any good dictioanry or thesaurus, I think
you will find that "arrogance" has to do with an offensive exhibition of
presumed or real superiority (a paraphrase from my own Webster's).
Arrognace is about pride and haughtiness. A person can believe in absolute
truth, even blindly (whatever that means) without being obnoxious about it.
Just as a person can be a "humble," authority-questioning,
defying-any-theist-to-reply athiest and be quite arrogant. Arrogance is not
about what you believe, it is about how you relate to what you believe and
how you present it to others. If your overwhelming experience of Christians
has been that they are arrogant, I apologozing both for myself and on the
behalf of those who have offfended you. But my own experience, at least in
forums like Usenet where you see a good mix of people, is that arrogant
Christians and athiests seems to occur in about equal numbers.

- Phil -

Hey, we're talking about the PHONE COMPANY, here. The Phone Company doesn't
have opinions on this kind of stuff. This is all me.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20588
From: isc10144@nusunix1.nus.sg (CHAN NICODEMUS)
Subject: Greek Wordprocessor/Database.

Hi there,

	Does anyone know about any greek database/word processor that
can do things like count occurrences of a word, letter et al?

	I'm posting this up for a friend who studies greek.

Thanks,

Nico.

P.S.	Can you email as I seldom look into usenet nowadays.
--
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
|  NICODEMUS CHAN,	               | Raffles Hall, NUS, Kent Ridge Cres. |
|  Department of Information Systems   | Singapore 0511. (Tel : 02-7797751)  |
|              & Computer Science,     | [Hometown Address]:                 |
|  National University of Singapore.   | 134, Nanyang Estate, Jinjang North  |
|  Kent Ridge Crescent,                | 52000, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia       |
|  SINGAPORE 0511                      | E-Mail : isc10144@nusunix.nus.sg    |
|                                      |          channico@iscs.nus.sg       |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
                                                                              
   "Call unto me and I will answer you and show thee great and unsearchable   
                    things you do not know."  Jeremiah 33:3                   

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20589
From: lbutler@hubcap.clemson.edu (L Clator Butler Jr)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:
>(2) Nobody ever displayed the dead body of Jesus, even though both the
>Jewish and the Roman authorities would have gained a lot by doing so
>(it would have discredited the Christians).

It is told in the Gospels that the Pharisees (sp.?) and scribes bribed
the Roman soldiers to say that the Diciples stole his body in the night.
Good enough excuse for the Jewish and Roman objectives (of that day).

--Clator
--lbutler@hubcap.clemson.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20590
From: darndt@nic.gac.edu (David Arndt)
Subject: Johnny Hart's (B.C. comic strip) mailing address?

Subject pretty much says it all - I'm looking for Johnny Hart's (creator
of the B.C. comic stip) mailing address.

For those of you who haven't seen them, take a look at his strips for Good
Friday and Easter Sunday.  Remarkable witness!

If anyone can help me get in touch with him, I'd really appreciate it! 
I've contacted the paper that carries his strip and -- they'll get back to
me with it!

Thanks for your help,

Dave Arndt
St. Peter's Evangelical Lutheran Church
St. Peter, MN 56082

darndt@nic.gac.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20591
From: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article <Apr.11.01.02.46.1993.17799@athos.rutgers.edu> mhsu@lonestar.utsa.edu (Melinda . Hsu   ) writes:

>belief that their faith is total truth.  According to them,
>their beliefs come from the Bible and the bible is the word of
>God and God is truth - thus they know the truth.  This stance
>makes it difficult to discuss other faiths with them and my own
>hesitations about Christianity because they see no other way.
>Their way is the 'truth.'
>
>But I see their faith arising from a willful choice to believe
>a particular way.  That choice is part faith and part reason,
>but it seems to me a choice.
>
>My discussions with some Christians remind me of schoolyard
>discussions when I was in grade school:
>
>A kid would say, "All policemen are jerks!"  I'd ask, "How do
>you know?"  "Because my daddy told me so!"  "How do you know
>you're daddy is right?"  "He says he's always right!"
>
>Well the argument usually stops right there.  In the end,
>aren't we all just kids, groping for the truth?  If so, do we have
>the authority to declare all other beliefs besides our own as
>false?

I find this argument very strange, though not unfamiliar.

An analogy someone used a while back can perhaps illustrate it.

Say, for example, there are people living on a volcanic island, and a group 
of geologists determine that a volcano is imminent. They warn the people on 
the island that they are in danger, and should leave. A group of people on 
the island is given the task of warning others of the danger.

They believe the danger is real, but others may not. 

Does that mean that the first group are NECESSARILY arrogant in warning 
others of the danger? Does it mean that they are saying that their beliefs 
are correct, and all others are false?

Some might indeed react to opposition with arrogance, and behave in an 
arrogant manner, but that is a personal idiocyncracy. It does not 
necessarily mean that they are all arrogant.


============================================================
Steve Hayes, Department of Missiology & Editorial Department
Univ. of South Africa, P.O. Box 392, Pretoria, 0001 South Africa
Internet: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za
          steve.hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
          stephen.hayes@f20.n7101.z5.fidonet.org

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20592
From: bluelobster+@cmu.edu (David O Hunt)
Subject: Conversions

On 12-Apr-93 in Environmentalism and paganism
user Michael Covington@aisun3 writes:
>I would like to see Christians devote a bit less effort to _bashing_
>paganism and more to figuring out how to present the Gospel to pagans.
> 
>Christ is the answer; the pagans have a lot of the right questions.
>Unlike materialists, who deny the need for any spirituality.

And what of those of us who already have answers to their questions without
turning to christianity (or, in my case, any religion)?  Whay RIGHT do you
have to presume to lecture me about what I should believe??

David Hunt

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20593
From: BOCHERC@hartwick.edu
Subject: Does God Love You?

I simply wish to thank Dave Mielke (dave@bnr.ca)  for sharing the
tract concerning God's love.  It was most welcome to me and a great
source of comfort.

Carol Bocher

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20594
From: creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)
Subject: Re: quality of Catholic liturgy

In article <Apr.10.05.30.16.1993.14313@athos.rutgers.edu> jemurray@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John E Murray) writes:
>Example.  Last Sunday (Palm Sunday) we went to the local church.  Usually
>on Palm Sunday, the congregation participates in reading the Passion, taking
>the role of the mob.  The theology behind this seems profound--when we say
>"Crucify him" we mean it.  We did it, and if He came back today we'd do it
>again.  It always gives me chills.  But last week we were "invited" to sit
>during the Gospel (=Passion) and _listen_.  Besides the Orwellian "invitation", 

   On Palm Sunday at our parish, we were "invited" to take the role of
Jesus in the Passion.  I declined to participate.  Last year at the
liturgy meeting I pointed out how we crucify Christ by our sins, so
therefore it is appropriate that we retain the role of the crowd, but
to no avail.

>musicians, readers, and so on.  New things are introduced in the course of the
>liturgy and since no one knows what's happening, the new things have to be
>explained, and pretty soon instead of _doing_ a lot of the Mass we're just
>sitting there listening (or spacing out, in my case) to how the Mass is about
>to be done.  In my mind, I lay the blame on liturgy committees made up of lay
>"experts", but that may not be just.  I do think that a liturgy committee has a
>bias toward doing something rather than nothing--that's just a fact of
>bureaucratic life--even though a simpler liturgy may in fact make it easier for
>people to be aware of the Lord's presence.

   As a member of a liturgy committee, I can tell you that the problem
is certain people dominating, who want to try out all kinds of
innovations.  The priests don't seem even to _want_ to make any
decisions of their own in many cases.  I guess it's easier to "try
something new" than it is to refuse to allow it.

   At our parish on Holy Thursday, instead of the priests washing feet
("Who wants to get around people's feet," according to one of our
priests) the congregation was "invited" to come up and help wash one
another's hands.

   The symbolism of this action distressed me, and again I refused to
participate.  I thought that if we were to have to come up with
rubrics for this liturgical action (i.e. "Body of Christ" -- "Amen"
for receiving Communion), that they could be "I am not responsible for
the blood of this man."

   Also for part of the Eucharistic Prayer ("Blessed are You, God of
all creation...") was substituted some text read by a lay couple.  The
priest certainly should not have given this part of the Mass over to
others, and I was so disturbed that I declined to receive Communion
that night (we aren't required to anyway -- I instead offered up
prayers for our priests and parish).

>So we've been wondering--are we the oddballs, or is the quality of the Mass
>going down?  I don't mean that facetiously.  We go to Mass every Thursday or
>Friday and are reminded of the power of a very simple liturgy to make us aware 
>of God's presence.  But as far as the obligatory Sunday Masses...maybe I should 
>just offer it up :)  Has anyone else noticed declining congregational
>participation in Catholic Masses lately?

   The quality of the Mass has not changed.  Again, if it were to be
celebrated according to the rubrics set down by the Church, it would
still be "liturgically" beautiful.  The problem comes about from
people trying to be "creative" who are not.

   I think the answer to your question on participation could be that
given by Father Peter Stravinskas in answer to the question posed by
the title of Thomas Day's _Why Catholics Can't Sing_.  "They don't
want to" because of all this nonsense.

   By the way, for any non-Catholics reading this, the problem does
not reflect bad liturgy by the Catholic Church, but by those who are
disobedient to the Church in changing it on their own "authority."

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20595
From: kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Certainty and Arrogance

Dean Velasco quoted a letter from James M Stowell, president of
Moody Bible Institute:

>  The other day, I was at the dry cleaner and the radio was playing.
>  It caught my attention because a talk show guest was criticizing
>  evangelical Christians, saying we believe in absolutes and think we
>  are the only ones who know what the absolutes are.

>  We affirm the absolutes of Scripture, not because we are arrogant
>  moralists, but because we believe in God who is truth, who has revealed
>  His truth in His Word, and therefore we hold as precious the strategic
>  importance of those absolutes."

There has been a lot of discussion, but so far nobody seems to have hit on
exactly what the criticism of "arrogance" is aimed at.

The arrogance being attacked is that we "think we are the only ones who know
what the absolutes are".  In short, many evangelicals claim that they are
infallible on the matter of religious texts.

In particular, the problem is one of epistemology.  As a shorthand, you can
think of epistemology as "how do you know?"  That question, it turns out, is
a very troubling one.

The problem with `absolute certainty' is that, at the bottom, at least some of
the thinking goes on inside your own head.  Unless you can be certain that
everything which happens in your head is infallible, the reasoning you did to
discover a source of truth is in question.

And that means you do NOT have absolute justification for your source of
authority -- which means you do NOT have absolute certainty.


Let's take the specific example of Biblical Inerrancy, and a fictional
Inerrantist named Zeke.  (The following arguments applies to the idea of
Papal Infallibility, too.)

Zeke has, we presume, spent some time studying the Bible, and history, and
several other topics.  He has concluded, based on all these studies (and
possibly some religious experiences) that the Bible is a source of Absolute
Truth.

He may be correct; but even if he is, he cannot be certain that he is correct.
His conclusion depends on how well he studied history -- he may have made
mistakes, and the references he used may have contained mistakes.  His
conclusion depends on how well he studied the Bible -- he may have made
mistakes.  His conclusion depends on his own reasoning -- and he may have made
mistakes.  (Noticing a common thread yet?  8-)

Everything about his study of the world that he did -- everything that
happened in his own head -- is limited by his own thinking.  No matter what
he does to try and cover his mistakes, he can never be certain of his own
infallibility.  As long as ANY PART of the belief is based on his own
reasoning, that belief cannot be considered "absolutely certain".

Zeke believes that he has found a source of absolute truth -- but that belief
is only as good as the quality of the search he made for it.  Unless he can
say that his own reasoning is flawless, his conclusions are in doubt.

Any belief that you hold about absolute sources of truth depends in part on
your own thinking -- there is no way out of the loop.  Only an infallible
thinker can have absolute certainty in all his beliefs.


This is easy to demonstrate.  Let's go back to our shorthand method of doing
epistemology: "how do you know?"  Imagine a hypothetical discussion:

 A: The Bible is a source of absolute truth.

 B: How do you know?

 A: I studied history and the Bible and religious writings and church
    teachings and came to this conclusion.

 B: How do you know you studied history correctly?

 A: Well, I double-checked everything.

 B: How do you know you double-checked correctly?

 A: Well, I compared my answers with some smart people and we agreed.

 B: Just because some smart guy believes something that doesn't mean it is
    true.  How do you know THEY studied it correctly?

 A: ...

And, as you see, B will eventually get A to the point where he has to say "I
can't prove that there are no mistakes" -- and as long as you may have made a
mistake, then you cannot be ABSOLUTELY certain.

There is no way out of the loop.


This is where the "arrogance of Christians" arises: many people believe
that their own personal research can give them absolute certainty about the
doctrines of Christianity -- they are implicitly claiming that they are
infallible, and that there is no possibility of mistake.

Claiming that you CANNOT have made a mistake, and that your thinking has led
you to a flawless conclusion, is pretty arrogant.

 *

People who want to see this argument explained in great detail should try to
find _The Infallibility of the Church_, by George Salmon.  He is attacking
the idea that the Pope can be knowably infallible (and he does so very well),
but the general argument applies equally well to the idea that the Bible is
knowably Inerrant.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu
"At the core of all well-founded belief, lies belief that is unfounded."
                                                    -- Ludwig Wittgenstein

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20596
From: caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.) writes:
>In article <Apr.10.05.32.29.1993.14388@athos.rutgers.edu> caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin) writes:
> > ...
> >
> >Are all truths also absolutes?
> >Is all of scripture truths (and therefore absolutes)?
> >
> >If the answer to either of these questions is no, then perhaps you can 
> >explain to me how you determine which parts of Scripture are truths, and
> >which truths are absolutes.  
> 
> The answer to both questions is yes.

Perhaps we have different definitions of absolute then.  To me,
an absolute is something that is constant across time, culture,
situations, etc.  True in every instance possible.  Do you agree
with this definition?  I think you do:

> Similarly, all truth is absolute.  Indeed, a non-absolute truth is a 
> contradiction in terms.  When is something absolute?  When it is always
> true.  Obviously, if a "truth" is not always "true" then we have a
> contradiction in terms.  

A simple example:

In the New Testament (sorry I don't have a Bible at work, and can't
provide a reference), women are instructed to be silent and cover
their heads in church.  Now, this is scripture.  By your definition, 
this is truth and therefore absolute.  

Do women in your church speak?  Do they cover their heads?  If all 
scripture is absolute truth, it seems to me that women speaking in and 
coming to church with bare heads should be intolerable to evangelicals.  
Yet, clearly, women do speak in evangelical churches and come with bare 
heads.  (At least this was the case in the evangelical churches I grew 
up in.)

Evangelicals are clearly not taking this particular part of scripture 
to be absolute truth.  (And there are plenty of other examples.)
Can you reconcile this?

> Many people claim that there are no absolutes in the world.  Such a
> statement is terribly self-contradictory.  Let me put it to you this
> way.  If there are no absolutes, shouldn't we conclude that the statement,
> "There are no absolutes" is not absolutely true?  Obviously, we have a
> contradiction here.

I don't claim that there are *no* absolutes.  I think there are very
few, though, and determining absolutes is difficult.

> This is just one of the reasons why Christians defy the world by claiming
> that there are indeed absolutes in the universe.

> >There is hardly consensus, even in evangelical 
> >Christianity (not to mention the rest of Christianity) regarding 
> >Biblical interpretation.
> 
> So?  People sometimes disagree about what is true. This does not negate 
> the fact, however, that there are still absolutes in the universe.  

But you are claiming that all of Scripture is absolute.  How can you
determine absolutes derived from Scripture when you can't agree how
to interpret the Scripture?  

It's very difficult to see how you can claim something which is based 
on your own *interpretation* is absolute.  Do you deny that your own
background, education, prejudices, etc. come into play when you read the 
Bible, and determine how to interpret a passsage?  Do you deny that 
you in fact interpret?

Carol Alvin
caralv@auto-trol.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20597
From: vek@allegra.att.com (Van Kelly)
Subject: Re: Prayer in Jesus' Name

According to what I have read on Biblical idioms, speaking "in X's
name" is a standard Aramaic/Hebrew legal idiom for what we today
would call Power of Attorney.  A person from Jesus' culture authorized
to conduct business "in John's name" had full authority over John's
financial affairs, but was held under a solemn fiduciary obligation to
work only for John's benefit and consonant with John's wishes.  It was
not required for the steward to preface each business transaction with
"in John's name"; it was sufficient to have valid power of attorney
and be operating in good faith. (Note the overlap here between legal
and religious definitions of "faith".)

With this cultural background, praying "in Jesus' name" does not
mandate a particular verbal formula; rather it requires that the
petitioner be operating faithfully and consciously within an analogous
"fiduciary" relationship with Jesus and for the purposes of His
Kingdom.  The message of "praying in Jesus' name" is thus closely
aligned with the parable of the talents and other passages about God's
delegation of Kingdom business to his stewards, both resources and
responsibilities.  This idea of praying "in Jesus' name" is not only
present but prominent in the Lord's Prayer, although the verbal
forumula is absent.

The act of praying the words "In Jesus' Name" may be beneficial if
they cause us to clarify the relationship of our requests to the
advancement of God's Kingdom.  For that reason, I'm not quite ready
to say that the praying the formula is without meaning.

Prayers to God for other purposes (desperation, anger, thanksgiving,
etc.) don't seem to be in this category at all, whether uttered by
Christian or non-Christian, whether B.C. or A.D. (that's B.C.E. or
C.E. for you P.C. :-).  I don't see anything in Christ's words to
contradict the idea that God deals with all prayers according to His
omniscience and grace.

Van Kelly
vek@research.att.com


The above opinions are my own, and not those of AT&T.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20598
From: heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath)
Subject: Nature of God (Re: Environmentalism and paganism)

In article <Apr.12.03.42.49.1993.18778@athos.rutgers.edu> mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:
>I would like to see Christians devote a bit less effort to _bashing_
>paganism and more to figuring out how to present the Gospel to pagans.
>
>Christ is the answer; the pagans have a lot of the right questions.
>Unlike materialists, who deny the need for any spirituality.
>
>

	One of the things I find intersting about pagan beliefs is
their belief in a feminine deity as well as a masculine deity. Being
brought up in a Christian household, I often wondered if there was God
the Father, where was the mother? Everyone I know who has a father
usually as a mother. It just seemed rather unbalanced to me. 
	Fortunately, my own personal theology, which will probably not
fall into line with a lot others, recognized God as a being both
without gender and posessing qualities of both genders, as being both
a masculine and feminine force. It provides a sense of balance I find
sorely lacking in most theologies, a lack which I think is responsible
for a lot of the unbalanced ways in which we see the world and treat
each other.
-- 
Terrance Heath				heath@athena.cs.uga.edu
******************************************************************
YOUR COMFORT IS MY SILENCE!!!!! ACT-UP! FIGHT BACK! TALK BACK!
******************************************************************

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20599
From: psb@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Jr Phillip S Buckland)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."

[DISCLAIMER: Throughout this post, there are statements and questions which
could easily be interpreted as being sarcastic.  They are not.  I have written
this reply in the most even-handed manner that I can, with no emotions boiling
to the surface as it was written.  Please accept this as a serious attempt to
foster dialog and rest assurred that I make every attempt to make fun of no
one, except myself ;-)]

gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric Molas) writes:

>Firstly, I am an atheist. I am not posting here as an immature flame
>start, but rather to express an opinion to my intended audience.

[...]

>1) The human being is an _animal_ who has, due to his/her advanced
>mental facilities, developed religious as a satisfiable solution to
>explain the unexplainable. [...]

	Hmmm.  There are other animals on this planet with advanced
	mental facilities which have not developed "religion" as a
	satisfactory explaination for the unexplained.  Why is this so?

	Further, it appears that only humans have a "need" to explain the
	unexplained.  Why is this so?  The other animals on this planet,
	including those with advanced mental facilities, seem perfectly
	content in their ignorance.

	I'd like to point out that your presuppositions scream out at me
	from your unsupported statement.  They are: 1) humans are animal
	*only*; 2) religion exists as a crutch so that the unexplained need
	not be researched; 3) religion was "made up" by humans to address a
	perceived need; 4) the biological aspect of humans is deified (that
	is, all aspects of human life can be categorized in a hierarchical
	structure with biology at the apex).

	Needless to say, I disagree with your strong opinion #1 and the
	underlying presuppositions.

>Christianity is an infectious cult.  The reasons it flourishes are 
>because 1) it gives people without hope or driven purpose in life
>a safety blanked to hide behind.  "Oh wow..all i have to do is 
>follow this christian moral standard and I get eternal happiness."
>For all of you "found jeezus" , how many of you were "on the brink?"

	I disagree that Christianity is "an infectious cult".  It has
	certainly shown itself to be persistent as a belief system, in
	spite of various persecutions throughout the past two millenia.
	That it continues to persevere does not demonstrate that it is
	"infectious" in a derrogatory sense; it may be that it provides
	a workable system for its adherents (and I would argue that this
	is the case).

	I disagree that Christianity is "a safety blanket" which supplants
	hope and purpose.  Rather, it points an individual to the one
	Source of hope and purpose.  There is nothing hidden about a
	Christian's source for hope and purpose.  Of what usefulness to
	you is the distinction between internally motivated hope and purpose
	and externally given hope and purpose?  Is the (apparent) loss of
	control over one's own life the problem or is it something else?

	Finally, one does not appropriate "eternal happiness" by following
	Christian moral standards.  Indeed, the sole reason for the existance
	of Christianity is *because* standards are inadequate to save people
	from their imperfections.  Moral standards are merely guides to the
	Christian; the real power to moral living is given to the Christian
	in the Person of God's Spirit.

	Heaven is one of two final states that
	Christian doctrine postulates.  However, Christians are generally
	not motivated to live according to Christian moral standards by this
	promised future reward; rather, they are motivated by the perceived
	benefits to them in the here-and-now.

>but i digress...   The other reason christianity flourishes is its
>infectious nature.  A best friend of mine breifly entered a christian
>group and within months, they set ministry guidelines for him which
>basicaly said this -->Priority #1 Spread the Word.

	Many Christian organizations are concerned with evangelism as a
	priority, and rightly so (for it was Jesus Himself who gave this
	as a priority for His followers).  However, it is not the penultimate
	priority as evangelism is normally understood (i.e. preach the word,
	convert at nearly any cost, repeat with new convert ad infinitum).
	Rather, such evangelism is generally best done through respecting
	the opinions of others while *demonstrating* the very real benefits
	of a Christian lifestyle.  This demonstration should be so powerful
	that it compels the non-Christian to seek out the Christian to ask
	"Why?"  Needless to say, such a demonstration is not easily accom-
	plished (it takes a radical committment to the person of Jesus), it
	does not happen quickly (so perseverance on the part of the Christian
	is required), and it cannot occur where no personal bonds of
	friendship exist (it is ineffective with strangers who cannot
	evaluate the demonstration over time, and it is easy to alienate or
	harm others if the sole purpose of being a "friend" is to gain a
	conversion).

	As a long-time Christian (nearly 20 years), I view with some skep-
	ticism *all* evangelism programs which incorporate a "hurry-up"
	attitude.  Pressured conversions may ultimately be worse than no
	conversion at all (because the pressured convert realizes s/he was
	coerced and disavows Christianity when they would have been open
	to it in the future had they not been taken advantage of now).
	The Bible states that it is the very Spirit of God which brings
	conviction of wrong-doing to people.  I am content to do my part
	(witness) and let the Spirit do the rest.

>We are _just_ animals.  We need sleep, food, and we reproduce.  And we
>die.      

	We are far more than animals.  We sleep, eat, reproduce, and die
	just as other animals do - true.  But, we are also capable of more
	than this.  If your personal vision of humanity (or of yourself) is
	so limited, I can only hope and pray ;-) that you will someday find
	a more expansive view.

	(For reflection, what animals have the wide variety of performing
	arts that humans do?  How is it that humans can learn the language
	of other humans (or animals) but that other animals cannot do so?
	How is it that humans can organize themselves in various social
	structures whereas other animals have only one structure?)

>Religion (especially Christianity) is nothing more than a DRUG.

	Blatant assertion.  Christianity is not physically addictive.
	Christianity is not psychologically addictive.  Christianity is not
	a *thing* which one snorts/ingests/shoots-up; it is a relationship
	with a living being.  You might as validly characterize any close-
	knit relationship with this appelation.

>Some people use drugs as an escape from reality.  Christians inject
>themselves with jeezus and live with that high. 

	There are "Jesus freaks" who let the emotional aspects of worship
	and Christian living gain (and retain) the upper hand.  Even so,
	this does not by itself invalidate the foundation from which these
	things flow.

>It pities me how many millions of lives have been lost in religious
>wars, of which Christianity has had no small part.

	Guilty by association?  That "christianity" which forces itself
	upon another is not Christianity at all.

>When Christians see a "non-believer", they say that person is blind
>to the truth, but they cannot realize that it is _they_ who live
>with this mask of fakeness each day.  Jesus was just prophet #37696 
>who happened to have a large influence because at that time the Romans
>were (circa 69ad) dispersing the Jewish population and communities
>needed some sort of cohesive element to keep them strong in that time
>of dire need.

	You appear to have an amazing certainty about what really happened
	2000 years ago.  How did you come by it?

	I cannot accept your conclusion that Jesus' influence was a sole
	result of the Roman sack of Jerusalem in 70AD.  He was 30+ years
	gone by this time.  It strains the bounds of credulity to assert
	that nothing about Jesus' life was noteworthy _until_ the sack.

>I must go.  These are but a few of my thoughts on Christianity.

	Christianity is having a relationship with Jesus Christ Himself.
	What do you know of Him?


We read the world wrong		| Phil Buckland
and say that it deceives us.	| psb@eece.ksu.edu
Tagore, from Stray Birds	| psb@matt.ksu.ksu.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20600
From: eggertj@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

In article <Apr.12.03.44.39.1993.18842@athos.rutgers.edu> reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu writes:
>   The real problem was
>   that Christians were pacifist and preached there was only one god.  When the
>   state operates by a system of divinitation of the emperor -  monotheism 
>   becomes a capital offense.  The Jews were able to get exemption from this,
>   and were also not evangelistic.

I disagree with your claim that Jews were not evangelistic (except in
the narrow sense of the word).  Jewish proselytism was widespread.
There are numerous accounts of Jewish proselytism, both in the New
Testament and in Roman and Greek documents of the day.
--
=Jim  eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20601
From: jerryb@eskimo.com (Jerry Kaufman)
Subject: Re: Questions from a newbie

The concept of God as a teacher is indeed interesting. Does He grade on
a curve, does He cheat? That is interesting. Not to mention thought
provoking. My own concept is that He is a Father and we are His
children. In that He loves us, with a love that we can never understand
until we are with Him. The Bible says that He looks on the heart as the
final measure. From that perspective, in a grading context, the heart is
the final test.
Specifically, most Christians would agree that there is only one Heaven
and one Hell. From that perspective, it is Heaven or Hell. You either go
to one or the other. The "grading" on a pass/fail basis is done by God
the Father with intervention by Jesus the Son. Not by others. For only
God sees the heart. The Bible says of the heart, "...who can know it." I
would say there has always been, and always be, an unchanging method.
That is what makes a relationship with Christ so secure. In an uncertain
and ever changing landscape He is always the same. Yesterday, today and
tomorrow. Concerning whether or not our childhoods are considerd as part
of the test, my own conviction is no. Were that the case I certainly
wouldn't be going to Heaven. The Bible speaks very plainly about the
love and care Jesus had for and about children. The reality is that we
are all children. Some of us just have bigger bodies and grey hair. But
the Father, our Father is always there. Like most Fathers He wants only
the best for His own. There maybe decipline, but there is more love.
It's sometimes looks like Christianity is a test, to see who makes it
and who doesn't. Those who do pass=Heaven, and those who don't go to the
other place. But it is really much more than that...
There are few experts. Most of us are just travelers looking for the
light and the way Home. Praying that we can bring others with us.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20602
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe)
Subject: Re: Eternity of Hell (was Re: Hell)

vic@mmalt.guild.org (Vic Kulikauskas) writes:
> Our Moderator writes:
> 
> > I'm inclined to read descriptions such as the lake of fire as 
> > indicating annihilation. However that's a minority view.
> ...
> > It's my personal view, but the only denominations I know of that hold 
> > it officially are the JW's and SDA's.
> 
> I can't find the reference right now, but didn't C.S.Lewis speculate 
> somewhere that hell might be "the state of once having been a human 
> soul"?
Why is it that we have this notion that God takes some sort of pleasure
from punishing people?  The purpose of hell is to destroy the devil and
his angels.

To the earlier poster who tried to support the eternal hell theory with
the fact that the fallen angels were not destroyed, remember the Bible
teaches that God has reserved them until the day of judgement.  Their
judgement is soon to come.

Let me suggest this.  Maybe those who believe in the eternal hell theory
should provide all the biblical evidence they can find for it.  Stay away
from human theories, and only take into account references in the bible.

Darius

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20603
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Ancient Books

In article <Apr.11.01.02.37.1993.17787@athos.rutgers.edu>, atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez) writes:

>   I don't think it's possible to convince atheists of the validity of 
> Christianity through argument.  We have to help foster faith and an
> understanding of God.  I could be wrong--are there any former atheists here
> who were led to Christianity by argument?

This is an excellent question and I'll be anxious to see if there are
any such cases.  I doubt it.  In the medieval period (esp. 10th-cent.
when Aquinas flourished) argument was a useful tool because everyone
"knew the rules."  Today, when you can't count on people knowing even
the basics of logic or seeing through rhetoric, a good argument is
often indistinguishable from a poor one.

Sorry; just one of my perennial gripes...<:->

Ken
-- 
miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu | Nobody can explain everything to everybody.
opinions are my own      | G. K. Chesterton

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20604
From: simon@giaeb.cc.monash.edu.au (simon shields)
Subject: SSPX schism ?

Hi All

Hope you all had a Blessed Easter. I have a document which I believe
refutes the notion that the SSPX (Society of Saint Pius X) is in
schism, or that there has been any legitimate excommunication. If
anyone is interested in reading the truth about this matter please
email me and I'll send them the document via email. Its 26 pages long,
so I wont be posting it on the news group.

Its titled


    NEITHER SCHISMATIC NOR EXCOMMUNICATED


    This article  was  originally  an  English	translation,  by  the
    Society  of  Saint	Pius  X  in  Ireland, from the French Journal
    'Courrier de Rome'.  The French  article,  in  its	turn,  was  a
    translation  from  the  Italian of the Roman Newsletter 'Si Si No
    No'.

    This booklet contains the transcription, with some minor editing,
    of	the  Irish  article, and was transcribed and produced by John
    Clay, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.

    (There is no copyright attached. Simon Shields)

                        CONTENTS                             

    NEITHER SCHISMATIC NOR EXCOMMUNICATED.......................1
    CATHOLICS ON THE RACK.......................................1
    THE CHOICE OF THE 'SENSUS FIDEI'............................3
    AMBIGUITY...................................................4
    THE CHURCH IS NOT BICEPHALOUS (TWO-HEADED)..................6
    THE PERSON AND THE FUNCTION OF THE POPE.....................6
    UNITY OF FAITH AND UNITY OF COMMUNION.......................8
    THE CRITERIA OF CHOICE.....................................10
    ECUMENISM - AN ATTACK ON THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH...........10
    THE EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION WITHIN THE CHURCH..............11
    EXTRAORDINARY DUTIES OF LAY PEOPLE.........................12
    DUTIES AND POWERS OF BISHOPS...............................14
    FROM THE FACT OF THEIR GREATER DUTIES......................14
    FROM THE FACT OF THEIR GREATER POWER.......................14
    THE POWER AND THE DUTY OF THE PAPACY.......................15
    THE ELECTION OF BISHOPS....................................15
    STATE AND RIGHT OF NECESSITY...............................16
    1. THERE IS IN THE CHURCH A REAL STATE OF NECESSITY........17
    FOR SOULS..................................................18
    FOR SEMINARIANS............................................18
    2. ALL THE ORDINARY MEANS HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED..............19
    3. THE ACT ITSELF IS NOT INTRINSICALLY EVIL AND THERE RESUL..........21
    4. IN THE LIMITS OF EFFECTIVE REQUIREMENTS.................22
    5. THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE IS NOT PUT INTO QUESTION......23
    THE EXCOMMUNICATION........................................24
    CONCLUSION.................................................25
    BIBLIOGRAPHY...............................................26-31

God Bless ye all,



An Irish Fairwell

may the road rise to meet you
may the wind be always at your back
may the sun shine warm upon your face, 
the rains fall soft upon your fields,
and until we meet again,
may God hold you in the palm of his hand.


--
/----------------------------------------------------------------|-------\
|  Simon P. Shields Programmer           Viva Cristo Rey !!  ----|----   |
|  MONASH UNIVERSITY COLLEGE GIPPSLAND Ph:+61 51 226 357       .JHS.     |
|  Switchback Rd. Churchill.          Fax:+61 51 226 300       |\|/|     |
|  Australia 3842      Internet: simon@giaec.cc.monash.edu.au  |M J|     |
\------------------------------------------------------------------------/

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20605
From: dsegard@nyx.cs.du.edu (Daniel Segard)
Subject: Re: Easter: what's in a name? (was Re: New Testament Double Stan


   seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson) asks:
 > What is the objection to celebration of Easter?
 
       The objection naturally is in the way in which you phrase it. 
Easter (or Eashtar or Ishtar or Ishtarti or other spellings) is the pagan
whore goddess of fertility.  Therefore, your question to me is "what is
the objection to celebration of the pagan whore goddess?"  When phrased
that way I suspect (or at least I would HOPE) that it becomes immeadiately
apparent what my objection to "celebrating" her would be.
 
 > It is celebration of the resurrection of Jesus.
 
      No, you are thinking perhaps of "Ressurection Sunday" I think. 
(Though I'm not too crazy about the word "Sunday", but I certainly like
this phrasing much better than envoking the name of the whore goddess.)
     For that matter, stay Biblical and call it Omar Rasheet (The Feast of
First Fruits).  Torah commands that this be observed on the day following
the Sabbath of Passover week.  (Sunday by any other name in modern
parlance.)  Why is there so much objection to observing the Resurrection
on the 1st day of the week on which it actually occured?  Why jump it all
over the calendar the way Easter does?  Why not just go with the Sunday
following Passover the way the Bible has it?  Why seek after unbiblical
methods?
 
 > I don't recall a command in Scripture for us to celebrate
 > the resurrection, but it is the sole and only reason that
 > we are Christians--how could we not celebrate it?
 
      So what does this question have to do with Easter (the whore
goddess)?  I am all for celebrating the Resurrection.  Just keep that
whore out of the discussion.
 
 > If it is only the name which is a problem, I suggest that if
 > we are too concerned about etymology, there are a lot of
 > words we are going to have to drop.  (As an aside, some
 > terminally PC people here in Ottawa want dictionaries to be
 > altered so that there are no negative definitions associated
 > with the word _black_, so as not to offend people of colour.
 
       Yes, I have heard of your newspapers speaking of the need to repave
streets with "Afro-Canadiantop".  <grin> (I still think "blacktop" sounds
better though.)
 
 > As a short person, I hope they will also remove the definition
 > "curt or surly" associated with my physical description.)
 
       Fine by me.  And while we are at it, the left-handed people are
both "sinister" and "gauche" so we probably will have some objections from
that quarter as well.
 
 > In Quebec French, the word for the celebration of the
 > resurrection is "Pa^ques"--this is etymologically related
 > to Pesach (Passover) and the pascal lamb.  So is the
 > French Canadian (mostly Roman Catholic) celebration better
 > because it uses the right name?
 
      Yes, that sounds much better to me.  Is there anyone out there would
thinks that phrasing sounds worse?
 
 > So from this I infer that there are different rules for
 > Christians of Jewish descent?  What happened to "there is
 > neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for
 > all are one in Christ Jesus"?
 
      Read the letter to Philemon.  Now tell me, was Philemon's "slave"
returned to him?  Were there different rules upon the slave than upon
Philemon?  How about male and female?  Are there different "rules" that
apply to them as well?  Or if there is no more "male and female" can Adam
and Steve get married to each other in your congregation?  Yes, there are
differences in form and function.  But the way we come to Salvation in
Messiah remains the same no matter what our position in life.
 
---------------------------------------

[I am in general not in favor of continuing this discussion, as it
seems repetitive, but this particular point is one that I believe is
new -- the objection is not to having a holiday but to its name.

I'd like to suggest that people think very carefully about this
argument.  Words often change their meaning over time.  The days of
the week are of course originally based on pagan gods.  Some
Christians prefer to refer to "first day", "second day", etc.  However
the majority of Christians have not been persuaded.  The question
seems to be whether it makes any difference what the dictionary shows
as the derivation of a word, if what people mean by it and think when
they use it is different.

Indeed I'd like to suggest that postings like this could themselves be
dangerous.  Suppose people in general use Easter to mean the
celebration of Christ's resurrection.  Postings trying to convince
them that they really mean a celebration in honor of some godess run
the risk of creating exactly the situation that they claim to oppose.
They are doing their best to *create* a linkage in people's minds
between their celebration and the pagan goddess.  It's not clear that
this is a healthy thing.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20606
From: christian@geneva.rutgers.edu
Subject: end of discussion: Easter

I just about closed this once before.  I'm now doing so for real, after
tonight's posting.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20607
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: 'Easter' not derived from 'Ishtar'

Several recent posts have identified the English word 'Easter' with
the Babylonian goddess 'Ishtar'.

'Easter' is a pagan word all right, but it has nothing to do with Ishtar.
If 'Easter' and 'Ishtar' were related, their history would show it.
But in Old English, Easter was 'Eostre', cognate with English 'East'
and German 'Ost'.   The reconstructed Proto-Germanic form is 'Austron'.
Not until after 1400 did 'Easter' have a high front vowel like 'Ishtar'.
Clearly, the two words have quite separate origins.

There may be neo-pagans who worship Ishtar at Easter, but if so, they
are making either a mistake of etymology, or a deliberate play on words.

-- Michael Covington  (Ph.D., linguistics)



-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20608
From: revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille)
Subject: Re: Easter: what's in a name? (was Re: New Testament Double Stan

Daniel Segard (dsegard@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:

[a lot of stuff deleted]

:      For that matter, stay Biblical and call it Omar Rasheet (The Feast of
: First Fruits).  Torah commands that this be observed on the day following
: the Sabbath of Passover week.  (Sunday by any other name in modern
: parlance.)  Why is there so much objection to observing the Resurrection
: on the 1st day of the week on which it actually occured?  Why jump it all
: over the calendar the way Easter does?  Why not just go with the Sunday
: following Passover the way the Bible has it?  Why seek after unbiblical
: methods?
:  
In fact, that is the reason Easter "jumps all over the calendar"- Passsover
itself is a lunar holiday, not a solar one, and thus falls over a wide
possible span of times.  The few times that Easter does not fall during or
after Passover are because Easter is further linked to the Vernal Equinox-
the beginning of spring.

[more deletions]
:  
:       So what does this question have to do with Easter (the whore
: goddess)?  I am all for celebrating the Resurrection.  Just keep that
: whore out of the discussion.
:  
Your obsession with the term "whore" clouds your argument.  "Whore" is
a value judgement, not a descriptive term.

[more deletions]

Overall, this argument is an illustration of the "etymological fallacy"
(see J.P. Louw: _Semantics of NT Greek_).  That is the idea that the true
meaning of a word lies in its origins and linguistic form.  In fact, our
own experience demonstrates that the meaning of a word is bound up with
how it is _used_, not where it came from.  Very few modern people would
make any connection whatsoever between "Easter" and "Ishtar."  If Daniel
Seagard does, then for him it has that meaning.  But that is a highly
idiosyncratic "meaning," and not one that needs much refutation.

revdak@netcom.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20609
From: tcsteven@iaserv.b1.ingr.com (Todd Stevens)
Subject: Rebuilding the Temple (was Re: Anybody out there?)

Chuck Petch writes:

>Now it appears that nothing stands in the way of rebuilding and resuming
>sacrifices, as the Scriptures indicate will happen in the last days.
>Although the Israeli government will give the permission to start, I think
>it is the hand of God holding the project until He is ready to let it
>happen. Brothers and sisters, the time is at hand. Our redemption is
>drawing near. Look up!

How is a scriptural Levitical priesthood resumed?  Are there any Jews who 
can legitimately prove their Levite bloodline?

Todd Stevens
tcsteven@iaserv.b1.ingr.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20610
From: marka@amber.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley)
Subject: Re: Easter: what's in a name? (was Re: New Testament Double Stan

In article <Apr.13.01.04.21.1993.686@athos.rutgers.edu> dsegard@nyx.cs.du.edu (Daniel Segard) writes:
>   seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson) asks:
> > What is the objection to celebration of Easter?
>       The objection naturally is in the way in which you phrase it. 
>Easter (or Eashtar or Ishtar or Ishtarti or other spellings) is the pagan
>whore goddess of fertility.  
> > It is celebration of the resurrection of Jesus.
>      No, you are thinking perhaps of "Ressurection Sunday" I think. 

Tsk.tsk. Too much argument on non-issues !
I'm Roman Catholic and it seems to me that people
celebrate Easter and Christmas for itself rather
than how it relates to Jesus. I don't really
care about some diety. If people have some other
definition of Easter, then that's their business.
Don't let it interfere with my Easter.

"Resurrection Sunday" 8-) Where did that come from ?
If people celebrate Easter for the Cadburry bunny,
that's their business. 

> > So from this I infer that there are different rules for
> > Christians of Jewish descent?  What happened to "there is
> > neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for
> > all are one in Christ Jesus"?

I've always been curious about this. Is Jesus important
to Jews at all ? I thought He was thought of only
as a prophet ? If that's true what do they celebrate
Easter for ?

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20611
From: gifford@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Barbara Gifford)
Subject: The Mystery in the Paradox

I have been looking for a book that specifically addresses
the mystery of God in the paradox.  I have read some that touch
on the subject in a chapter but would like a more detailed read.

Is anyone aware of any books that deal with this subject.

Please e-mail me.  Thanks.

Barbara

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20612
From: randerso@acad1.sahs.uth.tmc.edu (Robert Anderson)
Subject: When are two people married in God's eyes?

I would like to get your opinions on this: when exactly does an engaged
couple become "married" in God's eyes?  Some say that if the two have
publically announced their plans to marry, have made their vows to God, and
are unswervingly committed to one another (I realize this is a subjective
qualifier) they are married/joined in God's sight.

Suppose they are unable to get before the altar right at the current time
because of purely logistical reasons beyond their control.  What do you
think about this?

Post or e-mail me with general responses.  If you need clarification as to
what I am asking, please e-mail.

Thanks and God bless!

============================================
Robert M. Anderson III
randerso@acad1.sahs.uth.tmc.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20613
From: jsledd@ssdc.sas.upenn.edu (James Sledd)
Subject: proof of resurection

I have a few minor problems with the article posted as proof of 
Christ's resurrection.  

First the scriptural quotations:

This sort of reasoning is such that if you beleive you are justified,
if not then your beleif is in vain, so you might as well beleive.  Most
of these quotations are of people who do beleive.  People who would
try to justify their own positions.

Second the logical proof:

>quoted text...
>
>From: xx155@yfn.ysu.edu (Family Magazine Sysops)
>Subject: WITNESS & PROOF OF CHRIST'S RESURRECTION
>Date: 11 Apr 93 05:01:19 GMT
>
>[much deleted]
>
>            4.  In nearly 20 centuries, no body has ever been
>                produced to refute Jesus' assertion that He
>                *would indeed* rise from the dead.
>
>            5.  The probability of being able to perpetrate such
>                a hoax successfully upon the entire world for
>                nearly 20 centuries is astronomically negative!
>                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>...end quoted text

 The period of time that has elapsed from the event growing larger
does not increase the odds that a hoax would be discovered.  In fact
the longer a hoax is perpetuated the stronger it becomes.

Finally:

There is no proof of the resurrection of Christ, except in our spirits
communion with his, and the Father's.  It is a matter of FAITH, belief
without logical proof.  Incedently one of the largest stumbling blocks for
rational western man, myself included.

I hope that this is taken in the spirit it was intended and not as a 
rejection of the resurrection's occurance.  I beleive, but I wanted to point 
out the weakness of logical proofs.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20614
From: maridai@comm.mot.com (Marida Ignacio)
Subject: Re: Every Lent He suffers to save us

Correction:

  |The story I related is one of the seven apparitions
  |approved by our Church as worthy of belief.  It happened
  |in La Salle, France.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That should be La Salette, France, 1846.
I must admit, geography is not my forte.

  |[...]

  |Once again, the Lamb succeeds.

-Marida
  "...spreading God's words through actions..."
    -Mother Teresa

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20615
From: vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article <Apr.13.00.08.35.1993.28412@athos.rutgers.edu> caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin) writes:
>vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.) writes:
>>In article <Apr.10.05.32.29.1993.14388@athos.rutgers.edu> caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin) writes:
>> > ...
>> >
>> >Are all truths also absolutes?
>> >Is all of scripture truths (and therefore absolutes)?
>> >
>> >If the answer to either of these questions is no, then perhaps you can 
>> >explain to me how you determine which parts of Scripture are truths, and
>> >which truths are absolutes.  
>> 
>> The answer to both questions is yes.
>
>Perhaps we have different definitions of absolute then.  To me,
>an absolute is something that is constant across time, culture,
>situations, etc.  True in every instance possible.  Do you agree
>with this definition?  I think you do:
>
>> Similarly, all truth is absolute.  Indeed, a non-absolute truth is a 
>> contradiction in terms.  When is something absolute?  When it is always
>> true.  Obviously, if a "truth" is not always "true" then we have a
>> contradiction in terms.  

Yes, I do agree with your definition.  My use of the term "always" is
rather deceptive, I admit.  
 
>A simple example:
>
>In the New Testament (sorry I don't have a Bible at work, and can't
>provide a reference), women are instructed to be silent and cover
>their heads in church.  Now, this is scripture.  By your definition, 
>this is truth and therefore absolute.  

Hold it.  I said that all of scripture is true.  However, discerning
exactly what Jesus, Paul and company were trying to say is not always so
easy.  I don't believe that Paul was trying to say that all women should
behave that way.  Rather, he was trying to say that under the circumstances
at the time, the women he was speaking to would best avoid volubility and
cover their heads.  This has to do with maintaining a proper witness toward
others.  Remember that any number of relativistic statements can be derived
from absolutes.  For instance, it is absolutely right for Christians to
strive for peace.  However, this does not rule out trying to maintain world
peace by resorting to violence on occasion.  (Yes, my opinion.)
 
>Evangelicals are clearly not taking this particular part of scripture 
>to be absolute truth.  (And there are plenty of other examples.)
>Can you reconcile this?

Sure.  The Bible preaches absolute truths.  However, exactly what those
truths are is sometimes a matter of confusion.  As I said, the Bible does
preach absolute truths.  Sometimes those fundamental principles are crystal
clear (at least to evangelicals).  Sometimes they are not so clear to
everyone (e.g. should baptism be by full immersion or not, etc).  That is
largely because sometimes, it is not explicitly spelled out whether the writers
are speaking to a particular culture or to Christianity as a whole.  This is 
where scholarship and the study of Biblical contexts comes in.  
 
>It's very difficult to see how you can claim something which is based 
>on your own *interpretation* is absolute.  

God revealed his Truths to the world, through His Word.  It is utterly 
unavoidable, however, that some people whill come up with alternate 
interpretations.  Practically anything can be misinterpreted, especially
when it comes to matters of right and wrong.  Care to deny that?


-- 
Virgilio "Dean" Velasco Jr, Department of Electrical Eng'g and Applied Physics 
	 CWRU graduate student, roboticist-in-training and Q wannabee
    "Bullwinkle, that man's intimidating a referee!"   |    My boss is a 
   "Not very well.  He doesn't look like one at all!"  |  Jewish carpenter.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20616
From: king@ctron.com (John E. King)
Subject: Re: Eternity of Hell (was Re: Hell)

db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes:

>And we also know that it is impossible to destroy the Soul.

Hmmm.  Here's food for thought:  " ...but rather be in fear of him
who can destroy both soul and body in gehenna."  Math 10:28

Jack

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20617
From: dhawk@netcom.com (David Hawkins)
Subject: Need Help with "They came for the Jews" quote

Years ago I grabbed the following from the net - maybe from this
newsgroup.  Does anyone know of a source for whether this is an
accurate quote?   Thanks!  Bartletts leaves out the homosexual lines,
but they were one of the groups the Nazis tried to exterminate.
===
In Germany, they first came for the communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the homosexuals, and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a homosexual.
Then they came for the catholics, and I didn't speak up
because I was a protestant.
Then they came for me ---
but by that time there was no one left to speak up.

                                    -- Pastor Martin Neimoller

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20618
From: johnsd2@rpi.edu (Dan Johnson)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."

In article 28388@athos.rutgers.edu, jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas) writes:
>gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric Molas) writes:
>
>> Firstly, I am an atheist. I am not posting here as an immature flame
>> start, but rather to express an opinion to my intended audience.
>[deleted] 
>> 
>> We are _just_ animals.  We need sleep, food, and we reproduce.  And we
>> die.      

I don't meant to defend Eric Molas- I find it somewhat annoying when
someone pops up on alt.atheism to tell us all about his (usually
atheistic) beliefs, so I can certainly see how Christians might be
annoyed- but I'd like to point out a few things.

>I am glad that I am not an atheist.  It seems tragic that some people 
>choose a meaningless existence.

"no meaning from God" is not the same as "no meaning". From my (atheistic)
point of view, if you want meaning in your life, you get to go and
get some or make some.

No free gifts of meaning. (I never quite understood how any
God can just "give" your life meaning, actually. If he
says you exists to do or be X, that gives you a purpose
if you care to accept it, but is that the same thing? But
I digress...) 

>  How terrible to go on living only 
>because one fears death more than life.

This would truely be a miserably existance, which I doubt Eric
endures. Life can be enjoyable, so you can live it because you like
it, or purposefull, so you can live it to get something done. One should
endeavour to make it so, if it is not. Otherwise it would be as you say.
Terrible.

>  I feel so sorry for Eric and 
>yet any attempts to share my joy in life with him would be considered as 
>further evidence of the infectious nature of Christianity.    

Probably true. Remeber he almost certainly sees that particular joy as
an illusion, and does not want it. So maybe it isn't so bad?

>As a Christian I am free to be a human person.  I think, love, choose, 
>and create.

As an atheist, I am free to be a human person. I think, love, choose,
and create.

> I will live forever with God.

Ah, now here we begin to diverge. I will not live forever
with anyone.

(I don't think you will either, but you are welcome to your
opinion on the matter.)

>Christ is not a kind of drug.

I tend to agree with you.

It's my opinion that (unlike drugs) religions are normal
parts of human societies.

I think they have outlived their usefullness, but they
are evidently quite ordinary, normal things that haven't
proved lethal to humanity yet.

> Drugs are a replacement for Christ.
>Those who have an empty spot in the God-shaped hole in their hearts must 
>do something to ease the pain.

I have heard this claim quite a few times. Does anybody here know
who first came up with the "God-shaped hole" business?

>  This is why the most effective 
>substance-abuse recovery programs involve meeting peoples' spiritual 
>needs.

You might want to provide some evidence next time you make a claim
like this.

>Thank you, Eric for your post.  It has helped me to appreciate how much 
>God has blessed me.  I hope that you will someday have a more joy-filled 
>and abundant life.

I don't know Eric, but I do not think it is wise to assume he has a less
joy-filled and abundant life because he holds certain beliefs.

---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions probably show what I know.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20619
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Clarification: Easter

In response to a lot of email I've gotten, I need to clarify my position.

I am not in favor of paganism.

I am not in favor of the Easter Bunny or other non-Christian aspects of
Easter as presently celebrated.  (Incidentally, Easter eggs are not
non-Christian; they are a way of ending the Lenten fast.)

My point was to distinguish between
  (1) intentionally worshipping a pagan deity, and
  (2) doing something which may once have had pagan associations, but
nowadays is not understood or intended as such.

Many people who are doing (2) are being accused of (1).

It would be illogical to claim that one is "really" worshipping a
pagan deity without knowing it.  Worship is a matter of intention.
One cannot worship without knowing that one is doing so.
-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20620
From: halat@panther.bears (Jim Halat)
Subject: Re: Prophetic Warning to New York City

I just started reading the group. I was wondering if someone
could re-post exactly what the Prophetic Warning to NYC was.

Thanks
-jh

[I suggest sending it to him via email with a cc to me.  I'll hold
it in my files in case someone else needs it.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20621
From: JBF101@psuvm.psu.edu
Subject: same-sex marriages

There has been some talk recently of Latin rites from the early Church used to
bless same-sex unions.If anyone has any idea where copies of these rites
exist (in whole or in part), please notify me by e-mail.  (I understand that
similar ceremonies written in Slavonic exist as well.  Let me know where I can
find these.)  It doesn't matter whether the Latin rite is in the original or a
translation.  However, I would prefer to have an English version of the Slavon-
ic rite, if it exists.  Thanks in advance.

Doug Hayes @ PSU

[We've had questions about this in the past.  The only source I know
of is claims by John Boswell in some talks.  He is said to be working
on publication, but as far as I know, nothing is published yet.  I
haven't heard of any other source.  If anyone knows of another source,
please tell us.  But I think we're going to have to wait for Boswell's
publication to appear in order to see what he's really talking about.
--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20622
From: wagner@grace.math.uh.edu (David Wagner)
Subject: Re: Eternity of Hell (was Re: Hell)

"Darius" == Darius Lecointe <dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu> writes:

Darius> vic@mmalt.guild.org (Vic Kulikauskas) writes:

Darius> Let me suggest this.  Maybe those who believe in the eternal
Darius> hell theory should provide all the biblical evidence they can
Darius> find for it.  Stay away from human theories, and only take
Darius> into account references in the bible.

Like most topics, we've been through this one before, but here is
a good start:  Matthew 25:46:

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous
to eternal life."

I may post more on this subject when I have more time.  In any
case, it is clear that the fate of the damned is most unpleasant,
and to be avoided.

David Wagner			"Sola Scriptura!"
a confessional Lutheran

[I'd like to suggest that discussions based on single quotations
are a bad way to proceed.  There are passages consistent with
either theory.  The sensible way to proceed is to look at them
all, and see if we can come up with a view that encompasses all
of them.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20623
From: wquinnan@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Malcusco)
Subject: Re: A question that has bee bothering me.

In article <Apr.11.01.02.39.1993.17790@athos.rutgers.edu> atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez) writes:

>  Religious people are threatened by science because it has been systematically
>removing the physical "proofs" of God's existence.  As time goes on we have to
>rely more and more on faith and the spiritual world to relate to God becuase
>science is removing our props.  I don't think this is a bad thing.
>
	First of all, I resent your assumption that you know why I
am threatened by science, or even that I am threatened at all,
although I admit the latter.  The reason I am threatened by Science
has nothing to do with my need for proof of my Lord's existence--
God reveals Himself in many ways, including, to some degree,
Science.

	My problem with Science is that often it allows us to
assume we know what is best for ourselves.  God endowed us
with the ability to produce life through sexual relations,
for example, but He did not make that availible to everyone.
Does that mean that if Science can over-ride God's decision
through alterations, that God wills for us to have the power
to decide who should and should not be able to have 
children?  Should men be allowed to have babies, if that
is made possible.

	People have always had the ability to end lives
unnaturally, and soon may have the ability to bring lives
into the world unnaturally.  The closest thing to artificially
created life is artificially created death, and as God
has reserved judgement about when people should die to
Himself, I believe we should rely on God's wisdom about how
people should be brought in to the world.

	This is not to say that I reject all forms of
medical treatment, however.  Treatment that alleviates
pain, or prevents pain from occuring, is perfectly
acceptable, I believe, as it was acceptable for Jesus
to cure the sick.  However, treatment that merely 
prolongs life for no reason, or makes unnecessary 
alterations to the body for mere aesthetic purposes,  
go too far.  Are we not happy with the beauty God
gave us?

	I cannot draw a solid line regarding where I
would approve of Scientific study, and where I would not,
but I will say this:  Before one experiments with the
universe to find out all its secrets, one should ask
why they want this knowledge.  Before one alters the body
they have been given, they should ask themseles why their
body is not satisfactory too them as it is.  I cannot
make any general rules that will cover all the cases, but
I will say that each person should pray for guidance
when trying to unravel the mysteries of the universe, and
should cease their unravelling if they have reason to 
believe their search is displeasing to God.

			---Malcusco

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20624
From: mayne@ds3.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne)
Subject: Re: Ancient Books

In article <Apr.13.00.09.02.1993.28445@athos.rutgers.edu> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>[Any former atheists converted by argument?}
>This is an excellent question and I'll be anxious to see if there are
>any such cases.  I doubt it.  In the medieval period (esp. 10th-cent.
>when Aquinas flourished) argument was a useful tool because everyone
>"knew the rules."  Today, when you can't count on people knowing even
>the basics of logic or seeing through rhetoric, a good argument is
>often indistinguishable from a poor one.

The last sentence is ironic, since so many readers of
soc.religion.christian seem to not be embarrassed by apologists such as
Josh McDowell and C.S. Lewis. The above also expresses a rather odd sense
of history. What makes you think the masses in Aquinas' day, who were
mostly illiterate, knew any more about rhetoric and logic than most people
today? If writings from the period seem elevated consider that only the
cream of the crop, so to speak, could read and write. If everyone in
the medieval period "knew the rules" it was a matter of uncritically
accepting what they were told.

Bill Mayne

[This may be unfair to Lewis.  The most prominent fallacy attributed
to him is the "liar, lunatic, and lord".  As quoted by many
Christians, this is a logical fallacy.  In its original context, it
was not.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20625
From: fox@graphics.cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Subject: Re: Pantheism & Environmentalism

In article <Apr.13.00.08.04.1993.28376@athos.rutgers.edu> mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:

   In article <Apr.12.03.44.17.1993.18833@athos.rutgers.edu> heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:

   >	I realize I'm entering this discussion rather late, but I do
   >have one question. Wasn't it a Reagan appointee, James Watt, a
   >pentacostal christian (I think) who was the secretary of the interior
   >who saw no problem with deforestation since we were "living in the
   >last days" and ours would be the last generation to see the redwoods
   >anyway?

   I heard the same thing, but without confirmation that he actually said it.
   It was just as alarming to us as to you; the Bible says that nobody knows
   when the second coming will take place.

Nor does it say that if you *do* find out when it will happen you
should rape everything in sight just before.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20626
From: shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article <Apr.13.00.08.35.1993.28412@athos.rutgers.edu> caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin) writes:
>vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.) writes:
>>In article <Apr.10.05.32.29.1993.14388@athos.rutgers.edu> caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin) writes:
>> > ...
>> >
>> >Are all truths also absolutes?
>> >Is all of scripture truths (and therefore absolutes)?
>> >
>> The answer to both questions is yes.
>
>Perhaps we have different definitions of absolute then.  To me,
>an absolute is something that is constant across time, culture,
>situations, etc.  True in every instance possible.  Do you agree
>with this definition?  I think you do:
>
>> Similarly, all truth is absolute.  Indeed, a non-absolute truth is a 
>> contradiction in terms.  When is something absolute?  When it is always
>> true.  Obviously, if a "truth" is not always "true" then we have a
>> contradiction in terms.  

I agree with Carol here.  Determining absolutes is, practically speaking, a
waste of time.  And we easily forget that relative truth is, in fact relative.

For example, I recently was asking some children the question "What temperature
does water boil at?"  I got the answer 212 degrees consistently.  I asked
if they knew what scale, and was told "It's just 212 degrees.  Any scale.
That's what all thermometers say."  Well, that's sincere, and may be
true in the experience of the speaker, but it is simply wrong.  IT is NOT
an absolute truth.  Similarly, Scripture is full of Truth, which we should
nurture and cherish, but trying to determine which parts are Absolute Truth
and which parts are the manifestations of that in the context of the time
and culture in which the text was penned is missing the point.  Then religion
easily becomes an intellectual head-trip, devoid of the living experience of 
the indwelling Trinity and becomes dead scholasticism, IMO.
 
[example of head-covering in Church deleted]

This was a good example.  There may be an Absolute Truth behind the
writing, but the simplest understanding of the passage is that the
instructions apply to the Corinthians, and not necessarily elsewhere.
The instructions may reflect Absolute Truth in the context of first
century culture and the particular climate at Corinth, which was having
a LOT of trouble with order. Is it Absolute Truth to me?  No.  And I 
see no compelling, or even reasonable, reason that it should be.
 
>Evangelicals are clearly not taking this particular part of scripture 
>to be absolute truth.  (And there are plenty of other examples.)
>Can you reconcile this?

Even the most die-hard literalists do not take all of the Bible literally.
I've yet to meet anyone who takes the verse "blessed is he who takes your
babies and smashes their heads against the rocks" literally.  The Bible
was not printed or handed to us by God with color codings to tell us
what parts should be interpreted which way. 
 
>> Many people claim that there are no absolutes in the world.  Such a
>> statement is terribly self-contradictory.  Let me put it to you this
>> way.  If there are no absolutes, shouldn't we conclude that the statement,
>> "There are no absolutes" is not absolutely true?  Obviously, we have a
>> contradiction here.
>
>I don't claim that there are *no* absolutes.  I think there are very
>few, though, and determining absolutes is difficult.

I agree.  Very few.  And even if we knew them, personally, we may not be 
able to express that in a way that still conveys Absolute Truth to another.
The presence of absence of Absolutes may not make any difference, since I
know I can never fully apprehend an Absolute if it walks up and greets me.
>
>> >There is hardly consensus, even in evangelical 
>> >Christianity (not to mention the rest of Christianity) regarding 
>> >Biblical interpretation.
>> 
>> So?  People sometimes disagree about what is true. This does not negate 
>> the fact, however, that there are still absolutes in the universe.  

I can't prove the existence of absolutes.  I can only rely upon MY experience.
I also trust God's revelation that WE cannot fully comprehend the infinite.
Therefore we can't comprehend the Absolutes.  So I don't need them.  
I can never know the essence of God, only the energies by and through which
God is manifested to God's creation.  So the reality can be that there ARE
absolutes, but it is of no practical importance.  It's like claiming that the
original scriptural autographs were perfect, but copies may not be.  Swell.
Who cares?  It doesn't affect me in any practical useful way.  I might as 
well believe that God has made a lot of electric blue chickens, and that they
live on Mars.  Maybe God did.  So what? Is that going to have ANY effect on 
how I deal with my neighbor, or God?  Whether or not I go to this or that
cafeteria for lunch?  No.  

This attitude leads many non-Christians to believe that ALL Christians
are arrogant idiots incapable of critical reasoning.  Christianity is true,
wonderful and sensible.  It appeals to Reason, since Reason is an inner
reflection of the Logos of God.  Explanations that violate that simply
appear to be insecure authoritarian responses to a complex world.

NOTE:  I'm NOT claiming there is no place for authority. That'd be silly.
       There IS a world of difference between authoritative and authoritarian.
       Authoritative is en expression of authority that respects others.
       Authoritarian is en expression of authority that fails to do that,
       and is generally agressive.  Good parents (like God) are authoritative.
       Many Christians are simply authoritarian, and, not surprisingly, few 
       adults respond to this treatment.

Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com)
-- 
-------
Lawrence Overacker
Shell Oil Company, Information Center    Houston, TX            (713) 245-2965
llo@shell.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20627
From: jasons@atlastele.com (Jason Smith)
Subject: Re: Atheist's views on Christianity (was: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")

In article <Apr.13.00.08.22.1993.28397@athos.rutgers.edu> trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:
= norris@athena.mit.edu  writes:


[ The discussion begins: why does the universe exist at all?  ]

= 
= Must there be a "why" to this?  I ask because of what you also
=      assume about God-- namely, that He just exists, with no "why"
=      to His existence.  So the question is reversed, "Why can't
=      we assume the universe just exists as you assume God to
=      "just exist"?  Why must there be a "why" to the universe?"

One of the Laws of Nature, specifying cause and effect seems to dictate 
(at least to this layman's mind) there must be a causal event.  No
reasonable alternative exists.

As far as I can tell, the very laws of nature demand a "why".  That isn't
true of something outside of nature (i.e., *super*natural).

[ ... ]

= 
= It may be that one day man not only can create life but can also
=      create man.  Now, I don't see this happening in my lifetime,
=      nor do I assert it is probable.  But the possibility is there,
=      given scientists are working hard at "decoding" out "genetic
=      code" to perhaps help cure disease of a genetic variation.
=      Again, though, must there be "why" or a "divine prupose" to
=      man's existence?

I believe the "genetic code" will be entirely deciphered in our lifetimes,
but we will not see man convert entirely inert material into self sustaining, 
reproducing life, *ever*.  (I've never been much of a prophet, though. I
can't even *picture* New York in my mind 8^] ).  I don't believe *any*
technology would be able to produce that necessary *spark* of life, despite
having all of the parts available. Just my opinion.

= 
= > When you say that man is *only* an animal, I have to think that you are
= > presenting an unprovable statement -- a dogma, if you will.  And one
= > the requires a kind of "faith" too.   By taking such a hard line in
= > your atheism, you may have stumbled into a religion of your own.
= 
= As far as we can tell, man falls into the "mammal" catagory.  Now,
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That preposition sort of precludes an absolute, doesn't it?  Without an 
absolute conclusion, what are we left with?  I believe the word "faith"
works nicely.

=      if there were something more to the man (say, a soul), then
=      we have yet to find evidence of such.  But as it is now, man
=      is a mammal (babies are born live, mother gives milk, we're
=      warm-blooded, etc.) as other mammals are and is similar in
=      genetic construction to some of them (in particular, primates).
=      For more on this check out talk.origins.
= 
= > But before you write off all Christianity as phony and shallow, I hope
= > you'll do a little research into its history and varieties, perhaps by
= > reading Paul Johnson's "A History of Christianity".  From your remarks,
= > it seems that you have been exposed to certain types of Christian
= > religion and not others.  Even an atheist should have enough faith in
= > Man to know that a movement of 2000 years has to have some depth, and
= > be animated by some enduring values.
= 
= Well, then, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Judaism,
=      Zoerasterism, Shintoism, and Islam should fit this bit of logic
=      quite nicely... :-)  All have depth, all have enduring values,
=      thus all must be true...

Well then, with an *equal* scale, and under an *equal* standard, investigate
them all, and discover where God is ( or *whether* he is, for the denial of
God is ultimately a statement of faith, non-falsifiable as His existence 
may be). 

For isn't this the purpose of religion - to discover, and in discovery, to
*know* God?

You don't mind if a few of us send up a prayer on your behalf during your
research, do you?  After all, if we of Christ are deluding ourselves, you
really have nothing to worry about, eh?

Until the King returns,

Jason


-- 
Jason D. Smith  	|
jasons@atlastele.com	|    I'm not young enough to know everything.
     1x1        	| 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20628
From: mhsu@lonestar.utsa.edu (Melinda . Hsu   )
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

>They believe the danger is real, but others may not.
>
>Does that mean that the first group are NECESSARILY arrogant in warning
>others of the danger? Does it mean that they are saying that their beliefs
>are correct, and all others are false?
>
>Some might indeed react to opposition with arrogance, and behave in an
>arrogant manner, but that is a personal idiocyncracy. It does not
>necessarily mean that they are all arrogant.

No the members of the first group are not necessarily
arrogant.  But when I ask them if they are absolutely certain
that the volcano will erupt, I expect them to say so "No,
but I've chosen to believe some knowledgable people who have
determined that the volcano will erupt," rather than, "Yes, I am
absolutely certain."  When it comes to religious discussions,
arrogance or at best naivete is reflected in the latter type of
statement.

| Louis J. Kim                      ---  _ O                PH:512-522-5556 |
| Southwest Research Institute    ---  ,/  |\/'            FAX:512-522-3042 |
| Post Office Drawer 28510      ----      |__                 lkim@swri.edu |
| San Antonio, TX 78228-0510   ----    __/   \    76450.2231@compuserve.com |


-- 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20629
From: shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker)
Subject: Re: SSPX schism ?

In article <Apr.13.00.09.07.1993.28452@athos.rutgers.edu> simon@giaeb.cc.monash.edu.au (simon shields) writes:
>Hi All
>
>Hope you all had a Blessed Easter. I have a document which I believe
>refutes the notion that the SSPX (Society of Saint Pius X) is in
>schism, or that there has been any legitimate excommunication. If
>anyone is interested in reading the truth about this matter please
>email me and I'll send them the document via email. Its 26 pages long,
>so I wont be posting it on the news group.

I may be interesting to see some brief selections posted to the net.
My understanding is that SSPX does not consider ITSELF in schism
or legitimately excommunicated.  But that's really beside the point.
What does the Roman Catholic church say?  Excommunication can be
real apart from formal excommunication, as provided for in canon law.

After all we Orthodox don't cinsider ourselves schismatic or
excommunicated.  But the Catholic Church considers us dissident.

If this is inappropriate for this group or beyond the charter,
I'm sure OFM will let us know.

Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com)
-- 
-------
Lawrence Overacker
Shell Oil Company, Information Center    Houston, TX            (713) 245-2965
llo@shell.com

[I think it's within the charter.  Whether this is actually the best
group in which to discuss it is up to the people concerned.  I am not
interested in having this reinvoke the general Catholic/Protestant
polemics, but I don't see why it should -- the issue is primarily one
specific to Catholics.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20630
From: bassili@cs.arizona.edu (Amgad Z. Bassili)
Subject: Need a book

I appreciate if anyone can point out some good books about the dead sea
scrolls of Qumran. Thanks in advance.

Please reply by e-mail at <bassili@cs.arizona.edu>

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20631
From: HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com
Subject: Re: What did Lazarus smell like?

In article <Apr.10.05.31.34.1993.14365@athos.rutgers.edu>
rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe) writes:
 
>
>My guess is that the "Lazarus, come out!" was also for the sake of the
>crowd.
 
I read somewhere, I think in Morton Smith's _Jesus the Magician_, that
old Lazarus wasn't dead, but going in the tomb was part of an initiation
rite for a magi-cult, of which Jesus was also a part.   It appears that
a 3-day stay was normal.   I wonder .... ?

[I haven't read that book, but another one by Smith in which similar
claims were made about Jesus.  While I'm sure Smith knows more about
early Chrisitanity than I do, I found his arguments similar to those
of books like "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" -- building conjectures on top
of other conjectures.  There was no direct evidence.  If you'd like
to summarize the argument for us, I'd be happy to see it.  But in
doing so, I'd like you to pay careful attention to the nature of
the evidence.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20632
From: aaronc@athena.mit.edu (Aaron Bryce Cardenas)
Subject: Re: Questions from a newbie

Jerry Kaufman writes:

>The Bible says that He looks on the heart as the
>final measure. From that perspective, in a grading context, the heart is
>the final test.

Very true.  One might also say that life is an Open Book Test.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20633
From: rgolder@hoh.mbl.edu (Robert Golder)
Subject: Re: Pantheism & Environmentalism

In article <Apr.13.00.08.04.1993.28376@athos.rutgers.edu>, 
mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:
> 
> In article <Apr.12.03.44.17.1993.18833@athos.rutgers.edu> 
heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:
> >
> >	I realize I'm entering this discussion rather late, but I do
> >have one question. Wasn't it a Reagan appointee, James Watt, a
> >pentacostal christian (I think) who was the secretary of the interior
> >who saw no problem with deforestation since we were "living in the
> >last days" and ours would be the last generation to see the redwoods
> >anyway?
> 
> I heard the same thing, but without confirmation that he actually said it.
> It was just as alarming to us as to you; the Bible says that nobody knows
> when the second coming will take place.
> 
> -- 
> :-  Michael A. Covington

I do recall Watt making a comment to this effect, though it was quite a few
years back and I can't cite the specifics.  I also recall that Cecil Andrus, who
was Secretary of the Interior during the Carter Administration, responded
to Watt's comments by pointing out the stewardship role that God gave
to man, as recorded in Genesis.  Which makes me wonder: who are the
true conservatives?  It seems to me that a *conservative* should want to
*conserve* things of value for long-term societal benefit.  This form of
*conservation* should logically extend to the physical environment in 
which people live, as well as the moral environment in which they relate
to one another and to God.

IMHO, Watt's stewardship status is not enhanced by the fact that he served 
on the board of directors for Jim Bakker's organization, during a time in 
which Bakker committed criminal acts which eventually landed Bakker 
in federal prison.

Bob
rgolder@hoh.mbl.edu
Just another Baptist...

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20634
From: kwyatt@ccscola.columbiasc.ncr.com (Kershner Wyatt)
Subject: Re: quality of Catholic liturgy

In article <Apr.13.00.08.27.1993.28403@athos.rutgers.edu> creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps) writes:
>In article <Apr.10.05.30.16.1993.14313@athos.rutgers.edu> jemurray@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John E Murray) writes:
>
>   On Palm Sunday at our parish, we were "invited" to take the role of
>Jesus in the Passion.  I declined to participate.  Last year at the
>liturgy meeting I pointed out how we crucify Christ by our sins, so
>therefore it is appropriate that we retain the role of the crowd, but
>to no avail.
>
>>musicians, readers, and so on.  New things are introduced in the course of the
>>liturgy and since no one knows what's happening, the new things have to be
>>explained, and pretty soon instead of _doing_ a lot of the Mass we're just
>>sitting there listening (or spacing out, in my case) to how the Mass is about
>>to be done.  In my mind, I lay the blame on liturgy committees made up of lay
>>people to be aware of the Lord's presence.

As a former Catholic and now as a very active Lutheran - it is some of the
"innovations" of the Mass which made me leave the Catholic Church and return
to the more traditional Catholic Chuch - the Lutherans.

I spent many years as a Lector reading the Passion parts as appropriate in
the Catholic Church and I found it very meaningful.  Our Lutheran parish just
instituted the "Tenebrae" service for Good Friday and I was the lector for 
a paraphrased Passion which was exceptional.  I heard and learned things
that I have previously overlooked in the Gospels - yet those "facts" were
always there.  As a matter of interest, the pastor and I were talking about
the differences between the RC and Lutheran Church during Holy Week over
breakfast Easter Sunday.
>
>   As a member of a liturgy committee, I can tell you that the problem
>is certain people dominating, who want to try out all kinds of
>innovations.  The priests don't seem even to _want_ to make any
>decisions of their own in many cases.  I guess it's easier to "try
>something new" than it is to refuse to allow it.

My wife is the member of the liturgy committee in the family (called music
and worship at our church).  Our pastor does have control of this committee
but listens very carefully to the committee's suggestions.  It needs a strong
hand to lead and guide, to keep the intent and the message clear and strong
as it should be through Lent and the rest of the liturgical year.  Additional
reason for my leaving the Catholic faith - lack of any selfless spiritual
guidance by priests in my parishes.  AKA "wishy-washy".
 
As you may gather from my comments, I feel that it is very important, ir-
regardless of denominational guidelines, to have a service/Mass which promotes
the true reason that we are gathered there.  I am quite comfortable in a
traditional Mass, with receiving Holy Communion on the tongue, the Sacrament
of PENANCE (not Reconciliation), Stations of the Cross, so on and so forth.
The reason other types of Masses and parishes exist is because these feelings
are not shared by everyone.

I want more people to attend church and to find the Lord, but I don't want 
them attending a show.  It's not.  My church works hard to have a meaningful
service during Lent on Wednesdays, but follow traditional Lutheran Book of
Worship guidelines.  Where things are changed or omitted during Lent (such
as the Hymn of Praise) it is noted so that we are aware of the reasons that it
is Not there.

Quite frankly, it is very hard for a non-Catholic to go to a Mass and "fit in".
My dear wife never could (former Methodist).  And Holy Week Masses and Vigils
would intimidate the daylights out of a non-Catholic.  Those Catholics who
have beared with me this far understand what I mean.

Please keep in mind why we are there - to gather together in worship.  Not
to worry about how something is done or not done.  If there is something
wrong that you feel needs addressing, by all means talk to your priest or
pastor.  I have only ever met one who wouldn't listen.  They are there to 
provide spiritual guidance and to help.  Use them.  My differences with
the Catholic Church are much more fundamental - but my decision to change
faiths was done with prayer, intervention, and sessions with priests and
ministers.

In Christ,
Kershner
-- 
Kershner Wyatt
kwyatt@ccscola.ColumbiaSC.ncr.com

My opinions are my own and aren't necessarily my employer's.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20635
From: sciysg@nusunix1.nus.sg (Yung Shing Gene)
Subject: Mission Aviation Fellowship

Hi,
	Does anyone know anything about this group and what they
do? Any info would be appreciated. Thanks!

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20636
From: healta@saturn.wwc.edu (TAMMY R HEALY)
Subject: Re: SDA Doctrinal Distinctives

In article <Mar.17.02.04.45.1993.23612@athos.rutgers.edu> jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher) writes:

|There is a book provided by the SDA which is entitled "The Seventh Day
|Adventist Church believes", or something like that.  It is a basic
|coverage of the 30 ideas that SDA's hold to.  For further info about it,
|please write me later (once I get the actual title and/or copyright
|date) or Celia Chan, cmchan@amber.ucs.indiana.edu, because she first
|"introduced" me to the book (I must also add that she is NOT a member of
|the SDA anymore).

The book is called "27 basic fundamental beliefs" or something very close to 
that.  the number *IS* 27, not 30.  I have a copy at home (i'm away at 
school.)

Tammy

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20637
From: xx155@yfn.ysu.edu (Family Magazine Sysops)
Subject: NATIONAL DAY Of PRAYER


                      The  N A T I O N A L  D A Y
                                  o f
                            P  R  A  Y  E  R

                           6  M A Y  1 9 9 3

           IMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM;
           :                                                :
           :           JOIN AMERICA IN PRAYER TO:           :
           :                                                :
           :     * Acknowledge our dependence upon God;     :
           :                                                :
           :     * Give thanks for His many blessings;      :
           :                                                :
           :     * Ask God to guide our leaders and to      :
           :       bring healing, reconciliation and whole- :
           :       ness to our nation and all its people.   :
           :                                                :
           HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM<

                      OUR FOUNDING FATHERS SAID...

     George Washington:  "I now make it my earnest prayer that God...
         (A.D. 1783)     would be pleased to dispose us all to do
                         justice, to love mercy, and to demean
     ourselves with charity and humility, and a pacific temper of mind,
     which were characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed
     Religion, and without an humble imitation of Whose example in
     these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation."


     John Adams:  "It must be felt that there is no national security
     (A.D. 1853)  but in the nation's humble, acknowledged dependence
                  upon God and His overruling providence."


     Abraham Lincoln:   "It is the duty of nations, as well as of men,
       (A.D. 1863)      to own their dependence upon the overruling
                        power of God, to confess their sins and
     transgressions...and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in
     the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations
     only are blessed whose God is the Lord..."


     NOTE:  You can join with people in your area in observing the
            NATIONAL DAY Of PRAYER.  To learn who is affiliated with
            the Concerts Of Prayer group in your area, contact:

                     Mr. Barry Garred, Coordinator
                     P.O. Box 6637
                     Springdale, ARkansas 72766
                     VOICE:  (501) 756-8421
                     FAX:  (501) 756-0131

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20638
From: shd2001@andy.bgsu.edu (Sherlette Dixon)
Subject: Christianity & Atheism:  an update

First, I would like to thank all who sent me their opinions on the matter
at hand.  All advice was taken to heart, if not directly used.  My friend
found out about the matter quite accidently.  After reading some of my
mail, I quit from the mail reader & went about my business.  I must have
trashed my mail improperly, because he got on the same terminal the next
day & saw my old messages.  He thought they were responses to a post he
placed in alt.atheism earlier that week, so he read some of them before
realizing that they were for me.  I got a message from him the next day; he
apologized for reading my mail & said that he did not want to appear to be
a snoop.  He said that he would be willing to talk to me about his views &
didn't mind doing so, especially with a friend.  So we did.  I neither
changed his mind nor did he change mine, as that was not the point.  Now he
knows where I'm coming from & now I know where he's coming from.  And all
that I can do is pray for him, as I've always done.

I believe the reason that he & I "click" instead of "bash" heads is because
I see Christianity as a tool for revolution, & not a tool for maintaining
the status quo.  To be quite blunt, I have more of a reason to reject God
than he does just by the fact that I am an African-American female. 
Christianity & religion have been used as tools to separate my people from
the true knowledge of our history & the wealth of our contributions to the
world society.  The "kitchen of heaven" was all we had to look forward to
during the slave days, & this mentality & second-class status still exists
today.  I, too, have rejected
an aspect of Christianity----that of the estabished church.  Too much
hypocricy exists behind the walls of "God's house" beginning with the
images of a white Jesus to that of the members:  praise God on Sunday &
raise hell beginning Monday.  God-willing, I will find a church home where
I can feel comfortable & at-home, but I don't see it happening anytime
soon.

Sherlette 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20639
From: mike@nx39.mik.uky.edu (Mike Mattone)
Subject: Re: sex education

Regarding the moral question Jen (jenk@microsoft.com) asked: "Is it
okay to create a child if you aren't able to be a good parent?", I
am reminded of a "speech" by one of the characters (I can't remember
which) in the movie "Parenthood". [I am WAY to liberal with my
quotation marks tonight...]

In this so-called (by me) speech, the character is expressing what 
a lousy father he had and he made an interesting point.  He said
something to the effect of:
"You have to have a license to drive a car.  You have to have a
license to own a dog.  You even have to have a license to fish.
But, they'll anyone have a kid." [Keep in mind that I am, in NO
way, trying to pass this off as a quote.  It is probably GROSSLY
distorted but I think you get the point...]

-Mike Mattone
 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20640
From: mcovingt@aisun2.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: Nature of God (Re: Environmentalism and paganism)

In article <Apr.13.00.08.44.1993.28424@athos.rutgers.edu> heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:
>
>	Fortunately, my own personal theology, which will probably not
>fall into line with a lot others, recognized God as a being both
>without gender and posessing qualities of both genders, as being both
>a masculine and feminine force.

That is not necessarily unorthodox.  When Christians call God 'Father', 
we are using a metaphor.  The Bible in one place refers to God as being
like a mother.  God is neither a father nor a mother in the literal
sense; God has some of the attributes of both; the father metaphor is
usually used because (for most people at most times) it is the less
misleading of the two possibilities.
-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20641
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Subject: Daily Verse

He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will
be my son. 

Revelation 21:7

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20642
From: alvin@spot.Colorado.EDU (Kenneth Alvin)
Subject: Re: Certainty and Arrogance

In article <Apr.13.00.08.33.1993.28409@athos.rutgers.edu> kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
>Dean Velasco quoted a letter from James M Stowell, president of
>Moody Bible Institute:
>
>>  We affirm the absolutes of Scripture, not because we are arrogant
>>  moralists, but because we believe in God who is truth, who has revealed
>>  His truth in His Word, and therefore we hold as precious the strategic
>>  importance of those absolutes."
>
>There has been a lot of discussion, but so far nobody seems to have hit on
>exactly what the criticism of "arrogance" is aimed at.
>
> <lots of stuff deleted>
>
>This is where the "arrogance of Christians" arises: many people believe
>that their own personal research can give them absolute certainty about the
>doctrines of Christianity -- they are implicitly claiming that they are
>infallible, and that there is no possibility of mistake.
>
>Claiming that you CANNOT have made a mistake, and that your thinking has led
>you to a flawless conclusion, is pretty arrogant.

I agree with what Darren has to say here, but would like to add a 
personal observation.  What I see as arrogance and the problem I have 
with it is not a sense of personal certainty, but a lack of respect for
others who come to differing conclusions.  Clearly, this is not just 
Christian vs. Non-Christian; there is a whole spectrum of belief systems
within Christianity.  I do not tend to argue with others about matters
of personal faith because, like aesthetics, it is not demonstable by
objective means.  

Choosing what to believe and rely on are important areas of personal 
sovereignty.  What bothers me is when others suggest that, in these 
matters of faith, their specific beliefs are not only true to them 
but are absolute and should be binding on others.  It follows from this
that God must give everyone the same revelation of truth, and thus 
anyone who comes to a different conclusion is intentionally choosing
the wrong path.  This is the arrogance I see; a lack of respect for the
honest conclusions of others on matters which are between them and God.
Even a personal certainty leaves room for the beliefs of others.  It is
universalizing those matters of personal faith, coupled by a proud
notion that one's relationship with God is superior to other's, that
leads to arrogance.  In my honest (and nonuniversal) opinion. :-)


>Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu
>"At the core of all well-founded belief, lies belief that is unfounded."
>                                                    -- Ludwig Wittgenstein

comments, criticism welcome...
-Ken
alvin@ucsu.colorado.edu

[It is certainly reasonable to ask for some humility about our own
ability to know the truth.  There are also different paths in some
areas of practice.  But I'd like to see more clarification about what
you mean when you reject the idea of saying "their specific beliefs
are not only true to them but are absolute and should be binding on
others."  If something is true, it is true for everyone, assuming that
the belief is something about God, history, etc.  Of course something
of the form "I believe that it's best for me not to xxx" could be true
for some people and not others.  I have suggested in the past that God
may be less concerned about doctrinal agreement than many people are.
But that doesn't mean I doubt that there is a difference between
true and false, nor that I think there is no benefit in finding out
what is true.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20643
From: dsegard@nyx.cs.du.edu (Daniel Segard)
Subject: Re: Easter: what's in a name? (was Re: New Testament Double Stan


  mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:
 > And the same goes for other cultural practices.  The festival
 > of Easter may possibly have some historical association with
 > some pagan festival, but *today* there are, as far as I know,
 > no Christians who *intend* to honor any kind of "pagan
 > goddess" by celebrating Easter.
 
       That argument would be more compelling if it were not for the
Ishtar eggs and Ishtar bunnies.  Why mix pagan fertility symbols from the
worship of the pagan goddess of fertility with Biblical belief?  What
would really be lost if all of you were to just drop the word "Easter" and
replace all such occurances with "Resurrection Sunday"?  Would you not
show up for services if they were called "Resurrection Sunday Services"
rather than "Easter Services"?  

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20644
From: emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery)
Subject: Re: Can sin "block" our prayers?

In article <Apr.12.03.45.11.1993.18872@athos.rutgers.edu> jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas) writes:
>
>This verse also makes me think of the kind of husband who decides what 
>is God's will for his family without consulting his wife.  God reveals 
>His will to both the husband and the wife.  There needs to be some 
>degree of mutuality in decision making.  Even those whose understanding 
>of the Bible leads to a belief in an authoritarian headship of the 
>husband need to incorporate this in order to have a functional family.  
>One way to look at it is that God speaks to the wife through the husband 
>and to the husband through the wife.
>
>
>Jayne Kulikauskas/ jayne@mmalt.guild.org

I agree.  God makes the husband the head of the house.  But he surely
can't do it alone.  He needs the help of his beloved wife whom the
Lord gave him.

At least that's how it is in my house.  I thank God for the beautiful
woman He has brought into my life.  I couldn't lead without the help
of my wonderful wife.


-- 
John Emery		"I will praise you, O Lord my God, with all my heart;
emery@tc.fluke.COM       I will glorify your name forever.  For great is your
			 love toward me; you have delivered me from the
			 depths of the grave."  (Psalm 86:12-13)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20645
From: reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

In article <Apr.13.00.08.56.1993.28439@athos.rutgers.edu>, eggertj@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:

> I disagree with your claim that Jews were not evangelistic (except in
> the narrow sense of the word).  Jewish proselytism was widespread.
> There are numerous accounts of Jewish proselytism, both in the New
> Testament and in Roman and Greek documents of the day.

Jim,

Please feel free to correct me and give me some texts.  As far as I can see the
only text which vaugely relates to jewish evangelism is found in Mt. 23:15.
However since this is found only in Mt. it cannot be dated before 90CE which
makes it unusefull for understanding Second Temple Judaism. 

randy

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20646
From: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jesus in your heart..."

stuff deleted ...

> Religion (especially Christianity) is nothing more than a DRUG.
> Some people use drugs as an escape from reality.  Christians inject
> themselves with jeezus and live with that high. 
 
Your logic is falty.  If Christianity is a DRUG, and once we die we
die, then why would you be reluctant to embrase this drug so that
while you are alive you enjoy yourself.

I also question your overall motives for posting this article.  Why
would you waste your presious fews seconds on this earth posting your
opinon to a group that will generally reject it.

If you die, never having acepting Christ as your savior, I hope you
have a fantastic life that it is all you evver dreamed because it is
al of heaven you will ever know.

In Christ's Love,
Bryan

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20647
From: atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

mhsu@lonestar.utsa.edu (Melinda . Hsu   ) writes:

>I'd like to share my thoughts on this topic of "arrogance of
>Christians" and look forward to any responses.  In my
>encounters with Christians, I find myself dismayed by their
>belief that their faith is total truth.  According to them,
>their beliefs come from the Bible and the bible is the word of
>God and God is truth - thus they know the truth.  This stance
>makes it difficult to discuss other faiths with them and my own
>hesitations about Christianity because they see no other way.
>Their way is the 'truth.'

>But I see their faith arising from a willful choice to believe
>a particular way.  That choice is part faith and part reason,
>but it seems to me a choice.

  >[I'm sort of mystified about how a Christian might respond to this.]

  I'll start with a parable.
 
  A Christian woman hires a carpenter to build her a birdhouse.  When he comes
over, they begin talking about religion.  "So you believe that you understand
God?" he asks.  "Yes, I do," she replies.  "Then have him build you the 
birdhouse."

  I don't think that Melinda is complaining about the basis of Christian 
belief.  However, there is a tendency among Christians to say, "I have all the 
answers because God gave them to me."  This is simply not the case.
  I believe that the Bible is inerrant.  However, our HUMAN interpretations of
the Bible are necessarily in error, because we are human and imperfect.  We
have to remember that we ALL make mistakes in faith, and that because we are
human we have an imperfect understanding of the mind and will of God.  To
claim, as so many people do, that the existence of the Bible allows us to
determine the answers to all questions is to claim that we humans can fully
understand God's will.  This is hubris.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20648
From: mussack@austin.ibm.com (Chris Mussack)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article <Apr.10.05.32.15.1993.14385@athos.rutgers.edu>, dleonar@andy.bgsu.edu
 (Pixie) writes:
> 
>      Do the words "Question Authority" mean anything to you?
> 
>      I defy any theist to reply.      

For all those people who insist I question authority: Why?

Chris Mussack

(This is another example of my biting, raw-edged humor that is
neither appreciated nor understood by everyone.)
#8;-)>  {Messy hair, glasses, winking, smiling, big chin}

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20649
From: sschaff@roc.slac.stanford.edu (Stephen F. Schaffner)
Subject: Re: Ancient Books

In article <Apr.10.05.32.47.1993.14396@athos.rutgers.edu>, 
whheydt@pbhya.pacbell.com (Wilson Heydt) writes:

|> As for the dating of the oldest extant texts of the NT....  How would
|> you feel about the US Civil War in a couple of thousand years if the
|> only extant text was written about *now*?  Now adjust for a largely
|> illiterate population, and one in which every copy of a manuscript is
|> done by hand....

Considerably better than I feel about, say, the Punic Wars, or the 
Peloponnesian War (spelling optional), or almost any other event in 
classical history.  How close to the events do you think the oldest 
extent manuscripts are in those cases?

-- 
Steve Schaffner        sschaff@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
	The opinions expressed may be mine, and may not be those of SLAC, 
Stanford University, or the DOE.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20650
From: eng10205@nusunix1.nus.sg (LING SIEW WEE)
Subject: ONLINE BIBLE as bible study

Hello, I am about to embark on a bible study on ACTS. I have online
bible software with me. I would like to know the the background of the
authors of its various topics articles and about the author of the
People's New Testament. I need to know how realible is the articles in
the Online Bible software. Specifically (for your convenience) I want to
know about the :


		1. Darby Translation ( I have never heard of this one)
		2. Young's Literal Translation (I have also never heard
of)
		3. The realiability of the Hebrew/Greek Lexicon
		4. The authors (from which denomination etc) of the
articles in the TOPICS modules.
		5. The realiability of the Treasury of Scripture
Knowlege ( as I have never heard of too) 
		6. Who are the commentators, Scofield and B.W. Johnson
who wrote the Scofield Reference Bible and the People's New Testament respectively 
		7. The realiability of the Strong numbers.

I will be most happy to receive a reply of any of you who knows about
the above. Also, please 'qualify' yourself so that I may know that I am
not receiving a 'rubbish' letter. I just want to make sure.            

Wilfred Ling

	
--
***********************************************************************
*Name	    : Wilfred Ling Siew Wee   | National University of S'pore *
*Internet   : eng10205@nusunix.nus.sg | Electrical Engineering        *
*Bitnet	    : eng10205@nusvm.bitnet   |                               *
*********************************************************************** 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20651
From: sbuckley@sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

dleonar@andy.bgsu.edu (Pixie) writes:


>                                       Unfaithfully yours,

>                                       Pixie


>     p.s.  If you do sincerely believe that a god exists, why do you follow
>it blindly?  

>     Do the words "Question Authority" mean anything to you?

>     I defy any theist to reply.      

  o.k.  i don't follow god "blindly".  once, long ago, i questioned authority
to such a rabid point that i found question_authority=reject_authority_
_unquestioningly.  i question authority all the time.  but to forever
question is fruitless...eventually we have to consider whether there are
answers to the questions, whether the "authority" {say, the bible in this
case} has validity.  basically to question authority does not necessarily
mean reject authority.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20652
From: cctr114@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Rea)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

Carol Alvin (caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com) wrote:

> In the New Testament (sorry I don't have a Bible at work, and can't
> provide a reference), women are instructed to be silent and cover
> their heads in church.  Now, this is scripture.  By your definition, 
> this is truth and therefore absolute.  
>
>Do women in your church speak?  Do they cover their heads?  If all 
>scripture is absolute truth, it seems to me that women speaking in and 
>coming to church with bare heads should be intolerable to evangelicals.  
>Yet, clearly, women do speak in evangelical churches and come with bare 
>heads.  (At least this was the case in the evangelical churches I grew 
>up in.)
>
>Evangelicals are clearly not taking this particular part of scripture 
>to be absolute truth.  (And there are plenty of other examples.)
>Can you reconcile this?

The problem you see here is that some Christians claim things about
the Bible which they don't actually believe or practice. I've known
all sorts of Christians, ranging from the trendiest of liberals to
the fire-breathing fundamentalists, and although many on the 
conservative side of the Christian faith do claim that the Bible is
a (perhaps *the*) source of absolute truth, I don't know of anyone
who treats it as anything other than a valuable part of a living tradition.
While I am not a Roman Catholic, I believe this is close to the official
position of the RC church (perhaps an RC would like to comment).

The particular practice you refer to will usually be explained in
terms of the social context of the time. You would think the fact 
that the conservatives seem to have to break out the tophat-and-cane 
and give you some big song-and-dance routine about why this 
(other passages as well) aren't directly applicable today would 
show them that what they claim about the Bible and what they 
actually practice are two different things, but mostly it doens't.

While this thread is supposed to be about the arrogance of Christians,
I would suggest that some of the problem is really hypocrasy, in this
case, making claims about the Bible which the claimants don't actually
put into practice. But if we step back from the name-calling and
look at what people are attempting to say, we see that they are trying
to express very concisely the unique place the Bible holds within the
Christian faith. So when people use such words or phrases as "Word of
God", "inerrant", "infallibale", "The Manufacturer's Handbook", "The
only rule of faith and practice in the church today" to describe the
Bible, we should try to hear what they are saying and not just look at
the mere words they use. Some of the above descriptions are demostratably
false and others are self-contradictory, but in my experience people are
generally pretty good at picking out the intention of the speaker even
when the speaker's words are at variance with their intentions. A Biblical
example is from the garden of Eden where God asks "Where are you?" and Adam
explains that he was naked and afraid and hid himself. If Adam had
answered God's words he would have said something like "I'm here in this
tree." The problem seems to arise when Christians insist that these
words are indeed accurate reflections of their beleif. Most people
have not made a determined effort to work out their own understanding of
the place of the Bible within their own faith and so rely on the phrases
and explanations that others use.

I hope this helps.
--
                                                                     ___
Bill Rea                                                            (o o)
-------------------------------------------------------------------w--U--w---
| Bill Rea, Computer Services Centre, | E-Mail   b.rea@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| University of Canterbury,           | or     cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| Christchurch, New Zealand           | Phone (03)-642-331 Fax (03)-642-999 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20653
From: oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

In article <Apr.10.05.33.59.1993.14428@athos.rutgers.edu> mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:
>The two historic facts that I think the most important are these:
>
>(1) If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then he must have done something
>else equally impressive, in order to create the observed amount of impact.
>
>(2) Nobody ever displayed the dead body of Jesus, even though both the
>Jewish and the Roman authorities would have gained a lot by doing so
>(it would have discredited the Christians).
>
>-- 
>:-  Michael A. Covington         internet mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :    *****
>:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs       phone 706 542-0358 :  *********
>:-  The University of Georgia                fax 706 542-0349 :   *  *  *
>:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

And the two simplest refutations are these:

(1)  What impact?  The only record of impact comes from the New Testament.
I have no guarantee that its books are in the least accurate, and that
the recorded "impact" actually happened.  I find it interesting that no other
contemporary source records an eclipse, an earthquake, a temple curtain
being torn, etc.  The earliest written claim we have of Jesus' resurrection
is from the Pauline epistles, none of which were written sooner than 20 years
after the supposed event.

(2)  It seems probable that no one displayed the body of Jesus because no
one knew where it was.  I personally believe that the most likely
explanation was that the body was stolen (by disciples, or by graverobbers).
Don't bother with the point about the guards ... it only appears in one
gospel, and seems like exactly the sort of thing early Christians might make
up in order to counter the grave-robbing charge.  The New Testament does
record that Jews believed the body had been stolen.  If there were really
guards, they could not have effectively made this claim, as they did.

-Scott O.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20654
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Eternity of Hell (was Re: Hell)

In article <Apr.13.00.09.04.1993.28448@athos.rutgers.edu> dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:
[insert deletion of unnecessary quote]

>Why is it that we have this notion that God takes some sort of pleasure
>from punishing people?  The purpose of hell is to destroy the devil and
>his angels.

First of all, God does not take any sort of pleasure from punishing
people.  He will have mercy on whom he will have mercy and compassion on
whom he will have compassion (Ex 33:19).  However, if he enjoyed
punishing people and sending them to hell, then why would he send Jesus
to "seek and save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10)?

>
>To the earlier poster who tried to support the eternal hell theory with
>the fact that the fallen angels were not destroyed, remember the Bible
>teaches that God has reserved them until the day of judgement.  Their
>judgement is soon to come.
>
>Let me suggest this.  Maybe those who believe in the eternal hell theory
>should provide all the biblical evidence they can find for it.  Stay away
>from human theories, and only take into account references in the bible.
>
You asked for it.

2 Peter 2:4-ff talks about how those who are ungodly are punished.
Matthew 25:31-46 is also very clear that those who do not righteous in
God's eyes will be sent to hell for eternity.
2 Thessalonians 1:6-10 states that those who cause trouble for the
disciples "will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out
from the presence of the Lord".
2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 talks about those who refuse to love the truth
being condemned.
Revelation 21:6-8 talks about the difference between those who overcomes
and those who do not.  Those who do not, listed in verse 8, will be in
the "fiery lake of burning sulfur".
Revelation 14:9-12 gives the indication that those who follow the beast
"will be tormented with burning sulfur" and there being "no rest day or
night" for them because of it.
Psalm 9:17:  "The wicked return to the grave, all the nations that
forget God."

I think those should be sufficient to prove the point.

>Darius

Joe Fisher

[In the following I'm mostly playing "devil's advocate".  I'm not
advocating either position.  My concern is that people understand that
it's possible to see these passages in different ways.  It's possible
to see eternal destruction as just that -- destruction.  Rev often
uses the term "second death".  The most obvious understanding of that
would seem to be final extinction.  The problem is that the NT speaks
both of eternal punishment and of second death.  I.e. it uses terms
that can be understood either way.  My concern here is not to convince
you of one view or the other, but to help people understand that
there's a wide enough variety of images that it's possible to
understand them either way.  As Tom Albrecht commented, the primary
point is to do our best to keep people out of the eternal fire,
whatever the details.  (To make things more interesting, Luke 20:35
implies that the damned don't get resurrected at all.  Presumably
they just stay dead. -- yes I'm aware that it's possible to 
understand this passage in a non-literal way.)

2 Peter 2:4-ff is talking about angels, and talks about holding them
in hell until the final judgement.  This isn't eternal punishement.

Matthew 25:31-46 talks about sending the cursed into eternal fire
prepared for the devil and his angels.  The fact that the fire is
eternal doesn't mean that people will last in its flames forever.
Particularly interesting is the comment about the fire having been
prepared for the devil and his angels.  Rev 20 and 21 talk about the
eternal fire as well.  They say that the beast and the false prophet
will be tormented forever in it.  When talking about people being
thrown into it (20:13-14), it is referred to as "the second death".
This sounds more like extinction than eternal torment.  Is is possible
that the fire has different effects on supernatural entities such as
the devil, and humans?

2 Thessalonians 1:6-10 similarly, what is "everlasting destruction"?
This is not necessarily eternal torment.  This one can clearly be
understood either way, but I think it's at least possible to think
that everlasting is being used to contrast the kind of destruction
that can occur in this life with the final destruction that occurs in
eternity.

2 Thessalonians 2:8 again talks about destruction.
Revelation 21:6-8: see comment above
Revelation 14:9-12 is probably the best of the quotes.  Even there,
it doesn't explicitly say that the people suffer forever.  It says
that the smoke (and presumably the fire) is eternal, and that 
there is no respite from it.  But it doesn't say that the people
are tormented forever.

Psalm 9:17:  I don't see that it says anything relevant to this issue.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20655
From: morgan@socs.uts.edu.au
Subject: Re: Prophetic Warning to New York City

In article <Apr.9.01.10.38.1993.16892@athos.rutgers.edu> evensont@spot.Colorado.EDU (EVENSON THOMAS RANDALL) writes:
>In article <Apr.7.01.56.20.1993.22789@athos.rutgers.edu> reid@cs.uiuc.edu (Jon Reid) writes:
>>Deon.Strydom@f7.n7104.z5.fidonet.org (Deon Strydom) writes:
>>
>Which brings me around to asking an open question.  Is the Bible a closed
>book of Scripture?  Is it okay for us to go around saying "God told
>me this" and "Jesus told me that"?  Wouldn't that imply that God is STILL
>pouring out new revelation to us?  I know that some people will feel
>that is okay, and some will not.  The concept of a closed canon would
>certainly cast a shadow on contemporary prophets.  On the other hand,
>an open canon seems to be indicated sometimes.
>

Let's get back to basics.  Canon (from the latin) means a rule.  If
we say that a rule is open then its a rule made to be broken.  
There is an issue also of measurement against a rule.  Thus the words
that are spoken need to be compared against the rule/canon but not
added to the canon.

Is new revelation necessary?  Topical, current, personal revelation
I'd say is necessary.  New revelation for all people for all times
is not necessary as we have that in Scripture.

You also seem to confuse canon with scripture.  Scripture may speak of
itself being open - ie God speaking today.  It would speak that it is
closed in the sense that the canon is unchangeable.  (Though the concept
of canon is later historically.)

>Also interesting to note is that some so called prophecies are nothing new
>but rather an inspired translation of scripture.  Is it right to call
>that prophecy?  Misleading?  Wouldn't that be more having to do with
>knowledge?  I know, the gift of knowledge may not be as exciting to
>talk about, but shouldn't we call a horse a horse?
>

I agree with the problem of confusion.  If prophecy is meant to encourage,
exhort or correct then is an overlap with scripture.  If prophecy is
meant to bring a `word' of the form "the man you live with is not your
husband" then that is knowledge.  Yet the exact words their are scripture.
I would expect the difference to be the motive and means for delivery.
The reading of scripture itself can be a powerful force.

Regards
 David
--
David Morgan| University of Technology Sydney | morgan@socs.uts.edu.au _--_|\
            | Po Box 123 Broadway NSW 2007    | Ph: + 61 2 330 1864   /      \
            | 15-73 Broadway Sydney           | Fax: +61 2 330 1807   \_.--._/
"I paid good money to get my opinions; you get them for free"                v

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20656
From: ruthless@panix.com (Ruth Ditucci)
Subject: Losing your temper is not a Christian trait

Coming from a long line of "hot tempered" people, I know temper when I see
it.  One of the tell tale signs/fruits that give non-christians away - is
when their net replies are acrid, angry and sarcastic.  

We in the net village do have a laugh or two when professed, born again
christians verbally attack people who might otherwise have been won to
christianity and had originally joined the discussions because they were
"spiritually hungry."  Instead of answering questions with sweetness and
sincerity, these chrisitan net-warriors, "flame" the queries. 

You don't need any enemies.  You already do yourselves the greatest harm.

Again I say, foolish, foolish, foolish.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20657
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Certainty and Arrogance

In article <Apr.13.00.08.33.1993.28409@athos.rutgers.edu>
kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
>
>There is no way out of the loop.

Oh contrer mon captitan!  There is a way.  Certainly it is not by human reason.
 Certainly it is not by human experience. (and yet it is both!)  To paraphrase
Sartre, the particular is absurd unless it has an infinite reference point.  It
is only because of God's own revelation that we can be absolute about a thing. 
Your logic comes to fruition in relativism.  
>
>"At the core of all well-founded belief, lies belief that is unfounded."
>                                                    -- Ludwig Wittgenstein

Ah, now it is clear.  Ludwig was a desciple of Russell. Ludwig's fame is often
explained by the fact that he spawned not one but two significant movements in
contemporary philosophy. Both revolve around Tractatus Logico-Philosphicus
('21) and Philosophical Investigation ('53).  Many of Witt's comments and
implicit conclusions suggest ways of going beyond the explicit critique of
language he offers.  According to some of the implicit suggestions of Witt's
thought, ordinary language is an invaluable resource, offering a necessary
framework for the conduct of daily life.  However, though its formal features
remain the same, its content does not and it is always capable of being
transcended as our experience changes and our understanding is deepened, giving
us a clearer picture of what we are and what we wish to say.  On Witt's own
account, there is a dynamic fluidity of language.   It is for this reason that
any critique of language must move from talking about the limits of language to
talking about its boundaries, where a boundary is understood not as a wall but
a threshold.
  vonWrights's comment that Witt's "sentences have a content that often lies
deep beneath the surface of language."  On the surface, Witt talks of the
insuperable position of ordinary language and the necessity of bringing
ourselves to accept it without question.  At the same time, we are faced with
Witt's own creative uses of language and his concern for bringing about changes
in our traditional modes of understanding.  Philosophy, then, through more
perspicacious speech, seeks to effect this unity rather than assuming that it
is already functioning. Yes?  The most brilliant of scientists are unable to
offer a foundation for human speech so long as they reject Christianity! In his
Tractatus we have the well nigh perfect exhibition of the nature of the impasse
of the scientific ideal of exhaustive logical analysis of Reality by man. 
Perfect language does not exist for fallen man, therefore we must get on about
our buisness of relating Truth via ordinary language.

  This is why John's Gospel is so dear to most Christians.  It is so simple in
it conveyance of the revealation of God, yet so full of unlieing depth of
understanding.  He viewed Christ from the OT concept of "as a man thinketh, so
he is."  John looked at the outward as only an indicator of what was inside,
that is the consciousness of Christ.  And so must we.  Words are only vehicals
of truth.  He is truth.  The scriptures are plain in their expounding that
there is a Truth and that it is knowable.  THere are absolutes, and they too
are knowable.  However, they are only knowable when He reveals them to the
individual.  There is, and we shouldn't shy from this, a mysticism to
Christianity.  Paul in ROm 8 says there are 3 men in the world.  There is the
one who does not have the Spirit and therefore can not know the things of the
Spirit (the Spirit of Truth) and there is the one who has the Spirit and has
the capacity to know of the Truth, but there  is the third.  THe one who not
only has the Spirit, but that the Spirit has him! Who can know the deep things
of God and reveal them to us other than the Spirit.  And it is only the deep
things of GOd that are absolute and true.
   There is such a thing as true truth and it is real, it can be experienced
and it is verifiable.  I disagree with Dr Nancy's Sweetie's conclusion because
if it is taken to fruition it leads to relativism which leads to dispair.  

"I would know the words which He would answer me, and understand what He would
say unto me."  Job 23ff

--Rex

suggested, easy reading about epistimology:  "He is there and He is not Silent"
 by Francis Schaeffer.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20658
From: gerhard@vmars.tuwien.ac.at (Gerhard Fohler)
Subject: phone number of wycliffe translators UK

Sorry for bothering with a request almost irrelevant to anyone except for me:
Could some kind soul provide me with the phone number of
wycliffe center
horsley green high wycomb
bucks hp 14 3 xl
I want to surprise a friend of mine staying there, but I don't have the number.

thanks a lot in advance

Gerhard

[Obviously email response is best.  What do people think of requests
like this?  Unless things are very different in the UK and US, it should
be possible to find this out by calling what we call "information".
The netwide cost of a posting is fairly significant.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20659
From: 18669@bach.udel.edu (Steven R Hoskins)
Subject: Some questions from a new Christian

Hi,

I am new to this newsgroup, and also fairly new to christianity. I was
raised as a Unitarian and have spent the better part of my life as an
agnostic, but recently I have developed the firm conviction that the
Christian message is correct and I have accepted Jesus into my life. I am
happy, but I realize I am very ignorant about much of the Bible and
quite possibly about what Christians should hold as true. This I am trying
to rectify (by reading the Bible of course), but it would be helpful
to also read a good interpretation/commentary on the Bible or other
relevant aspects of the Christian faith. One of my questions I would
like to ask is - Can anyone recommend a good reading list of theological
works intended for a lay person?

I have another question I would like to ask. I am not yet affiliated
with any one congregation. Aside from matters of taste, what criteria
should one use in choosing a church? I don't really know the difference
between the various Protestant denominations.

Thanks for reading my post. 

Sincerely,

Steve Hoskins

[Aside from a commentary, you might also want to consider an
introduction.  These are books intended for use in undergraduate Bible
courses.  They give historical background, discussion of literary
styles, etc.  And generally they have good bibligraphies for further
reading.  I typically recommend Kee, Froehlich and Young's NT
introduction.  There are also some good one-volume commentaries.  They
often have background articles that are helpful.  Probably the best
recommendation these days would be Harper's Bible Commentary.  (I
think there may be a couple of books with this title.  This is a
fairly recent one, like about 1990, done in cooperation with the
Society for Biblical Criticism.)  If you are committed to inerrancy,
you will probably prefer something more conservative.  I don't read a
lot of conservative books, but a commentary I looked at by Donald
Guthrie looked rather good.  He has a NT Introduction, and he's also
editor of Eerdman's Bible Commentary.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20660
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5

Someone sent me this FAQ by E-mail and I post my response here.

[I'm not enforcing the inclusion limits on this FAQ because most
of our readers probably haven't seen it.  --clh]

Christ warns that anyone who "breaks one of the least of these
commandments *and* teaches otheres to do the same will be called least in
the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:19.  This FAQ is so full of error that I
must respond to it.  I hope that whoever maintains will remove from it the
partisan theology.

| > Brothers and Sisters,
| > 
| >   Being new to the faith and examining the Decalogue closely, I've noticed the
| > fourth commandment is pretty specific about "keeping the Sabbath day."  It
| > states the 7th day( Saturday ) is the Sabbath while most Christian religions
| > keep( or atleast go to church ) on Sunday.  What's up?
| 
| This is a frequently asked question.  Every time it arises, it causes
| months of debate.  So let me see if I can answer you directly.
| Basically it's because the Law was given to Moses as part of a
| specific covenanent with the Jews.  Most of us aren't Jews, so we
| aren't part of that covenant.  There was an argument early in
| Christian history about whether the Mosaic laws should apply to
| Gentiles who became Christians.  You can see the account of this
| debate in Acts 15.  The main question there was circumcision, but
| keeping the Sabbath would be part of it as well.  The apostles
| concluded that we need not become Jews in order to become Christians,
| and therefore that rules such as circumcision did not apply to us.

1.  The law was known to man before it was revealed on Mount Sinai.  Rom
4:15 notes that "where no law is, there is no transgression."  Not only
did sin exist before Sinai (Eden), but the Sabbath was kept before it
was revealed on Sinai (Ex 16).

2.  The problem with the first covenant was not the law, but the promise
which undergirded it.  God wanted to perform his will in the lives of the
people, but in their ignorance after 400 years of slavery, they promised
"what ever He says to do we will do."  That is why the new covenant is
based on "better promises" (Heb. 8:6).  Rather than do away with the law
God promised to "put my laws in their minds and write them on their
hearts" (Heb. 8:10).

3.  Including the Sabbath in the Acts 15 is selective inclusion.  The
Sabbath was more important to the Jews than circumcision.  If any attempt
had been made to do away with the Sabbath the reaction would have been
even more strident than is recorded in Acts 15.  Do not confuse the weekly
Sabbath of the Decalogue with the ceremonial sabbaths which could occur at
any time of the week and were part of the law (ceremonial) which was
*added* because of transgression (of the moral law) (Gal 3:19).

4.  Israel stands for God's people of all time.  That is why God *grafted*
the Gentiles in.  Roma 9:4 says that the adoption, the glory, the
covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God and the promises
belong to Israelites.   In explanation Paul makes it clear that being born
into Israel is not enough "For they are not all Israel, which are of
Israel" v 6.  Then in Gal 3:19 he says "if ye be Christ's, then are ye
Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."  All Christians are
Abraham's seed, Jews, Israelites.  Not physically, for that is not the
criterion, but spiritually.  We are joint heirs with Jesus based on the
promise God made to all his people the Israelites.

| 
| While Christians agree that the OT Laws do not all apply to us,
| because some of them are part of a specific covenanent with the Jews,
| we also expect to see some similarity between the things God expected
| from the Jews and the things he expects from us.  After all, it's the
| same God.  However there are several ways of dealing with this.
| 
| These days the most common approach is to separate the OT commandments
| into "moral" and "ceremonial".  Ceremonial commandments apply only to
| the Jews.  They are part of the specific Mosaic covenant.  These are
| thinsg like the kosher laws and circumcision.  Moral laws apply to
| everyone.  Most of the 10 commands are part of the moral law, except
| for the commandment about the Sabbath.  I believe most people who take
| this approach would say that the specific requirement to worship on
| the Sabbath is part of the ceremonial law, but a general obligation to
| worship regularly is part of the general moral law.  Thus Christians
| are free to choose the specific time we worship.

People would probably agree but they are wrong.  How can the Sabbath
commandment be ceremonial when it is part of a law which predates the
ceremonial laws?  You are not free to choose your time of worship.  Even
if you were why do you follow a day of worship which has its origins in pagan
sun worship.  Would you rather give up a day which God blessed,
sanctified, and hallowed in exchange for one which all church leaders
agree has not biblical foundation (see Sabbath Admissions in
soc.religion.christian.bible-study).
| 
| A more radical approach (which is generally connected with John Calvin
| and the Reformed tradition) says that the Law as a whole is no longer
| binding.  Instead, we are entirely under grace, and our behavior
| should be guided solely by love.  Portions of the OT Law are still
| useful as guidance.  But they are not properly speaking legally
| binding on us.  In practice most people who take this position do not
| believe it is safe to leave Christians without moral guidannce.  While
| we may no longer be under Law, as sinners, it's not safe for us to go
| into situations with no principles to guide us.  We're too good at
| self-justification for that to be safe.  Thus Christians do have moral
| guidance, from things like Jesus' teachings, Paul's advice, etc.
| These may not be precisely a Law, but they serve much the same
| function as, and have largely the same content as, the "moral law" in
| the previous analysis.  While Calvin would deny that we have a fixed
| legal responsibility to worship on any specific day, he would say that
| given human weakness, the discipline of regular worship is important.
| 
I do not care what Calvin or any theologian says.  My guide is what God
says.  If being not under the law means we do not have to keep the law,
why is it that the only section of the law we have trouble with is the
Sabbath commandment, which is the only one God thought was important
enough to say *REMEMBER*?  If you study the word deeply you will note that
the message is that we are no longer under the condemnation of the law but
freed by the grace of God.  If a cop pulls me over for speeding, then in
court I ask for mercy and the judge does not throw the book at me but gives me
grace, do I walk out of the court saying "I can now go on speeding, for I
am now under grace?"  Being under grace I now drive within the speed
limit.  Paul adds to it in Rom. 3:31 "Di we then make void the law through
faith?  God forbid: yea, we establish the law."  "Wherefore the law is
holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good" (Rom. 7:12).

| In both analyses, the specific day is not an issue.  As a matter of
| tradition, we worship on Sunday as a memorial of Christ's
| resurrection.  There's some debate about what Acts shows about early
| Christian worship.  The most common analysis is that is shows Jewish
| Christians continuing to go to Jewish services on the Sabbath, but
| that specifically Christian service were not necessarily held then.
| Act 20:7 shows worship on the first day (Sunday), and I Cor 16:2 also
| implies gatherings on that day.
| 
| There are a few groups that continue to believe Christians have to
| worship on the Sabbath (Saturday).  The best-known are the Seventh-Day
| Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses.  They argue that Act 20:7 is not a
| regular worship service, but a special meeting to see Paul off, and
| that I Cor 16:2 doesn't explicitly say it's a regular worship service.

Do you prefer implication to fact?  A careful study of the Acts 20 shows
that the meeting was on Saturday night and that on Sunday morning Paul did
not go to a worship service, but set off on a long journey by foot to
Assos.  In ICor 16 there is no way you can equate "lay by him in store"
with "go to a worship service."
| 
| It's clear that this issue was a contested one in Paul's time.  See
| Rom 14:5.  Paul's advice is that we should be very careful about
| judging each other on issues like this.  One person sees a specific
| day as mandated by God, while another does not.  He who observes that
| specific day does it in honor of the Lord.  He who believes his
| worship is free of such restrictions also does it in honor of the
| Lord.  (Those who believe that the Sabbath is still mandated argue
| that Paul is not referring to Sabbath worship here.  Note however Col
| 2:16, which says something similar but briefer.  It explicitly
| mentions Sabbath.)

Wrong.  These are the sabbath days of the ceremonial law, not the Sabbath
day of the moral law.
| 
| There are some differences among Christians about use of the word
| "Sabbath".  Originally the term referred to the 7th Day, the Jewish
| day of worship.  Many Christians now use it to refer to Sunday, the
| day of Christian worship.  They do this largely so that they can apply
| the 4th (or whatever -- there are a couple of different numbering
| schemes) commandment to it.  Reformed tradition does not do this.  It
| distinguishes between the Sabbath -- which is the observance mandated
| for Jews, and the Lord's Day -- which is the free Christian worship.
| (The only reference I can find to this in the NT is Rev 1:10.)  There
| are also differences about laws regarding this day.  Many Christians
| support "blue laws", both in secular law and church law, setting aside
| that day and causing people to spend it in worship.  The more radical
| anti-legal approach sees such regulations as a return to the Jewish
| Sabbath, which is not appropriate to the free Christian worship of the
| Lord's Day.
| 
Why would you prefer to twist and turn, relying on different arguments
which conflict with each other, rather than obey a simple request from a
God who loved you enough to die for you.  Jesus died because the law could
not be changed.  Why bother to die in order to meet the demands of a
broken law if all you need to do is change the law.  Penalties for law
breaking means the law is immutable.  That is why it is no sin not to
follow the demands of the ceremonial laws.  It will always be a sin to
make false gods, to violate God's name, to break the Sabbath, to steal, to
kill, etc.  Except it you disagree.  But then your opinion has no weight
when placed next to the word of God.

Darius

[It's not clear how much more needs to be said other than the FAQ.  I
think Paul's comments on esteeming one day over another (Rom 14) is
probably all that needs to be said.  I accept that Darius is doing
what he does in honor of the Lord.  I just wish he might equally
accept that those who "esteem all days alike" are similarly doing
their best to honor the Lord.

However I'd like to be clear that I do not think there's unambiguous
proof that regular Christian worship was on the first day.  As I
indicated, there are responses on both of the passages cited.

The difficulty with both of these passages is that they are actually
about something else.  They both look like they are talking about
nnregular Christian meetings, but neither explicitly says "and they
gathered every Sunday for worship".  We get various pieces of
information, but nothing aimed at answering this question.  

Act 2:26 describes Christians as participating both in Jewish temple
worship and in Christian communion services in homes.  Obviously the
temple worship is on the Sabbath.  Acts 13:44 is an example of
Christians participating in them.  Unfortunately it doesn't tell us
what day Christians met in their houses.  Acts 20:7, despite Darius'
confusion, is described by Acts as occuring on Sunday.  (I see no
reason to impose modern definitions of when days start, when the
Biblical text is clear about what was meant.)  The wording implies to
me that this was a normal meeting.  It doesn't say they gathered to
see Paul off, but that when they were gathered for breaking bread,
Paul talked about his upcoming travel.  But that's just not explicit
enough to be really convincing.  Similarly with 1 Cor 16:2.  It says
that on the first day they should set aside money for Paul's
collection.  Now if you want to believe that they gathered specially
to do this, or that they did it in their homes, I can't disprove it,
but the obvious time for a congregation to take an offering would be
when they normally gather for worship, and if they were expected to do
it in their homes there would be no reason to mention a specific day.
So I think the most obvious reading of this is that "on the first day
of every week" simply means every time they gather for worship.  

I think the reason we have only implications and not clear statements
is that the NT authors assumed that their readers knew when Christian
worship was.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20661
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Subject: Daily Verse

How much better to get wisdom than gold, to choose understanding rather
than silver! 

Proverbs 16:16

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20662
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (boundary)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

In article <Apr.15.00.57.56.1993.28857@athos.rutgers.edu> reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu writes:
>
>> I disagree with your claim that Jews were not evangelistic (except in
>> the narrow sense of the word).  Jewish proselytism was widespread.
>> There are numerous accounts of Jewish proselytism, both in the New
>> Testament and in Roman and Greek documents of the day.

I am not so sure of Jewish proselytism then, but I would like to relate
an account of a recent dinner I had with Jews a few months ago.

The dinner was instigated by the aunt of the hostess, whom I had met while
visiting my wife in Galveston last October.  The dear old aunt (now 
deceased) was very proud of her Jewish heritage, although not especially
devout.  Her parents were both murdered in Nazi concentration camps in
Austria during WWII because they were Jewish.  While conversing with her
about politics, world affairs and religion, she remarked that it would 
be a good idea for me to visit her niece on my return to Atlanta.

Within two days of returning to Atlanta, her niece called to invite
me over for dinner with her husband.  I went, not knowing really what to
expect, other than stimulating conversation and fellowship.  What I got,
however, was rather unexpected.  The thrust of the evening's discussion
was to condemn the Reagan-Bush policies prohibiting abortion counseling 
in federally funded family planning clinics, prohibiting the sterilization
of minorities on welfare here and in Puerto Rico, on
the ban on fetal tissue research, and against the Mexico City policy,
"which denies U.S. foreign aid to programs overseas that promote abortion."

The crux of their position was to place the blame for the problems of
"overpopulation," rampant domestic crime, African starvation, unwed
mothers, etc., on Christianity, rather on the fall of Adam.  Now, this
is not what I had to come to talk about.  But every time I tried to 
bring up the subject of Judaism, they would condemn Jews for Jesus
and admonish me against converting to Judaism, "because it involves
too much study and effort."  And I did not even raise the prospect, nor
try to convert them to the truth of Christ!  There was certainly no
Jewish proselytism going on there.

And again, last November I toured a "traditional" Jewish synagogue and was
subjected to a 30-minute harangue against Jesus and Christianity in
general.  I realize that these are two isolated incidents, and that the
best supervisor I ever had at work is Jewish, but from my experience,
the modern Jew is not known for his proselytism.

 
-- 
boundary

no teneis que pensar que yo haya venido a traer la paz a la tierra; no he
venido a traer la paz, sino la guerra (Mateo 10:34, Vulgata Latina) 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20663
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: hearing sinners

On the question, "Does God hear the prayers of sinners?" we need to
distinguish.

If we say that He never hears the prayers of any who have sinned, we
make pointless all prayers by anyone born less than 19 centuries
ago.

But if we consider the prayers of the impenitent sinner, of someone
who says, "Lord, I want you to do this for me, but don't expect me
to change my way of life," that is a different matter. Even here, I
would not venture to say that God never grants such petitions (just
as He sends sun and rain on the evil and on the good). However, if
someone we know well is praying to God in that spirit, we might have
the responsibility to say, "Remember, if God's help is real, then so
are His commands."

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20664
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: John 3:16 paraphrased

At the end of a recent (Mon 19 Apr 1993) post, Alastair Thomson
offers the following "paraphrase" of John 3:16:

   "God loved the world so much, that he gave us His Son,
   to die in our place, so that we may have eternal life."

The "to die in our place" bothers me, since it inserts into the
verse a doctrine not found in the original. Moreover, I suspect that
the poster intends to affirm, not merely substitution, but forensic
(or penal) substitution.  I maintain that the Scriptures in speaking
of the Atonement teach a doctrine of Substitution, but not one of
Forensic Substitution.

Those interested in pursuing the matter are invited to send for my
essays on Genesis, either 4 thru 7 (on this question) or 1 through 7
(with lead-in).  The n'th essay can be obtained by sending to
LISTSERV@ASUACAD.BITNET or to LISTSERV@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU the
message
   GET GEN0n RUFF

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

 "Any theologian worth his salt can put anything he wants to say in
the form of a commentary on the Book of Genesis" -- Walter Kaufman.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20665
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (boundary)
Subject: Re: Certainty and Arrogance

A reply to a post by kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (aka Nancy's Sweetheart): 

?Human brains are infested with sin, and they can only be trusted
?in very limited circumstances.

I would beg to differ with you here.  The properly-formed conscience can
be trusted virtually ALL the time.  I am not so sure, though, about something
so materialistic as the human brain.  Does that mass of tissue possess
anything trustworthy?  Your observation would probably be valid if we were
discussing the "mind" of an animal, but the human being is only half animal,
as it were; and half spiritual. 

?At the moment he stops speaking, and people start interpreting, the
?possibility of error appears.  Did he mean that literally or not?  We do
?not have any record that he elaborated on the words.  Was he thinking of
?Tran- or Con- substatiation?   He didn't say.  We interpret this passage
?using our brains; we think and reason and draw conclusions.  But we know
?that our brains are not perfect: our thinking often leads us wrong.  (This
?is something that most of us have direct experience of.  8-)

Now you have hit on the purpose of the Church.  It is by necessity the
infallible interpreter of divine revelation.  Without the Church,          
Christianity would be nothing more than a bunch of little divisive sects.
 
?Unless you are infallible, there are very few things you can be certain
?of.  To the extent that doctrines rely on fallible human thinking, they
?cannot be certain.

This argument of yours regarding the certainty of an observation or a
conclusion is not necessarily substantiated by experience.  It reminds me
of the theoretical physicist who said that you can never be certain of
a measurment because the sensor interferes with the field you are trying
to measure.  Now, the experimental physicist will reply that although the
measurement can never be made with absolute certainty, he is able to
determine the certainty with which the measurement can be made, and this
knowledge is often sufficient to render the measurement useful enough
to allow evidence of the true condition of the field under observation.
Therefore, although our minds are finite and susceptible to error, our
competence in arriving at inductive insights gives confidence in our
ability to distinguish what is true from what is not true, even in areas
not subject to the experimental method. 

?Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu
?"If any substantial number of  [ talk.religion.misc ]  readers read some
? Wittgenstein, 60% of the postings would disappear.  (If they *understood*
? some Wittgenstein, 98% would disappear. :-))" -- Michael L Siemon

This quote seems a little arrogant, don't you think?
 
-- 
boundary

no teneis que pensar que yo haya venido a traer la paz a la tierra; no he
venido a traer la paz, sino la guerra (Mateo 10:34, Vulgata Latina) 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20666
From: poram%mlsma@att.att.com
Subject: WBT (WAS: Re: phone number of wycliffe translators UK)

In article <Apr.17.01.11.19.1993.2268@geneva.rutgers.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>
>  I'm concerned about a recent posting about WBT/SIL.  I thought they'd
>pretty much been denounced as a right-wing organization involved in
>ideological manipulation and cultural interference, including Vietnam
>and South America. A commission from Mexican Academia denounced them in
>1979 as " a covert political and ideological institution used by the
>U.S. govt as an instrument of control, regulation, penetration, espionage and
>repression."

Having met Peter Kingston (of WBT) some years back, he struck me 
as an exemplery and dedicated Christian whose main concern was with
translation of the Word of God and the welfare of the people
group he was serving.
WBT literature is concerned mainly with providing Scripture
in minority languages.

The sort of criticism leveled at an organisation such as this
along the lines of "ideological manipulation and cultural
interference" is probably no more than Christianising and
education - in this WBT will stand alongside the early Christian
missionaries to parts of Africa, or those groups who worked
among native Americans a couple hundred years ago.

>  My concern is that this group may be seen as acceptable and even
>praiseworthy by readers of soc.religion.christian. It's important that
>Christians don't immediately accept every "Christian" organization as
>automatically above reproach.
>
>                                                                  mp
I think you need to substantiate these attacks as being a
legitimate criticism of priorities other than spreading the
gospel among underdeveloped people.

Barney Resson
"Many shall run to and fro, & knowledge shall increase" (Daniel)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20667
From: sliew@ee.mu.OZ.AU (Selbyn Liew)
Subject: Re: An agnostic's question

In article <Apr.17.01.11.16.1993.2265@geneva.rutgers.edu> jdt@voodoo.ca.boeing.com (Jim Tomlinson (jimt II)) writes:

[..]

>goodness that is within the power of each of us.  Now, the
>complication is that one of my best friends has become very
>fundamentalist. That would normally be a non-issue with me, but he

Hello.  Firstly, what do you exactly mean by "fundamentalist"?  I will
for the time being assume that what you mean is that your friend believes
that the bible is God's word to mankind?  I suspect that what happened
to him is what he'll call being "born again"?  Anyway, was that recent?
If the answer is "yes" to all the questions above, it is quite
understandable.  However, IMO, I'ld rather give advice to your friend!
I think I've been through something similar to him, and one thing I can
say is that the basic problem is that each of you are now trying to
communicate from different worldviews.  Why he talks about those things
is because they are now "obvious" to him.  What is "obvious" to him is
not obvious to you.  Secondly, why he may be very persuasive is because
from his point of view, he has been on "both sides of the fence".  This
I mean that before he turned "fundamentalist", you two are agreeable
because both of you see things from the same side.  If suddenly, as if
a new world of reality has suddenly opened up to him, it is like the
discovery of let's say a new continent, or a new planet.  To him, he's
got to tell you because he has seen something much more wonderful than
where he was, and what he thinks is much better than where you are now.
You have got to realise that from his point of view, he means well to
you, eventhough he may end up offending you.  To him, it is worth that
risk.  Nevertheless, it is really up to him to respect where you stand
and listen to you as well.  At this moment, it may be difficult because
he is either very excited or feel it is too urgent to keep quiet about,
however, he may not realise that he's really putting you off.

[...]

>the Bible that it is so.'  So my question is, how can I convince him
>that this is a subject better left undiscussed, so we can preserve
>what is (in all areas other than religious beliefs) a great
>friendship?  How do I convince him that I am 'beyond saving' so he
>won't try?  Thanks for any advice.

So far, I've only been trying to explain things from his side.  However,
I do understand how you feel too, because I wasn't a Christian for a good
part of my life as well.  I was quite turned off by Christians or
"fundamentalists" who were really all out and enthusiastic about their
faith.  They really scared me, to tell you the truth.  Unfortunately,
"religious belief" is a very personal thing, just as your agnosticism
is also a very personal thing to you.  Since the Christian belief is
inevitably at odds with anything non-Christian (religious or otherwise),
it will be a touchy matter.  Like all friendships, it will take both
sides to do their part to make it work.  In this matter, maybe you can
do your part by telling him nicely that you are not able to dig what he's
trying to convince you about, that it's beyond you or not your concern
"for now".  Don't tell him it's nonsense, because to him it is reality -
and that would be a real insult.  He'll also have to be careful not to
insult where you stand too.

Like I said before, I wish I could give your friend some advice too.
I'll admit that I did similarly to some of my friends when I became a
Christian.  In some ways, I wish I could have done things a little
differently.  However, it was difficult then because I was so excited
and just blabbered away about what I've found!  To me, it was too good
not to know.  To some, I was crazy, and I didn't really care most of
the time what they thought.  You will probably think he's crazy too -
but God is very real to him, as real as you are to him.  Keep that in
mind.  And he thinks he can convince you because since God is so real
to him, he doesn't see why God can't be real to you too.

I don't know how helpful this is to you.  But all the best anyhow -
this is quite a challenge for you to face.  By the way, personal
conviction: nobody is "beyond saving" except the one we call the 
devil and his hosts.

Regards,
Selbyn Liew
==========================================================================
Dept. of EE Engineering, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3052, Australia
EMAIL: sliew@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au    PH: +61-3-3447976   FAX: +61-3-3446678
==========================================================================

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20668
From: fraseraj@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Andrew J Fraser)
Subject: Religious wars

I don't know if this is the sort of thing you guys like
to discuss.  I guess it falls into the area of apologetics.

This is a question that seems to pop up now and again in
conversations with non-christians.  It usually appears in
the following sort of unqualified statement:
"Well you know that religion has caused more wars than
anything else"
It bothers me that I cannot seem to find a satisfactory
response to this. After all if our religion is all about
peace and love why have there been so many religious wars?
  Personally I am of the view that religion has often been
used as an excuse to instigate wars often to disguise
national ambitions but I would love to hear what anyone
else has to say about this subject.
  Thanks in advance
  Andrew J Fraser

(If we're thinking in terms of history, the Crusades,
Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia(?) come immediately to mind)

northern Ireland, Yugoslavia (? 
  
-- 
=========================================================================
||     Name: Andrew James Fraser  E-mail: fraseraj@dcs.gla.ac.uk       ||
||     ESE-3H student, University of Glasgow.			       ||
||     Standard disclaimers...                                         ||

[I'm beginning to suspect that the natural condition of humans is
conflict.  Perhaps we should not ask whether a religion or philosophy
has been involved in any wars -- since they all have -- but whether
it has stopped any.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20669
From: salaris@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrabbits)
Subject: Re: Hell_2:  Black Sabbath

In article <Apr.20.03.02.07.1993.3791@geneva.rutgers.edu>, REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov writes:
> [In looking through my files this weekend, I ran across some lyrics from
> various rock groups that have content.  Here are two from Black Sabbath's
> "Master of Reality".  I'll say this much for the music of the '60's and early
> '70's, at least they asked questions of significance.  Jethro Tull is another
> to asked and wrote about things that caused one to wonder. --Rex] 
> 

It is interesting that you posted those lyrics, because just the
other day I was thinking of doing the same.  I like those lyrics,
since whenever I am approached by judgemental, pharisitical,
evangelical fundamentalists who throw the Bible at me because
I have long hair, wear a black leather jacket, and listen to Black
Sabbath, I have something to throw back.  Usually their chins drop
and they come up speechless over those not very satanic lyrics.

It just goes to show that there are more important evils in the
world to battle than rock lyrics...........


--
Steven C. Salaris                We're...a lot more dangerous than 2 Live Crew
salaris@carcs1.wustl.edu         and their stupid use of foul language because
				 we have ideas.  We have a philosophy.
					      Geoff Tate -- Queensryche

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20670
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Subject: Re: phone number of wycliffe translators UK

In <Apr.20.03.02.03.1993.3788@geneva.rutgers.edu> mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server) writes:
[">"= Mark, ">>"= mp]

>>  I'm concerned about a recent posting about WBT/SIL.  I thought they'd
>>pretty much been denounced as a right-wing organization involved in
>>ideological manipulation and cultural interference

>Good heavens, you mean my good friend Wes Collins, who took his wife and two 
>small children into the jungles of Guatemala, despite dangers from primitive 
>conditions and armed guerillas, so that the indigenous people groups their 
>could have the Bible in their native languages--the young man who led Bible 
>studies in our church, who daily demonstrated and declared his deep abiding 
>faith in the Lord of Love--you mean he really was a sneaky imperialistic *SPY*

    I am sorry you find these charges amusing, Mark. I understand your
frustration though--it can be kind of scary to find your assumptions
challenged. Some of the specific cultural interference to which I refer
includes linguistic manipulation, for instance, their Tzotzil-Spanish
dictionary removed both Spanish and Tzotzil words for concepts which are
threatening to the ruling ideology, e.g., class, conquer, exploitation,
repression, revolution, and described words which can express
ideological concepts in examples like "Boss--the boss is good. He treats
us well and pays us a good wage." As some of my students would say,
"NOT!"  
     Your tone implies that you are unlikely to believe me--indeed, why
should you? If you are interested enough to do some further research
though, and you sound as if you are, here are some references for you.
 
Stoll, David. _Fishers of Men or Founders of Empire? The Wycliffe Bible
Translators in Latin America_.
_Sectas y Religiosidad en America Latina_.
_Los Angeles Times_, Dec. 11. 1977.
_Latin America Press_, May 19, 1983.
_Washington Times_, June 22, 1984.

     Happy hunting.

                                                                   mp

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20671
From: sfp@lemur.cit.cornell.edu (Sheila Patterson)
Subject: Re: Losing your temper is not a Christian trait


         
Hooray ! I always suspected that I was human too :-)  It is the desire to be like
Christ that often causes christians to be very critical of themselves and other
christians. We are supposed to grow, mature, endeavour to be Christ-like but we
are far far far from perfect. Build up the body of Christ, don't tear it down,
and that includes yourself. Jesus loves me just the way I am today, tomorrow and
always (thank God ! :-).

-Sheila Patterson

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20672
From: belville@athena.mit.edu (Sharon Belville)
Subject: Re: God-shaped hole (was Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")

In article <Apr.14.03.07.38.1993.5420@athos.rutgers.edu>, johnsd2@rpi.edu (Dan Johnson) writes:

|> >Those who have an empty spot in the God-shaped hole in their hearts must 
|> >do something to ease the pain.
|> 
|> I have heard this claim quite a few times. Does anybody here know
|> who first came up with the "God-shaped hole" business?

I've seen this verse used to back up this idea:

"...He has also set eternity in the hearts of men..."  (Ecclesiastes 3:11)
--
Sharon Belville

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20673
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Subject: Daily Verse

For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister
and mother." 

Matthew 12:50

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20674
From: maridai@comm.mot.com (Marida Ignacio)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jesus in your heart..."


    |whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell) writes:           
    |                                                                     
    |> Religion (especially Christianity) is nothing more than a DRUG.    
    |> Some people use drugs as an escape from reality.  Christians inject
    |> themselves with jeezus and live with that high.                    
    |                                                                     
    |Your logic is falty.  If Christianity is a DRUG, and once we die we  
    |die, then why would you be reluctant to embrase this drug so that    
    |while you are alive you enjoy yourself.                              
    |                                                                     

Pardon the harshness that follows...

Once, I told a cradle christian: Please do not take advantage of Jesus
or anybody for the sake of your own (selfish) realization or search
for true faith/religion/belonging/'being in'/fear of hell/vanity/etc.  
Instead of serving yourself, _we must be serving Him_.  
*Until you have comprehended this truth, you are only doing things for your 
own egoism.*

Let us not use Jesus, our religion, the Bible, anything or
anybody as a means of escape or getting ecstatic or high.
We are God's children and we must have a true and authentic
relationship with our Father with obedience, faith, hope and 
love and works (the last as the most important).

Beware of our 'materialistic', 'worldly' and 'selfish' motives.  
Atheists have this ground against us and I believe they are right about
*some* who call themselves 'christians'.

-Marida
 "...spreading Gods words through actions..."
  -Mother Teresa

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20675
From: david-s@hsr.no (David A. Sjoen)
Subject: 'Moody Monthly' and 'Moody' the same?

Are 'Moody Monthly' and 'Moody' the same magazine (name change in recent
years)?

If not: Could someone post the address to 'Moody Monthly'?

:)avid

-- 
 __________________ ___________________________________________________
| David A. Sjoen   |"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they |
| Gulaksveien 4    | follow me; and I give them life eternal; and they |
| N-4017 STAVANGER | shall never perish, and no one shall seize them   |
| Norway           | out of my hand." John 10:27-29                    |
`------------------'---------------------------------------------------'
      E-MAIL: david-s@hsr.no  (Rogaland University Centre, Norway)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20676
From: tom_milligan@rainbow.mentorg.com
Subject: Anyone with L'Abri Experiences

I am curious if anyone in net-land has spent any time at any of the L'Abri
houses throughout the world and what the experience was like, how it affected
you, etc.  Especially interesting would be experiences at the original L'Abri
in Switzerland and personal interactions with Francis and/or Edith Schaeffer.

Tom Milligan

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20677
From: caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.) writes:
> In article <Apr.13.00.08.35.1993.28412@athos.rutgers.edu> caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin) writes:
> > (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.) writes:
> >> (Carol Alvin) writes:
> >> > ...
> >> >Are all truths also absolutes?
> >> >Is all of scripture truths (and therefore absolutes)?
> >> >
> >> The answer to both questions is yes.
> >
> > ...
> >an absolute is something that is constant across time, culture,
> >situations, etc.  True in every instance possible.  Do you agree
> >with this definition? ...
> >
> Yes, I do agree with your definition.  ...
>  
> > [example of women covering their heads and not speaking]
> 
> Hold it.  I said that all of scripture is true.  However, discerning
> exactly what Jesus, Paul and company were trying to say is not always so
> easy.  I don't believe that Paul was trying to say that all women should
> behave that way.  Rather, he was trying to say that under the circumstances
> at the time, the women he was speaking to would best avoid volubility and
> cover their heads.  This has to do with maintaining a proper witness toward
> others.  Remember that any number of relativistic statements can be derived
> from absolutes.  For instance, it is absolutely right for Christians to
> strive for peace.  However, this does not rule out trying to maintain world
> peace by resorting to violence on occasion.  (Yes, my opinion.)

I agree that there is truth in scripture.  There are principles to be 
learned from it.  Claiming that that truth is absolute, though, seems 
to imply a literal reading of the Bible.  If it were absolute truth 
(constant across time, culture, etc.) then no interpretation would be 
necessary.

It may be that the lessons gleaned from various passages are different 
from person to person.  To me, that doesn't mean that one person is 
right and the other is wrong.  I believe that God transcends our simple 
minds, and that scripture may very well have been crafted with exactly 
this intent.  God knows me, and knows that my needs are different 
from yours or anyone else's.  By claiming that scripture is absolute,
then at least one person in every disputed interpretation must be wrong.
I just don't believe that God is that rigid.

> >Evangelicals are clearly not taking this particular part of scripture 
> >to be absolute truth.  (And there are plenty of other examples.)
> >Can you reconcile this?
>
> Sure.  The Bible preaches absolute truths.  However, exactly what those
> truths are is sometimes a matter of confusion.  As I said, the Bible does
> preach absolute truths.  Sometimes those fundamental principles are crystal
> clear (at least to evangelicals).  

This is where the arrogance comes in to play.  Since these principles 
are crystal clear to evangelicals, maybe the rest of us should just take
their word for it?  Maybe it isn't at all crystal clear to *me* that 
their fundamental principles are either fundamental *or* principles.

I think we've established that figuring out Biblical truth is a matter 
of human interpretation and therefore error-prone.  Yet you can still 
claim that some of them may be crystal clear?  Maybe to a certain 
segment of Christianity, but to all.

> >It's very difficult to see how you can claim something which is based 
> >on your own *interpretation* is absolute.  
> 
> God revealed his Truths to the world, through His Word.  It is utterly 
> unavoidable, however, that some people whill come up with alternate 
> interpretations.  Practically anything can be misinterpreted, especially
> when it comes to matters of right and wrong.  Care to deny that?

Not at all.  I think it supports my position much more effectively 
than yours.  :-)

So, I think that your position is:
The Bible is absolute truth, but as we are prone to error in our 
interpretation, we cannot reliably determine if we have figured out 
what that truth is.
Did I get that right?

What's the point of spending all this time claiming and defending 
absolute truth, when we can never know what those truths are, and we 
can never (or at least shouldn't) act upon them?  What practical 
difference can this make?

Carol Alvin
caralv@auto-trol.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20678
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (boundary)
Subject: Re: Atheist's views on Christianity (was: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")

In article <Apr.20.03.03.35.1993.3863@geneva.rutgers.edu> jasons@atlastele.com (Jason Smith) writes:
>In article <Apr.19.05.13.48.1993.29266@athos.rutgers.edu> kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko) writes:

>= This is not true. Science is a collection of models telling us "how",
>= not why, something happens. I cannot see any good reason why the "why"
>= questions would be bound only to natural things, assuming that the
>= supernatural domain exists. If supernatural beings exist, it is
>= as appropriate to ask why they do so as it is to ask why we exist.

I beg to disagree with the assertion that science is a collection of models.
Scientific models are a game to play, and are only as good as the
assumptions and measurements (if any) that go into them.

As an example, I remember when nuclear winter was the big hype in
atmospheric science.  It wasn't long after Sagan's admonitions that
one of our boys was adding another level of reality into his model of
the nuclear winter scenario at ERL in Boulder.  He decided to assume
that the atmosphere is more like a two-dimensional thing, than a one-
dimensional thing.  He also assumed that it rained and that the winds
blow in the real atmosphere.  On returning to Georgia Tech, he showed
a transparency of atmospheric cooling rates according to the year they
were generated by the models.  There was an unmistakable correlation
between the age (meaning simplicity of assumptions; i.e., remoteness
from reality) of each model and the degree of cooling.  Whereas Sagan's
model showed an approximate 40-degree cooling episode, the next model 
in sophistication showed about half that, and so on until we got to
our boy's model, which showed a 1-2 degree drop if the war happened in
the winter and less than a 10 degree drop if it happened in the summer.
He predicted that when we would include the presence of oceans, chemistry,
the biosphere, and other indicators of reality in the models, we would
probably see even less cooling.  Thus nuclear winter was reduced to even
less than a nuclear autumn, one might say, to a nuclear fizzle.

To quote from H.S. Yoder,

	The postulated models have become accepted as the reality
	instead of the lattice of assumptions they are.
	Authoritarianism dominates the field, and a very critical
	analysis of each argument is to be encouraged.... Skepticism
	of the model approach to earth problems is warranted because
	many key parameters have not been included.

This statement surely applies equally well to cosmogony.  Only when
convincing observational evidence substantiates the modeled results
may one suggest that the model may describe the reality.  Just thought
I'd clear that up before things really got out of hand. 
 
-- 
boundary

no teneis que pensar que yo haya venido a traer la paz a la tierra; no he
venido a traer la paz, sino la guerra (Mateo 10:34, Vulgata Latina) 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20679
From: JBUDDENBERG@vax.cns.muskingum.edu (Jimmy Buddenberg)
Subject: Revelations - BABYLON?


Hello all.  We are doing a bible study (at my college) on Revelations.  We
have been doing pretty good as far as getting some sort of reasonable
interpretation.  We are now on chapters 17 and 18 which talk about the
woman on the beast and the fall of Babylon.  I believe the beast is the
Antichrist (some may differ but it seems obvious) and the woman represents
Babylon which stands for Rome or the Roman Catholic Church.  What are some
views on this interpretation?  Is the falling Babylon in chapter 18 the same
Babylon in as in chapter 17?  The Catholic church?
Hate to step on toes.
thanks

-------- 
Jimmy Buddenberg       INTERNET:  jbuddenberg@vax.cns.muskingum.edu
Muskingum College 

[Reading this imagery as the Roman Catholic Church was certainly
common in earlier Protestant writers.  A lot of us find that frankly
embarassing now, though some of our readers will certainly advocate
such a position.  The problem is that the description makes it look a
lot like a political entity.  It's associated with kings, controls
world commerce, is seated on seven mountains (17:9 -- recall that Rome
is traditionally regarded as built on seven hills).  If it's a church,
then it's not the current Roman Catholic church, but a church that has
been taken over by the anti-Christ and merged with the state, turning
into something rather different than it is now.  Presumably in such a
scenario the true Catholics are among those who are persecuted.  Given
the overall impression that Satan is pretending to be an angel of
light, and the true church is a persecuted remnant, I think the most
consistent playing out of the image would be that the anti-Christ
would be presiding over a church that claims to be the heir of both
the Protestant and Catholic traditions, but that the true spiritual
descendants of both Peter and the Reformers are equally being
persecuted.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20680
From: Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca (Desiree Bradley)
Subject: Doing the work of God??!!)

As our local.religion.christian BBS group seems moribund, I'm posting here.

On one of the Sundays just before Easter I went to church.  The sermon was
based on a story in the Book of Joshua.  (The one about Joshua sending out
spies to the land he was planning to take)  What I particularly remember,
because of having heard part of a CBC radio documentary on Bosnia, was that
the Rahab (the woman who sheltered the spies) said that the people were
"melting in fear."  What with having heard that CBC radio documentary and
knowing that the Muslims in Bosnia were losing the war, I felt
uncomfortable.  After all, the Serbs are driving non-Christians out.  On
the other hand, ministers do say that the Bible is opposed to the values
held by our secular society.  Anyhow members of that church are involved in
out-of-country missionary work.  Also, the pastor has talked of spiritual
warfare and of bringing Christ to the nonreligious people of our area.

The next Sunday, the sermon was about Joshua 6 (where the Israelites
take Jericho and then proceed to massacre everybody there --- except
for Rahab, who had sheltered the spies).  With those reports about
Bosnia in my mind, I felt uncomfortable about the minister saying that
the massacre (the one in Joshua) was right.  But what really bothered
me was that, if I was going to try taking Christianity seriously, I
shouldn't be so troubled about the reports of "ethnic cleansing" in
Bosnia.  Certainly, my sympathies shouldn't be with the Moslims.
Considering that the Bosnian Muslims are descendants of Christians
who, under Turkish rule, converted to Islam could the Serbs be doing
God's work?

[The example of God's people setting out on bloody wars of conquest
has always been troubling in discussions here.  I personally question
whether they were right even at the time.  But those who believe they
were consider that the wars were justified only because they were
specifically commanded by God.  Somehow I don't see the Serbs behaving
like a group that is led by God in this matter.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20681
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (boundary)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

dleonar@andy.bgsu.edu (Pixie) writes:
>                                       Unfaithfully yours,
>                                       Pixie
>     p.s.  If you do sincerely believe that a god exists, why do you follow
>it blindly?  
>     Do the words "Question Authority" mean anything to you?
>     I defy any theist to reply.      

Dear Defiant (or Unfaithful or Pixie):

I will take up the challenge to reply, as I am a theist.

The foundation for faith in God is reason, without which the existence
of God could not be proven.  That His existence can be proven by reason
is indisputable (cf. my short treatise, "Traditional Proofs for the 
Existence of God," and Summa Theologica).

Now, given that God exists, and that His existence can be proven by reason,
I assert that His commands must be followed blindly, although in our fallen
condition we must always have some measure of doubt about our faith.  Why?

Because God is the First Cause of all things, the First Mover of matter,
the Independent Thing that requires nothing else for its existence, the
Measure of all that is perfect, and the essential Being who gives order
to the universe (logos).

I next assert that God is all good.  If this is so, then that which is
contrary to the will of God is evil; i.e., the absence of the good.  And,
since God can never contradict Himself, then by His promise of a Savior
as early as the Protoevangelium of Genesis 3:5, God instructs that because
a human (Adam) was first responsible for man's alienation from the Source
of all good, a man would be required to act to restore the friendship.
Thus God became incarnate in the person of the Messiah.

Now this Messiah claimed that He is the Truth (John 14:6).  If this claim
is true, then we are bound by reason to follow Him, who is truth incarnate.

You next seem to have a problem with authority.  Have you tried the United
States Marine Corps yet?  I can tell you first-hand that it is an excellent
instructor in authority.  If you have not yet had the privilege, I will
reply that the authority which is Truth Incarnate may never be questioned,
and thus must be followed blindly.  One may NOT deny the truth.  For
example, when the proverbial apple fell on Isaac Newton's head, he could
have denied that it happened, but he did not.  The laws of physics must
be obeyed whether a human likes them or not.  They are true. 

Therefore, the Authority which is Truth may not be denied.

QED
 
-- 
boundary

no teneis que pensar que yo haya venido a traer la paz a la tierra; no he
venido a traer la paz, sino la guerra (Mateo 10:34, Vulgata Latina) 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20682
From: jcj@tellabs.com (jcj)
Subject: Re: When are two people married

JEK@cu.nih.gov writes:

>...
>The essential ingredient of a marriage is mutual commitment. Two
>persons are considered to be married if and only if they have bound
>themselves by mutual promises to live together as husband and wife,
>forsaking all others, till death do them part.
>

Does that imply that people who take marriage vows but aren't sincere
are not married?

Jeff Johnson
jcj@tellabs.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20683
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Subject: Re: Atheist's views on Christianity (was: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")

In article <Apr.19.05.13.48.1993.29266@athos.rutgers.edu>,
kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko) wrote:
> 
> Jason Smith (jasons@atlastele.com) wrote: 
 
> Another answer is that God is the _source_ of all existence.
> This sounds much better, but I am tempted to ask: Does God
> Himself exist, then? If God is the source of His own existence,
> it can only mean that He has, in terms of human time, always
> existed. But this is not the same as the source of all existence.
> This argument sounds like God does not exist, but meta-exists,
> and from His meta-existent perspective, He created existence.
> I think this is actually a nonsolution, a mere twist of words.

Always existing and being the source of the existence of all other beings
is not problematic.

But, as you put, Being the source of "all" existence, including one's own,
would mean that God came from nothing, a concept alien to Christianity and
Theism.  It is better to understand the classical concepts of Necessary and
Contingent existence.  God exists necessarily, always.  God created
contingent beings.  This is a coherent solution to existence, so long as
the concept of God is coherent.
 
> The best answer I have heard is that human reasoning is incapable
> of understanding such questions. Being an atheist myself, I do not
> accept such answers, since I do not have any other methods.

Not a very good answer.  If reason cannot by any means understand something
then it is likely that "it" is a null concept, something not in reality.

Ted Kalivoda

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20684
From: reid@cs.uiuc.edu (Jon Reid)
Subject: Cell Church discussion group

I am beginning an e-mail discussion group about cell churches.  If you are
a follower of Jesus Christ and are

  - in a cell church, or
  - in a church that is transitioning to a cell church, or
  - just interested in learning more about cell churches,

send me e-mail.  (I reserve the right to remove anybody from the group who
does not demonstrate a spirit of humility and Christlikeness.)

-- 
******************************************************************
*     Jon Reid     * He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep *
* reid@cs.uiuc.edu * to gain what he cannot lose.   - Jim Elliot *
******************************************************************

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20685
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell

Mark Schnitzius writes:

>>  Literal interpreters of the Bible will have a problem with this view, since
>>the Bible talks about the fires of Hell and such.  
> 
>This is something I've always found confusing.  If all your nerve endings
>die with your physical body, why would flame hurt you?  How can one "wail
>and gnash teeth" with no lungs and no teeth?

One can feel physical pain by having a body, which, if you know the
doctrine of the resurrection of the body, is what people will have after
the great judgement.  "We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the
life of the world to come."  - Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.  You
will have both body and soul in hell - eventually.

Andy Byler

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20686
From: JJMARVIN@pucc.princeton.edu
Subject: prayers and advice requested on family problem

My brother has been alienated from my parents and me since shortly after
his marriage to a domineering and insecure woman, about twelve years ago.
We've kept things on a painfully polite, Christmas-card sort of level
for most of this time. Attempts to see each other end disastrously, with
his wife throwing a screaming fit and storming out over either our imagined
slights to her, or his inattention or insensitivity to her (I mean, this'll
happen by the end of a single restaurant meal). He seems, from what I've
seen, to live in a state of quivering anxiety, hoping futilely to keep
the next storm from breaking. He has sacrificed not only meaningful contact
with us but also other friends and outside interests. Now, this is his
choice, and I need to accept it even if I deplore it. But it's hard.
   From time to time I've wanted to drop the pretense that we have a
relationship--by cutting off contact--or trying to have a real if painful
relationship, by talking honestly with him, but I've always thought, "Why
be dramatic? And you know he'll only get evasive and then find some excuse
to get off the phone. Just leave the door open, in case he ever decides to
come back." It's been an unsatisfying choice, to allow us to go on
with the superficial trappings of a relationship, but it was the best I
could think of.
   Now, this weekend, my mother finally decided that she wasn't going
to pretend any more and has cut off relations with them. This was the
outcome of a phone conversation in which my sister-in-law screamed and
raved at my mother, blaming her for everything wrong in their lives, and
in which my brother evaded, temporized, claimed the situation was
beyond his control, and as always expected my mother to make all the
allowances and concessions. Mom said she would not, that she would not
quietly take abuse any more, and that if these were the terms of their
relationship, she didn't want to talk to or see them any more. And she hung
up. (I have never seem my mother lose her temper, and I think that this is
the first time she's ever hung up on someone.) Mom says she feels as if
she's divorced my brother, and that it's a relief in some ways to have the
break out in the open and done with.
 
    I have mixed feelings. I'm proud of Mom for sticking up for herself;
angry at my brother and sister-in-law for hurting her, for being jerks, for
persisting in such a wretched life, which hurts us all and is warping their
children; angry at my sister-in-law for being so hateful, and angry at my
brother for being a coward and having so little respect for himself or us
that he's willing to throw us aside and use up all his energy trying to
appease an unappeasable,
emotionally disturbed woman; pained for their children, who are a mess;
scared for the future, since this marks the time when either things will
change and improve or the break will become irrevocable; nastily self-
righteous over this bit of proof that they can't "get away" with treating
us or each other this way, and then disgusted with myself for even
beginning to gloat over others' misery; and finally, mostly, sad, sad,
sad, to see my parents hurt and my brother and sister-in-law trapped in
a horrible, destructive situation that they can't see a way out of--or
they can't bear to take whatever paths they do see. And I'm frustrated
because I don't know what if anything to do, and doing nothing drives me
up the wall. I try to pray, about my own feelings of rage, impotence,
and vindictiveness, and about their situation, but I am not
free of the desire to *DO* something concrete. (The desire to *DO*
something, to define a problem and fix it, is one of my besetting
vices; I'm having a terrible time quieting down my internal
mental chatter enough to listen for God.)
  Do you thoughtful and kind people on the net have advice for me? Is
this a time to reach out to my brother? To let things be? How can I
conquer my rage AT him enough to be there FOR him?
 
Here's the big question I've been evading throughout this long, long
post: Is it ok, as a Christian and a proponent of faith, hope, and
charity, to accept the destruction of a relationship? To give up on
my own brother, or at least to accept that I am powerless to help him
and can only wait and see what happens? Do please answer--by e-mail or
post.
 
Thank you.
 
Julie (jjmarvin@pucc.princeton.edu)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20687
From: mussack@austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Subject: Re: Christian's need for Christianity

In article <Apr.19.05.12.31.1993.29175@athos.rutgers.edu>, lmh@juliet.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.) writes:
> In article <Apr.16.23.17.40.1993.1861@geneva.rutgers.edu<, mussack@austin.ibm.com writes...
> << < For example: why does the universe exist at all?  
> 
> <Whether there is a "why" or not we have to find it. This is Pascal's(?) wager.
> <If there is no why and we spend our lives searching, then we have merely
> <wasted our lives, which were meaningless anyway. If there is a why and we
> ..
>  I find this view of Christianity to be quite disheartening and sad.
> The idea that life only has meaning or importance if there is a Creator
> does not seem like much of a basis for belief.

Please forgive all the inclusions. I suppose they are neccessary to follow
the argument.

My point is that "if life has meaning or importance then we should try
to find that meaning or importance" which is almost a tautology. (I hope
I'm not being too patronizing.) One term for that meaning is "Creator",
though that is not obvious from my above argument.

>  And the logic is also appalling: "God must exist because I want Him to."

(It's more like "I think, therefore I am, therefore God is.")

>  I have heard this line of "reasoning" before and wonder how prevalent
> it is. Certainly in modern society many people are convinced life is
> hopeless (or so the pollsters and newscasts state), but I don't see
> where this is a good reason to become religious. If you want 'meaning'
> why not just join a cult, such as in Waco? The leaders will give you
> the security blanket you desire.

Unfortunately the term "religious" is ambiguous to me in this context.
I could say that searching for meaning in life is by definition being
religious. I could say cult followers by definition have given up on 
the search.

If you want "meaning" why not search for the truth?

So far, my understanding of Christianity is congruent with my understanding
of truth. There have been many before me who have come to conclusions 
that are worded in ways that make sense to me. By no means does that imply
that I understand everything. 

Chris Mussack

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20688
From: reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

In article <Apr.19.05.11.36.1993.29109@athos.rutgers.edu>, ata@hfsi.hfsi.com ( John Ata) writes:

> I think you are vastly oversimplifying things. We know that early Christians
> suffered totures because of their witness to Christ.  For example:

[ ACT 5:40 - 41 ]

> It appears that the Jewish rulers of that time had a particular aversion
> to even hearing Jesus's name.
...
> Finally, the first apostle's death, James of Zebedee was certainly
> not by Rome's hand any more than the first martyr Stephen. 
...
> The problem was that if one believed in the Resurrection, then one
> must believe in Jesus as truly being the Son of God and what He
> stood for and preached during His ministry on Earth.  That would
> have been extremely difficult for some people, especially those
> that had plotted to kill Him. 

The basic problem with your argument is your total and complete reliance on
the biblical text.  Luke's account is highly suspect (I would refer you to
the hermeneia commentary on Acts).  Moreover Luke's account is written at
least 90 years after the fact.  In the meantime everyone he mentions has died
and attempts to find actual written sources behind the text have come up
with only the we section of the later portion of acts as firmly established.
Moreover, Pauls account of some of the events in Acts (as recorded in 
Galatians) fail to establish the acts accounts. 

What we need, therefore, is a reliable text, critically appreciated, which
documents the death of Christians for belief in the Resurrection.  I would
suggest you look at some greek and roman historians.  I think you will be
disapointed.

randy

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20689
From: reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: proof of resurection

In article <Apr.20.03.01.50.1993.3776@geneva.rutgers.edu>, jcj@tellabs.com (jcj) writes:
> In article <Apr.16.23.15.09.1993.1823@geneva.rutgers.edu> smayo@world.std.com (Scott A Mayo) writes:
>>...
>>I think Christianity goes down in flames if the resurrection is
>>ever disproved. ...
> 
> Didn't Paul write that if the Resurrection is not true, we are the
> biggest fools of all?  However, whether you believe in Christ or not,
> His teachings (e.g. love your brotherman as yourself), even if only 
> followed at a secular level, could do a great deal to alleviate some of 
> the problems we see today in the world.  Even when I was a rabid atheist 
> I couldn't deny that.
> 
> Jeff Johnson
> jcj@tellabs.com

We also cannot fail to note the intense suffering a devastation which has been
wrecked on our world because of Christians -- who were certain they were
following Christ.  From Captialist who have polluted the enviorment in strict
obedience to the Gensis command to subdue the earth, to Nazi's who have
"justly"
punished the Jews for the killing Christ (as well as the other progroms), the
innocent women who were burned alive in accordance with "you shall not allow a
witch to live", the Moslems who were killed in the Crusades, the god-fearing
men destroyed by the inquistion.  The religious wars in Spain, France, England,
etc.  Christianity has undoubtedly caused the most suffering and needless loss
of life by individuals whose certainity that they were following the
instructions therein, was unquestionable.  There is much to grieve.

randy

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20690
From: Bjorn.B.Larsen@delab.sintef.no (A 369)
Subject: Question: Jesus alone, Oneness

Dear fellow netters,

From time to time a term like 'Oneness Pentecostals' (or something
similar) has occurred in posts to this group. I also know that there
is a movement called something like 'Jesus alone.' 

I believe in the Trinity and have no plans to change that, but reently
I was made aware that there is at least one person within our church
who holds the view that there is no trinity. In the near future we
will discuss this item, and I feel that I shall ask you, my friends on
this group, for background information.

Can anybody tell me the basic reasons for holding a belief that there
is only Jesus? And vice versa: The foundations for the Trinity?

I shall appreciate both quotes from the Bible and historical
development.

Thank you all.

In Him,

Bjorn
--
______________________________________________________________________
               s-mail:                 e-mail:
|   |   |      Bjorn B. Larsen         bjorn.b.larsen@delab.sintef.no
|__ |__ |      SINTEF DELAB
|  \|  \|      N-7034 TRONDHEIM        tel: +47-7-592682 / 592600
|__/|__/|_     NORWAY                  fax: +47-7-591039 / 594302
______________________________________________________________________

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20691
From: mussack@austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Subject: Re: sex education

In article <Apr.19.05.13.02.1993.29198@athos.rutgers.edu>, jkellett@netcom.com (Joe Kellett) writes:
> ...
> Question for further discussion (as they say in the textbooks):  Why don't
> we teach "safe drug use" to kids, instead of drug abstinence?  ...

And how come we don't pass out bullet-proof vests in school
to promote safe gun usage? 

Chris Mussack

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20692
From: reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

In article <Apr.19.05.10.33.1993.29070@athos.rutgers.edu>, Gene.Gross@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Gene Gross) writes:
> 
> Of course they knew where it was. Don't forget that Jesus was seen by both
> the Jews and the Romans as a troublemaker. Pilate was no fool and didn't 
> need the additional headaches of some fishermen stealing Jesus' body to 
> make it appear He had arisen. Since Jesus was buried in the grave of a 
> man well know to the Sanhedrin, to say that they didn't know where He was
> buried begs the question.

Here again, the problem with most of the individuals posting here, you take the
biblical account as though it were some sort of historical recounting in the
modern sense.  I would refer you to John Dominic Crossans Book _The Cross That
Spoke_ (Pub. Harper and Row, 1988).  The earliest texts which we have make no
reference to an empty tomb.  Nor is an empty tomb necessary for a claim of
resurrection. Modern Evangelicals/Fundamentalists have completely missed what
the point of resurrection is -- Here the work of George Nickelsburg's work 
_Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism_ (Publ
Cambridge, Havard Univ. Press, 1972) is most helpful.  Look At Rom 1:1-3.  Paul
here has no need of an empty tomb.  Additionally in 1 Cor 15, Here again there
is no mention of an empty tomb. He was raised (note the passive), he appeared,
no ascension either.

Resurrection could be accomplished without ever disturbing the bones in the
grave.  The whole idea of an empty tomb isn't broached in any of our texts
until well after the fall of Jerusalem.  By that time, the idea of coming up
with a body would have been ludicrious.  Moreover Mack has argued (convicingly,
I think) that the empty tomb story first appears in Mark (we have no texts
before this which mention the tomb). 
    

> 
> Now, you say that you think that the disciples stole the body. But think on
> this a moment. Would you die to maintain something you KNEW to be a 
> deliberate lie!? If not, then why do you think the disciples would!? Now, I'm
> not talking about dying for something you firmly believe to be the truth, 
> but unbeknown to you, it is a lie. Many have done this. No, I'm talking about
> dying, by beheading, stoning, crucifixion, etc., for something you know to
> be a lie! Thus, you position with regards to the disciples stealing the 
> body seems rather lightweight to me.
> 
> As for graverobbers, why risk the severe penalties for grave robbing over 
> the body of Jesus? He wasn't buried with great riches. So, again, this is
> an argument that can be discounted.
> 
> That leaves you back on square one. What happened to the body!?
> 
> 
> [Again, let me comment that the most plausible non-Christian scenario,
> and the one typically suggested by sceptics who are knowledgeable
> about the NT, is that the resurrection was a subjective event, and the
> empty tomb stories are a result of accounts growing in the telling.
> --clh]

You are quite right here.  Even the Idea of a subjective mystical event as the
foundation of the resurrection narratives is currently becoming more untenable.
See B. Mack _A Myth of Innocence_.

randy

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20693
From: jono@mac-ak-24.rtsg.mot.com (Jon Ogden)
Subject: Re: Latest on Branch Davidians

In article <Apr.20.03.02.42.1993.3815@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt) wrote:


> I think it's really sad that so many people put their faith in a mere
> man, even if he did claim to be the son of God, and/or a prophet.

It is just as Christ said about his return:

"Some will say, 'He is in the desert.' or some will say, 'He is in the
wilderness.'  But do not believe them.  For as lightning flashes east to
west so shall the coming of the Son of Man be."  
                                         { My paraphrase - I think the
verse is
                                           somewhere in John }

Jon

----------------
sig file broken....

please try later...
----------------

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20694
From: sun075!Gerry.Palo@uunet.uu.net (Gerry Palo)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."

gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric Molas) writes:

> Religion (especially Christianity) is nothing more than a DRUG.

There is a certain truth to this statement. Only I would use the word
"medicine" instead of drug.  With regard to the condition of the human
soul, Christianity is first and foremost a healing medicine.  It also
strengthens and enables one, as healing takes hold, to grow in new
strength and health to live and be and to do that for which God created 
us.

> Some people use drugs as an escape from reality.  

Christ's medicine, rightly allowed to work, brings one nearer to
reality and offers the clarity of understanding and the strength
of spirit with which to meet it in a healthy human way.

> Christians inject themselves with Jesus and live with that high. 

(small spelling correction added)

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20695
From: lfoard@hopper.virginia.edu (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Assurance of Hell

In article <Apr.20.03.01.19.1993.3755@geneva.rutgers.edu> REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov writes:
>
>I dreamed that the great judgment morning had dawned,
>     and the trumpet had blown.
>I dreamed that the sinners had gathered for judgment
>     before the white throne.
>Oh what weeping and wailing as the lost were told of their fate.
>They cried for the rock and the mountains.
>They prayed, but their prayers were too late.
>The soul that had put off salvation, 
>"Not tonight I'll get saved by and by.
> No time now to think of ....... religion," 
>Alas, he had found time to die.
>And I saw a Great White Throne.

If I believed in the God of the bible I would be very fearful of making
this statement. Doesn't it say those who judge will be judged by the
same measure? 

>Now, some have protest by saying that the fear of hell is not good for
>motivation, yet Jesus thought it was.  Paul thought it was.  Paul said, 
>"Knowing therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men."

A God who must motivate through fear is not a God worthy of worship.
If the God Jesus spoke of did indeed exist he would not need hell to
convince people to worship him.

>Today, too much of our evangelism is nothing but soft soap and some of
>it is nothing but evangelical salesmanship.  We don't tell people anymore, that
>there's such a thing as sin or that there's such a place as hell.  

It was the myth of hell that made me finally realize that the whole thing
was untrue. If it hadn't been for hell I would still be a believer today.
The myth of hell made me realize that if there was a God that he was not
the all knowing and all good God he claimed to be. Why should I take such
a being at his word, even if there was evidence for his existance?

-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20696
From: parkin@Eng.Sun.COM (Michael Parkin)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

Another issue of importance.  Was the crucification the will of God or
a tragic mistake.  I believe it was a tragic mistake.  God's will can
never be accomplished through the disbelief of man.  Jesus came to
this world to build the kingdom of heaven on the earth.  He
desperately wanted the Jewish people to accept him as the Messiah.  If
the crucification was the will of God how could Jesus pray that this
cup pass from him.  Was this out of weakness.  NEVER.  Many men and
women have given their lives for their country or other noble causes.
Is Jesus less than these.  No he is not.  He knew the crucification
was NOT the will of GOD.  God's will was that the Jewish people accept
Jesus as the Messiah and that the kingdom of Heaven be established on
the earth with Jesus as it's head. (Just like the Jewish people
expected). If this had happened 2000 years ago can you imagine what
kind of world we would live in today.  It would be a very different
world.  And that is eactly what GOD wanted.  Men and women of that age
could have been saved by following the living Messiah while he was on
the earth.  Jesus could have established a sinless lineage that would
have continued his reign after his ascension to the spiritual world to
live with GOD.  Now the kingdom of heaven on the earth will have to
wait for Christ's return.  But when he returns will he be recognized
and will he find faith on this earth.  Isn't it about time for his
return.  It's been almost 2000 years.

Mike


In article 28885@athos.rutgers.edu, oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser) writes:
In article <Apr.10.05.33.59.1993.14428@athos.rutgers.edu> mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:
>The two historic facts that I think the most important are these:
>
>(1) If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then he must have done something
>else equally impressive, in order to create the observed amount of impact.
>
>(2) Nobody ever displayed the dead body of Jesus, even though both the
>Jewish and the Roman authorities would have gained a lot by doing so
>(it would have discredited the Christians).

And the two simplest refutations are these:

(1)  What impact?  The only record of impact comes from the New Testament.
I have no guarantee that its books are in the least accurate, and that
the recorded "impact" actually happened.  I find it interesting that no other
contemporary source records an eclipse, an earthquake, a temple curtain
being torn, etc.  The earliest written claim we have of Jesus' resurrection
is from the Pauline epistles, none of which were written sooner than 20 years
after the supposed event.

(2)  It seems probable that no one displayed the body of Jesus because no
one knew where it was.  I personally believe that the most likely
explanation was that the body was stolen (by disciples, or by graverobbers).
Don't bother with the point about the guards ... it only appears in one
gospel, and seems like exactly the sort of thing early Christians might make
up in order to counter the grave-robbing charge.  The New Testament does
record that Jews believed the body had been stolen.  If there were really
guards, they could not have effectively made this claim, as they did.

-Scott O.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20697
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: etymology of "Easter"

for SRC

In most languages, the Feast of the Resurrection of Our Lord is
known as the PASCH, or PASQUE, or some variation thereof, a word
which comes from the Hebrew PESACH, meaning "Passover." In English,
German, and a few related languages, however, it is known as EASTER,
or some variation thereof, and questions have been asked about the
origin of this term.

One explanation is that given by the Venerable Bede in his DE
RATIONE TEMPORUM 1:5, where he derives the word from the name of an
Anglo-Saxon goddess of Spring called EASTRE. Bede is a great
scholar, and it is natural to take his word for it. But he lived
673-735, and Augustine began preaching in Kent in 597. The use of
the word EASTER to describe the Feast would have been well
established before the birth of Bede and probably before the birth
of anyone he might have discussed the subject with. It seems likely
that his derivation is just a guess, based on his awareness that
there had been an Anglo-Saxon goddess of Spring bearing that name,
and the resemblance of the words. Thus, if the said resemblance
(surely it is not surprising that a personification of Spring should
have a name similar to the word for Dawn) is not in istelf
convincing, the testimony (or rather the conjecture) by Bede does
not make it more so.

Assuming that Bede was right, that would not justify saying that the
Christian celebration (which, after all, had been going on for some
centuries before the name EASTER was applied to it) has pagan roots.
It would simply mean that the Anglo-Saxons, upon becoming Christians
and beginning to celebrate the Resurrection by a festival every
spring, called it by the name that to them meant simply "Spring
Festival."

However, Bede's is not the only theory that has been proposed.  J
Knoblech, in "Die Sprach," ZEITSCHRIFT FUER SPRACHWISSENSCHAFT 5
(Vienna, 1959) 27-45, offers the following derivation:

Among Latin-speaking Christians, the week beginning with the Feast
of the Resurrection was known as "hebdomada alba" (white week),
since the newly-baptized Christians were accustomed to wear their
white baptismal robes throughout that week. Sometimes the week was
referred to simply as "albae." Translaters rendering this into
German mistook it for the plural of "alba," meaning "dawn." They
accordingly rendered it as EOSTARUM, which is Old High German for
"dawn." This gave rise to the form EASTER in English.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer


[No, I'm not interested in restarting discussions of the propriety
of celebrating Easter.  However this seems like it contains enough
interesting information that people might like to see it.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20698
From: lmvec@westminster.ac.uk (William Hargreaves)
Subject: Help

Hi everyone, 
	   I'm a commited Christian that is battling with a problem.  I know
that romans talks about how we are saved by our faith not our deeds, yet
hebrews and james say that faith without deeds is useless, saying' You fools,
do you still think that just believing is enough?'

Now if someone is fully believing but there life is totally lead by themselves
and not by God, according to Romans that person is still saved by there faith.
But then there is the bit which says that God preferes someone who is cold to
him (i.e. doesn't know him - condemned) so a lukewarm Christian someone who
knows and believes in God but doesn't make any attempt to live by the bible.

Now I am of the opinion that you a saved through faith alone (not what you do)
as taught in Romans, but how can I square up in my mind the teachings of James
in conjunction with the lukewarm Christian being 'spat-out'

Can anyone help me, this really bothers me.

In Christ,
Will

-- 
============================================
| Dallas Cowboys - World Champions 1992-93 |
============================================

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20699
From: norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak)
Subject: Re: Interfaith weddings

Bill Burns was looking for a description of the differnces  between the
Catholic and Lutheran churches.

I'd recommend Prof. William Whalen's book "Separated Brethren".  It's
an overview of common US denominations, intended for a Catholic
audience.

-- 
Richard Aquinas Chonak, norris@mit.edu
Seeking job change: sys-mgr: VAX, SIS, COBOL; programmer; UNIX, C, C++, X

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20700
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: Paul on weekly collections

Mark Gregory Foster writes (concerning 1 Corinthians 16:2):

 > The idea was introduced to me once that the reason Paul wanted
 > the Corinthians to lay aside money for the collection on the
 > first day of the week was that this was when they received their
 > weekly wages.

But the ancient Romans did not observe a seven-day week.  Unless a
man was working for a Jewish employer, he is unlikely to have been
paid on the first day of a seven-day week. Nor would a Jewish
employer have kept his wages over the week-end (see Lev 19:13; Dt
24:15).

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20701
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: about Eliz C Prophet

Rob Butera asks about a book called THE LOST YEARS OF JESUS, by
Elizabeth Clare Prophet.

I do not know the book. However, Miss Prophet is the leader of a
group (The Church Universal and Triumphant) derived from the I AM
group founded by a Mr. Ballard who began his mission in the 1930's
(I am writing this from memory and may not have all the details
straight -- for an old account, check your library for a bnook by
Marcus Bach) after an eighteenth-century Frenchman appeared, tapped
him on the shoulder, and offered him a cup of "cosmic essence." A
major tenet of the movement is that there is a monastery in the
mountains of Tibet from which a monk descends to the lower altitudes
every few centuries to preach, and that all major religions have
been founded by monks from this monastery. Typically, the Ballard
family and their successors, the Prophet family (related by
marriage, if I remember aright), base almost all their teachings on
messages they have allegedly received by telepathy from Tibet. I
should be surprised if the book you mention has any scholarly basis.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20702
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: Chanting of the Passion

Mike Rolfe writes:

 > If you know the Latin, one really beautiful way to hear the
 > Passion is its being chanted by three deacons: the Narrator
 > chants in the middle baritone range, Jesus chants in the bass,
 > and others directly quoted are handled by a high tenor.

This is done in English (same music as the traditional Latin) in
many Anglican parishes. I should expect that many RCC parishes would
do likewise.  The ST MATTHEW PASSION and ST JOHN PASSION of J S Bach
are direct offshoots of this tradition

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20703
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: muslim tithe; sexism in Genesis 2

According to mdbs@ms.uky.edu, muslims tithe 1/6 of their income.

Perhaps there are some offshoots of Islam that impose this on their
followers.  But the standard tithe is 1/40 of one's net worth, once
a year.

The same writer also objects to the Bible for teaching that

 > "woman was created after man, to be his helper" etc.

This is presumably a reference to Genesis 2. Suppose that that
chapter had been written with the sexes reversed. We have God
creating woman, and then saying, "It is not good that woman should
be alone. I will make a help meet for her." Feminists would be
outraged. The clear implication would be that God had started at the
bottom and worked up, making first the plants, then the fish and
birds, then the beasts, then woman, and finally His masterpiece, the
Male Chauvinist Pig. The statement that woman is not capable of
functioning by herself, that she needs a man to open doors for her,
would have been seen as a particularly gratuitous insult. The fact
that the creation of woman from the dust of the ground was given
only briefly and in general, while the creation of the Man was given
in six times the number of words, would have been cited as evidence
of the author's estimate of the relative importance of the sexes.
The verdict would have been unequivocal. "No self-respecting woman
can accept this book as a moral guide, or as anything but sexist
trash!" I suggest that Moses, fearing this reaction, altered his
original draft and described the creation with Adam first and then
Eve, so as to appease Miriam and other radical feminists of the day.
For some reason, however, it did not work.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20704
From: jcj@tellabs.com (jcj)
Subject: Re: proof of resurection

In article <Apr.21.03.26.18.1993.1352@geneva.rutgers.edu> reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu writes:

>We also cannot fail to note the intense suffering a devastation which has been
>wrecked on our world because of Christians -- who were certain they were
>following Christ.  From Captialist ... in strict obedience to the Gensis 
>innocent women who were burned alive in accordance with "you shall not allow a
>witch to live", the Moslems who were killed in the Crusades, the god-fearing
>men destroyed by the inquistion.  The religious wars in Spain, France, England,
>etc.  Christianity has undoubtedly caused the most suffering and needless loss
>of life by individuals whose certainity that they were following the
>instructions therein, was unquestionable.  There is much to grieve.

I agree.  Where in the Gospels does Jesus advocate any of the actions
you mention?  

I couldn't find "witch" or "sorceress" in my concordance.  Is there
something in the Epistles about witches?  (I'm still working my way
through the Gospels.)

JJ

[The reference is Ex 22:18.  It's witch in KJ, sorceress in RSV.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20705
From: cs89mcd@brunel.ac.uk (Michael C Davis)
Subject: Re: Help

Jon Ogden (jono@mac-ak-24.rtsg.mot.com) wrote:
: It is a dead and useless faith which has no action behind it.  Actions
: prove our faith and show the genuineness of it.

A good example of this is Abraham (referred to in the James passage). Hebrews
says that Abraham was justified by faith -- but his faith was demonstrated
through his works (i.e., he obeyed what God told him to do).

Reading Abraham's ``biography'' in Genesis is very instructive. He was a man
beset by *lack* of faith a lot of the time (e.g. lying about Sarah being his
wife on 2 occasions; trying to fulfil God's promise on God's behalf by
copulating with Hagar). . . yet it seems that God didn't evaluate him on the
basis of individual incidents. Abraham is listed as one of the ``heroes of 
faith'' in Hebrews 11. i.e., when it really came to the crunch, God declared
Abraham as a man of faith. He believed God's promises.

This gives us confidence. Although real faith demonstrates itself through
works, God is not going to judge us according to our success/failure in
performing works.

``Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy
he saved us, through the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy
Spirit.'' (Titus 3.5)

Amazing Grace! Hallelujah!
-- 
Michael Davis (cs89mcd@brunel.ac.uk)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20706
From: jkjec@westminster.ac.uk (Shazad Barlas)
Subject: iterations of the bible

Hi... I'm not a religious guy so dont take this as some kinda flame (thanx
in advance)

I want to know why there are so many different versions of the bible? There
is this version of the bible I have read about and on the front page it says:
"....contains inaccurate data and inconsistencies."   

					Thanx in advance... Shaz....

[I'm not sure quite what you mean by many different versions.
The primary distinction in versions you see today is in the style
of the translation.  It's pretty unusual to see significant
differences in meaning.  There are a few differences in the underlying
text.  That's because before printing, manuscripts were copied by
hand.  Slight differences resulted.  There are enough manuscripts
around that scholars can do a pretty good job of recreating the
original, but there are some uncertainties.  Fortunately, they are
generally at the level of minor differences in wording.  There are
something like 3 or 4 places where whole sentences are involved,
but with recent discoveries of older manuscripts, I don't think there's
much uncertainly about those cases.  As far as I know, no Christians
believe that the process of copying manuscripts or the process of
translating is free of error.  But I also don't think there's
enough uncertainty in establishing the text or translating it that
it has much practical effect.

Whether the Bible contains inaccurate data and inconsistences is a hot
topic of debate here.  Many Christians deny it.  Some accept it
(though most would say that the inaccuracies involved are on details
that don't affect the faith).  But this has nothing to do with there
being multiple versions.  The supposed inconsistences can be found in
all the versions.  I'm surprised to find a reference to this on the
title page though.  What version are you talking about?  I've been
referring to major scholarly translations.  These are what get
referenced in postings here and elsewhere.  There have certainly been
editions that are (to be kind) less widely accepted.  This includes
everything from reconstructions that combine parallel accounts into
single narrations, to editions that omit material that the editor
objects to for some reason or the other.  The copyright on the Bible
has long since expired, so there nothing to stop people from making
editions that do whatever wierd thing they want.  However the editions
that are widely used are carefully prepared by groups of scholars from
a variety of backgrounds, with lots of crosschecks.  I could imagine
one of the lesser-known editions claiming to have fixed up all
inaccurate data and inconsistencies.  But if so, it's not any edition
that's widely used.  The widely used ones leave the text as is.
(Weeeeelllllll, almost as is.  It's been alleged that a few
translations have fudged a word or two here and there to minimize
inconsistencies.  Because translation is not an exact science, there
are always going to be differences in opinion over which word is best,
I'm afraid.)

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20707
From: hall@vice (Hal F Lillywhite;627-3877;59-360;LP=A;YApG)
Subject: Re: Help

In article <Apr.21.03.26.51.1993.1379@geneva.rutgers.edu> lmvec@westminster.ac.uk (William Hargreaves) writes:

>	   I'm a commited Christian that is battling with a problem.  I know
>that romans talks about how we are saved by our faith not our deeds, yet
>hebrews and james say that faith without deeds is useless, saying' You fools,
>do you still think that just believing is enough?'

Actually I don't think there is any conflict if we really understand
what these passages say.  First, what is faith?  If you study the 
meaning of the Greek and Hebrew words so translated I think you will
come to the conclusion that the word means a *lot* more than mere 
belief.  Faith means both trust and action.  If you do not put your 
belief into action it simply cannot qualify as faith.  I think this 
is what James means when he says that "faith without works is dead" 
and, "I will show you my faith by my works."  Remember James was 
writing to "the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad."  This 
probably means he was writing to those who would hear the gospel much 
later and wouldn't understand the meaning of the original Greek.
(Indeed I suspect James was writing to us, today, among others he
intended to reach.)  Paul, on the other hand wrote mostly to the
people of the Roman empire who generally understood the meaning of
the Greek.

Another key to why there is no conflict is to look at Paul's
statements in their context.  I think you will find that when Paul
contrasts faith and works it is in the context of comparing the
gospel with the Law, meaning the Law of Moses.  This was the great
burden of Paul's life.  As the apostle to the Gentiles he would go
convert a bunch of people, then the "Judizers" would come along and
try to convince them that they also had to obey the Law of Moses (cf
Acts chapter 15).  In this context Paul condemns the idea of being
saved by the works of the Law, saying that we are saved by the blood
of Jesus and our faith in him.  I believe that a better translation
for today would be that we are saved by *faithfulness*.  I think
"faithfulness" today has a meaning closer to what the original
writers intended.

>Now if someone is fully believing but there life is totally lead by themselves
>and not by God, according to Romans that person is still saved by there faith.

I think you misunderstand Romans.  What Paul is really saying is
that God prefers a faithful Gentile who does not "keep kosher" to a
kosher Jew who fails to stay faithful in the more important matters
of following the Lord and having charity toward his fellows.

>But then there is the bit which says that God preferes someone who is cold to
>him (i.e. doesn't know him - condemned) so a lukewarm Christian someone who
>knows and believes in God but doesn't make any attempt to live by the bible.

In the sense of faith described above, you cannot have real faith and 
be lukewarm.  If you know God but are lukewarm (unfaithful), you are 
worse off than the person who never heard of Him.  Remember, Jesus in
the parable of the pearl of great price (Mat 13:45-46) and again in
the one on the treasure hidden in the field (Mat 13:44) indicates that
the price of the Kingdom of God is *all* we have.

[I agree with you in general, including the fact that "pistis" has
some of the force of "faithful".  However if you take that too far,
you can end up with something that Paul definitely would not have
intended.  Being faithful means following God in all things.  To say
that we are saved by being faithful is very close to saying that we
are saved by commiting no sins.  I assume that's not what you meant.

I have almost given up on finding a specific verbal formula that
completely captures this.  However I think Paul is describing what I'd
call a basic orientation, including aspects such as trust and
commitment.  Jesus speaks of it as rebirth, which implies a basic
change.  We may still do things that are sinful, and may fail to show
the new life in Christ in many situations where we should.  But in any
Christian there had better be the basic change in orientation that
Jesus calls being born again.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20708
From: alvin@spot.Colorado.EDU (Kenneth Alvin)
Subject: Re: Assurance of Hell

In article <Apr.20.03.01.19.1993.3755@geneva.rutgers.edu> REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov writes:
>
>2)  If you haven't accepted Jesus are your Savior, you're taking an awful
>chance.  As I say to the Jehovah Witnesses (who no longer frequent my door), if
>you are right and I am wrong, then I will have lived a good life and will die
>and cease to exist, but if I am right and you are wrong, then you will die and
>suffer eternal damnation.  I don't mean to make fun at this point, but its like
>Dirty Harry said, "You've got to ask yourself, 'Do I feel lucky?'  Well do
>you?"  "A man's got to know his limitations."  Don't be one of the "whosoever
>wont's."  

This is a ridiculous argument for being a Christian.  So then, you might 
consider switching from Christianity to another religion if you were 
offered an even more frightening description of another hell?  How many
Christians do think there are who view it strictly as an insurance policy?
Not many I know; they believe in a message of love and compassion for 
others.  A faith based on fear of hell sounds like a dysfunctional 
relationship with God.  Like a child who cringes in fear of a parent's
physical violence.  

Many religions have concrete views of heaven and hell, with various
threats and persuasions regarding who will go where.  Competition over
who can envison the worst hell can hardly nurture the idea of loving
your neighbor as yourself.

>--Rex

-- 
comments, criticism welcome...
-Ken
alvin@ucsu.colorado.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20709
From: drt@athena.mit.edu (David R Tucker)
Subject: Re: Question: Jesus alone, Oneness

Regarding "Jesus only" believers, our moderator writes:

   [There may be some misunderstanding over terms here...]

I agree.  Quite likely, actually.

                                                      [...I believe "Jesus
   only" originally was in the context of baptism.  These are folks who
   believe that baptism should be done with a formula mentioning only
   Jesus, rather than Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  This may have
   doctrinal implications, but as far as I know it does not mean that
   these folks deny the existence or divinity of the Father.  I'm not the
   right one to describe this theology, and in fact I think there may be
   several, including what would classically be called monophysite or
   Arian (two rather different views), as well as some who have beliefs
   that are probably consistent with Trinitarian standards, but who won't
   use Trinitarian language because they misunderstand it or simply
   because it is not Biblical.  --clh]

Not Biblical?  What then can they make of the end of Matthew?

(28:18)And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on
earth has been given to me. (19)Go therefore and make disciples of all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and
of the Holy Spirit, (20) and teaching them to obey everything that I
have commanded to you.  And remember, I am with you always, to the end
of the age." {Other ancient authorities add *Amen*} [NRSV]

The notes give no sense that this is emended.  Do other texts
contradict this regarding Baptism?  Or is a misunderstanding of the
Trinity the most likely explanation after all?

But maybe I simply misunderstand their views.  (Is anyone else out there
forced to read this group with both a good Bible and an unabridged
dictionary??  Christianity really is an education in itself.)

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|David R. Tucker		KG2S		     drt@athena.mit.edu|
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Arrgggghhhh.  When I talked about people who rejected Trinitarian
language as unBiblical, I was speaking of Trinitarian theology, things
like "one essense and three persons".  Obviously the three-fold
baptismal formula is Biblical, as you point out.  (I normally use the
term "three-fold" in referring to Mat.  While it is certainly
consistent with belief in the Trinity, the Trinity is a doctrine whose
full formulation occurred in the 4th and 5th Cent's.  It's unlikely
that Mat. had in mind the fully-developed Trinitarian doctrine.
Indeed the three-fold baptismal formula is used by some groups that do
not believe in the Trinity.)  The disagreement over baptismal formulae
occurs because of passages such as Acts 2:38, which command baptism in
the name of Jesus.  (There are a couple of other passages in Acts as
well.)  This leaves us with sort of a problem: we're commanded in Mat.
to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
and in Acts to baptize in the name of Jesus.

"Jesus only" groups baptize in the name of Jesus.  They consider this
consistent with Mat 28:18, because they say that Jesus is the name of
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  I'm not the right one to
ask to explain what this means.  I will simply say that it does not
appear to be normal Trinitarian theology.  (It is also an odd way of
dealing with the idiomatic phrase "in the name of".)

Those who use the three-fold formula don't seem to have a standard
answer to the passages talking about baptizing in the name of Jesus.
I suspect that the most common explanation is to say that "in the name
of" need not be a verbal formula.  To say that you baptize in the name
of Jesus may simply mean that you are doing baptism under Jesus'
authority.  In the 1st Cent. context, it contrasts Christian baptism
with the baptism of John or other Jewish baptism.  Of course there's a
certain parallelism between these passages.  That suggests that we
could just as well say that Mat 28:18 doesn't require the specific
three-fold formula to be used in baptism, but simply characterizes
baptism done by those who follow the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

One might well suspect that in the early church, more than one
baptismal formula was used.  So long as we consider following Jesus to
be the same as following the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, no great
damage would be done by such a difference.  This does *not* mean that
I think we should go back to using both formulae.  Baptism is one of
the few things that almost all Christian groups now recognize
mutually, so I do not think doing something to upset that would be in
the interests of the Gospel.  This is reinforced by the fact that
those groups that actually use "in the name of Jesus" now do seem to
have in mind a difference in doctrine.  But as I've said before, I'm
not the one to explain what their doctrine is.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20710
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse

And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone,
able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in
the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the
truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the
devil, who has taken them captive to do his will. 
IITimothy 2:24-26

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20711
From: max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb)
Subject: Re: A question that has bee bothering me.

In article <Apr.14.03.07.55.1993.5435@athos.rutgers.edu> wquinnan@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Malcusco) writes:
>In article <Apr.11.01.02.39.1993.17790@athos.rutgers.edu> atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez) writes:
>	My problem with Science is that often it allows us to
>assume we know what is best for ourselves.  God endowed us
>with the ability to produce life through sexual relations,

You assume this because you believe in a designing creator,
and you observe our ability to procreate...

>for example, but He did not make that availible to everyone.
>Does that mean that if Science can over-ride God's decision
>through alterations, that God wills for us to have the power
>to decide who should and should not be able to have 
>children?

.... But then you observe our ability to modify fertility
through intelligence & experiment, and draw no similar conclusions
about God designing us for scientific inquiry & the use of the
technology that it produces.  How is it that one ability is "obviously
from God", and the other not?

>	I cannot draw a solid line regarding where I
>would approve of Scientific study, and where I would not,
>but I will say this:  Before one experiments with the
>universe to find out all its secrets, one should ask
>why they want this knowledge.

I want to know the truth, and hold the Truth as the most
basic of all ethical values, because correct moral judgement
relies on knowing the truth, not vice versa. Moralities that
assert that assent to a belief is a moral choice, and not
compelled by evidence inevitably cut off the limb they sit upon.
Falsification of evidence, conscious and unconscious, follows
corrupting both the intellect and the heart.

>I will say that each person should pray for guidance
>when trying to unravel the mysteries of the universe, and
>should cease their unravelling if they have reason to 
>believe their search is displeasing to God.
>
>			---Malcusco

If there is a God, he has nothing to fear from truth.
As to imaginary gods and there followers: Be afraid. Be very
afraid.

	Max

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20712
From: marka@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?

>I would like to get your opinions on this: when exactly does an engaged
>couple become "married" in God's eyes? 

I'm waiting for an RC to speak up ! 8-)
Nobody has, so I will...

Those with Bibles on hand can give the exact chapter & verse...
At the time Jesus told Peter that he was the "rock", He said
whatever you hold true on earth is held true in heaven, and 
whatever you don't hold true won't be true in heaven.

Therefore, with respect to marriage, the ceremony has to be
done by an RC priest. No big parties required. Just the priest,
the couple and witnesses. "Divorce" is not allowed. But anullments
are granted upon approval by either the bishop or the Pope 
(not sure if the Pope delegates this function).

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Ashley                        |DISCLAIMER: My opinions. Not Harris'
marka@gcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com      |
The Lost Los Angelino              |

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20713
From: rjb@akgua.att.com
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?

In article <Apr.23.02.55.25.1993.3117@geneva.rutgers.edu>, rjs2@po.cwru.edu (Richard J. Szanto) writes:
> In a previous article, randerso@acad1.sahs.uth.tmc.edu (Robert Anderson) says:
> 
> >I would like to get your opinions on this: when exactly does an engaged
> >couple become "married" in God's eyes?  Some say that if the two have
> >publically announced their plans to marry, have made their vows to God, and
> >are unswervingly committed to one another (I realize this is a subjective
> >qualifier) they are married/joined in God's sight.
> 
> I have discussed this with my girlfriend often.  I consider myself married,
> though legally I am not.  Neither of us have been with other people sexually,
> although we have been with each other.  We did not have sexual relations
> until we decided to marry eventually.  For financial and distance reasons,
> we will not be legally married for another year and a half.  Until then,
> I consider myself married for life in God's eyes.  I have faith that we
> have a strong relationship, and have had for over 4 years, and will be
> full of joy when we marry in a church.  First, however, we must find a
> church( we will be living in a new area when we marry, and will need to
> find a new church community).
> 
> Anyway, I feel that if two people commit to marriage before God, they are
> married and are bound by that commitment.
> 
> -- 
> 						-Rick Szanto


Rick has nailed the problem down pretty well.

As I can find no Scripture (have I missed it ?) that details
when you are married, I have to make some assumptions based
on the PRINCIPLES of Scripture.  

It seems to me that it takes 3 parties to make a marriage:
husband-to-be, wife-to-be, and God.  If you promise before
each other and God that you will convenant together to be
married, then...you are (IMO).

So why do we have the ceremonial part ?  That seems to be
there for "connectedness" in the Body of Christ.  My brothers
and sisters ought to be involved so that there can be some
accountability on both our parts.  That's part of the concept
from Hebrews about "not forsaking the assembling of yourselves
together as is the custom of some."  We need each other because
Lone Ranger Christians and Lone Ranger Marriages smack of a
self sufficiency that the I don't see in the NT.  Does anyone
see the Paul Simon "I am a rock, I am an island..." model anywhere
in Christianity. (Song lyrics show your age :-) ) ?

Further, since marriage is a legal matter/institution in the USA
and many other places, and such laws do not specifically go
crosswise to the clear teachings of Scripture, we ought to
obey them to avoid even the appearance of "evil" (I Thess 5:22)

So this would imply at least a civil ceremony before marriage,
but keep in mind we are at least doing all of this for the 
conscience of others because back to the beginning...you are
married when you and your intended promise each other and God
to be in convenant. (IMO)

What ch'all think ?

Bobby - akgua!rjb

[In some states, the kind of commitment described in Richard Szanto's
posting can create a common law marriage.  Indeed his posting itself
might go a long way towards establishing that a marriage exists,
should the issue ever end up in court.  He might want to consult a
lawyer who is familiar with common law marriage in his state.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20714
From: bluelobster+@cmu.edu (David O Hunt)
Subject: Re: Serbian genocide Work of God?

On 23-Apr-93 in Serbian genocide Work of God?
user James Sledd@ssdc.sas.upe writes:
>Are the governments of the United States and Europe not moving
>to end the ethnic cleansing by the Serbs because the targets are
>muslims?

Bingo - that and there's no oil there.

On 23-Apr-93 in Serbian genocide Work of God?
user James Sledd@ssdc.sas.upe writes:
>Are the Serbs doing the work of God?  Hmm...

If this is the "work of god" then I'm doubly glad that I don't worship him.



David Hunt - Graduate Slave |     My mind is my own.      | Towards both a
Mechanical Engineering      | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and
Carnegie Mellon University  | <<<Use Golden Rule v2.0>>>  | Jewish homeland!
====T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=========T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=====
Email:  bluelobster+@cmu.edu    Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper"

It will be a great day when scientists and engineers have all the R&D money
they need and religions have to beg for money to pay the priest.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20715
From: caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

(Dean and I write lots and lots about absolute truth and arrogance.)

vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.) writes:
> I strongly suspect that we are reaching an impasse here, which is why I
> deign from commenting much further.

I agree that we'll probably never agree, and I'm starting to feel 
frustrated, and I'm tired of having my conversations with my husband 
dominated by this topic (just kidding, :-)).

I do have to say, though, that participating in this discussion has been
a good learning experience for me.  My views on this topic have evolved
and clarified through this, and I suspect that we may not disagree as 
much as we think. 

I admit that I'm strongly prejudiced against evangelical Christianity,
and I may not always be rational in my reactions to it.  I grew up
in EC, and went to an EC college.  It was definitely the wrong place
for me, and I react strongly to any implication that EC or conservative
Christianity has any sort of stronghold on true Christianity.  I shudder 
when I remember the condescending attitude I had about other Christians 
who didn't adhere to the EC model.

I have come to see that my real objection to this whole notion of 
absolute truth is the actions I have seen it lead to.  I have had some 
very bad experiences with evangelical Christians claiming to know the 
truth, and judging me or others based on their belief that they have 
the answers.  Knowing the truth doesn't seem to leave a whole lot of 
room for others' opinions.

I can accept your belief in absolute truth as long as you* don't try to 
use that belief to try to force others to comply with it, and you are 
very careful that you don't hurt others with it.  Love your neighbor 
seems to go totally out the window when one knows the truth and believes 
that everyone should be living by that truth.  Other people have 
convictions about the truth every bit as strong and sincere as yours, 
based on careful searching, prayer, and their relationship with God.  
Don't dismiss them because God didn't lead them to the same conclusions 
as yours.

*This is not directed personally at you, Dean.

Carol Alvin
caralv@auto-trol.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20716
From: will@futon.webo.dg.com (Will Taber)
Subject: Re: Being right about messiahs

In article 2262@geneva.rutgers.edu, Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca (Desiree Bradley) writes:
> I must have missed the postings about Waco, David Koresh, and the Second
> Coming.  How does one tell if a Second Coming is the real thing, unless the
> person claiming to be IT is obviously insane?

One rule of thumb is that if a person is making the claim, they are
wrong.  I was just reading John 14 this morning (I think that is the
right chapter, anyway it is close and I don't have a Bible at work to
check with.) and in it Jesus is talking to his disciples about his
impending death and he says that he will be going away and then later
he will be with them.  He said something along the lines of "I will
be in you and you will be in me."  (Again I cannot provide the exact
quote or citation.)  Anyway, my understanding of this is that
the Second Coming will not be an outward event.  It is an inward
event, Christ will come to live in our hearts and we will live in him.
If you look for a person you will be deceived.

It seems to me that the Jews had been looking for a Messiah that would
be a political or military leader and so didn't recognize Jesus when
he came.  Jesus tried to show that his Kingdom was not of this earth.
A lot of what I have seen written about the Second Coming seems to
based on an expectation of Christ coming back and finally taking over
the world and running it the way it should be.  It sounds a lot like
what the Jews were looking for.  The First Coming wasn't like that and
I see no reason for the Second Coming to be like that either.

Oh and by the way, I don't expect it to happen once.  There is no one
Second Coming, there are a lot of little ones.  Every time Christ
comes into someones heart, Christ has come again.

Peace,
Will.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
| William Taber         | Will_Taber@dg.com 	  | Any opinions expressed |
| Data General Corp.    | will@futon.webo.dg.com  | are mine alone and may |
| Westboro, Mass. 01580 |                         | change without notice. |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| When all your dreams are laid to rest, you can get what's second best,   |
|	But it's hard to get enough.		David Wilcox               |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20717
From: shd2001@andy.bgsu.edu (Sherlette Dixon)
Subject: Was Jesus Black?

The people who post to this particular newsgroup are either too cowardly,
too arrogant, or too apathetic to discuss this issue since I have yet to
see any discussion grace my computer screen.  While it holds PARTICULAR
interest to the African-American community, everyone has something to gain
from discussing it.  As any knowledgable person should know, Christianity
has been used in this country to tighten the spiritual, emotional, & mental
hold slavery placed on the minds, souls & hearts of African-Americans. 
This was most effectively done by the display of white icons of Jesus in
slave churches to encourage the godly superiority of slaveowners.  It
wasn't enough that the slaveowner was your provider, but he was also your
GOD, to be looked upon with unconditional love & loyalty and to be
worshipped with great pride.  But how culturally & biblically accurate are
these icons?  Pictures & statues of a Black Jesus have been found in
European countries, as that of a Black Madonna.  But what about Biblical
physical descriptions of Jesus, His hair being compared to that of wool,
His feet to that of brass?  And think about the area of the world where all
Biblical actions took place.  I welcome all intelligent commentary on this
important topic; flamers need not reply.

Sherlette 

P.S.  I expect at least THIS type of response:  "It doesn't matter what
color His skin was; His actions & what He did for mankind are what counts."
 This is true; I am not questioning this.  But He walked the earth for 3
decades as a HUMAN; this part of His existence intrigues me.  And as for
saying that "it doesn't matter..."  to a member of a physically emancipated
people who is still struggling for MENTAL emancipation, believe me:  IT
MATTERS.

[The general attack on the members of this group seems unjustified.
There has been discussion of this issue in the past.  We can't discuss
everything at once, so the fact that some specific thing hasn't been
discussed recently shouldn't be taken as a sign of general cowardice,
arrogance or apathy.  In past discussions no one has been outraged by
suggestions that Jesus could be black (and it has been suggested by a
few scholars), but the concensus is that he was most likely Semitic.
As you probably know, there is a tradition that portrayals of Jesus in
art tends to show him as one of the people.  Thus you wouldn't be
surprised to find African art showing him as black, and oriental art
showing him as oriental.  There are good reasons relating to Christian
devotion to think of him in such a way.  It's also good now and then
to have that image challenged, and to think of Jesus as being a member
of XXX, where XXX is the group you least respect.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20718
From: seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."

{Dan Johnson asked for evidence that the most effective abuse 
recovery programs involve meeting people's spiritual needs.

I responded:
 In 12-step programs (like Alcoholics Anonymous), one of the steps
 involves acknowleding a "higher power".  AA and other 12-step abuse-
 recovery programs are acknowledged as being among the most effective.}

Dan Johnson clarified:
>What I was asking is this:
>
>Please show me that the most effective substance-absure recovery
>programs involve meetinsg peoples' spiritual needs, rather than
>merely attempting to fill peoples' spiritual needs as percieved
>by the people, A.A, S.R.C. regulars, or snoopy. 

You are asking me to provide objective proof for the existence of
God.  I never claimed to be able to do this; in fact I do not believe
that it is possible to do so.  I consider the existence of God to
be a premise or assumption that underlies my philosophy of life.
It comes down to a matter of faith.   If I weren't a Christian, I
would be an agnostic, but I have sufficient subjective evidence to
justify and sustain my relationship with God.  Again this is a matter
of premises and assumptions.  I assume that there is more to "life, the
universe and everything" than materialism; ie that spirituality exists.
This assumption answers the question about why I have apparent spiritual
needs.  I find this assumption consistent with my subsequent observat-
ions.  I then find that God fills these spiritual needs.  But I cannot 
objectively prove the difference between apparent filling of imagined 
spiritual needs and real filling of real spiritual needs.  Nor can I
prove to another person that _they_ have spiritual needs.
==
Seanna Watson   Bell-Northern Research,       | Pray that at the end of living,
(seanna@bnr.ca) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada       | Of philosophies and creeds,
                                              | God will find his people busy
Opinion, what opinions? Oh *these* opinions.  | Planting trees and sowing seeds.
No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.          |
I knew I'd left them somewhere.               |  --Fred Kaan

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20719
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Hell_2:  Black Sabbath

In article <Apr.22.00.57.03.1993.2118@geneva.rutgers.edu> jprzybyl@skidmore.edu (jennifer przybylinski) writes:
>I may be wrong, but wasn't Jeff Fenholt part of Black Sabbath? 

Yes, he was.  He also played Jesus in "Jesus Christ Superstar" before 
he became a Christian.  He played in Black Sabbath right after he first 
got saved, but then left it.

Link Hudson.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20720
From: u9126619@athmail1.causeway.qub.ac.uk
Subject: Could anyone answer this question???


	I've heard it said that the accounts we have of Christs life and
ministry in the Gospels were actually written many years after the event.
(About 40 years or so). Is this correct?? If so, why the big time delay??
I know all scripture is inspired of God, so the time of writing is I suppose
un-important, but I still can't help be curious!

---------------------------------------------------
Ivan Thomas Barr 

Contact me at u9126619@athmail1.causeway.qub.ac.uk

[The Gospels aren't dated, so we can only guess.  Luke's prolog is
about the only thing we have from the author describing his process.
The prolog sounds like Luke is from the next generation, and had to do
some investigating.  There are traditions passed down verbally that
say a few things about the composition of the Gospels.  There are
debates about how reliable these traditions are.  They certainly don't
have the status of Scripture, yet scholars tend to take some of them
seriously.  One suggests that Mark was based on Peter's sermons, and
was written to preserve them when Peter had died or way about to die.
One tradition about Matthew suggests that a collection of Jesus words
may have been made earlier than the current Gospels.  

In the ancient world, it was much more common to rely on verbal
transmission of information.  I think many people would have preferred
to hear about Jesus directly from someone who had known him, and maybe
even from someone who studied directly under such a person, rather
than from a book.  Thus I suspect that the Gospels are largely from a
period when these people were beginning to die.  Scholars generally do
think there was some written material earlier, which was probably used
as sources for the existing Gospels.

Establishing the dates is a complex and technical business.  I have to
confess that I'm not sure how much reliance I'd put on the methods
used.  But it's common to think that Mark was written first, around 64
AD., and that all of the Gospels were written by the end of the
Century.  A few people vary this by a decade or so one way or the
other.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20721
From: bassili@cs.arizona.edu (Amgad Z. Bassili)
Subject: Copt-Net Newsletter[4]

This is to let you know that the fourth issue of the Copt-Net Newsletter 
has been issued. The highlights of this issue include:


 1. Easter Greating: Christ is risen; Truly he is risen!
 2. The Holy Family in Egypt (part 1)
 3. Anba Abraam, the Friend of the Poor (part 4)
 4. A review of the Coptic Encyclopedia
 5. A new Dictionary of the Coptic Language


This Newsletter has been prepared by  members  of  Copt-Net,  a  forum
where news, activities, and services of  the  Coptic Orthodox Churches
and  Coptic communities outside Egypt are coordinated  and  exchanged.
If you want your name to be included in the mailing  list, or have any  
questions please contact Nabil Ayoub at <ayoub@erctitan.me.wisc.edu>.

Copt-Net Editorial Board

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20722
From: robp@landru.network.com (Rob Peglar)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

In article 1373@geneva.rutgers.edu, parkin@Eng.Sun.COM (Michael Parkin) writes:
>Another issue of importance.  Was the crucification the will of God or
>a tragic mistake.  I believe it was a tragic mistake.  God's will can
>never be accomplished through the disbelief of man.

I finished reading a very good book, "The Will of God", Weatherhead.
This was very helpful to me in applying thought to the subject of the
will of God.

Weatherhead broke the will of God into three distinct parts;
intentional will, circumstancial will, and ultimate will.  He
(Weatherhead) also refuted the last statement (above) by Michael
Parkin above quite nicely.

Summarizing; _despite_ the failures of humankind, God's ultimate will
is never to be defeated.  God's intentions may be interfered with,
even temporarily defeated by the will of humankind, brought down by
circumstance.  His ultimate will (the reconcilication of all
humankind) will never be stopped.

Time after time, Weatherhead used the Cross as the best description of
this process at work.  His points, paraphrased, were 1) God's
intentional will was for Jesus, the Christ, to live out a full life
and perform the work of the Living God.  2) The failures, sins, and
deviousness of humankind frustrated God's intent for His Son.  3)
Despite the circumstance, God's ultimate will was revealed in the
Cross, as Jesus willingly ("not my will, Lord, but yours") died for
the redemption of all humankind.  The Cross was utterly triumphant,
overcoming even the most cruel of circumstances.

>this world to build the kingdom of heaven on the earth.  He
>desperately wanted the Jewish people to accept him as the Messiah.  If
>the crucification was the will of God how could Jesus pray that this
>cup pass from him.  Was this out of weakness.  NEVER.  Many men and
>women have given their lives for their country or other noble causes.
>Is Jesus less than these.  No he is not.  He knew the crucification
>was NOT the will of GOD. 

It was not the intentional will of God.  It was the circumstancial
will, thus enabling the victory of the ultimate will.


> God's will was that the Jewish people accept
>Jesus as the Messiah and that the kingdom of Heaven be established on
>the earth with Jesus as it's head. 

Right, intentional will.

(Just like the Jewish people
>expected). If this had happened 2000 years ago can you imagine what
>kind of world we would live in today.  It would be a very different
>world.  And that is eactly what GOD wanted.  Men and women of that age
>could have been saved by following the living Messiah while he was on
>the earth.  Jesus could have established a sinless lineage that would
>have continued his reign after his ascension to the spiritual world to
>live with GOD.  Now the kingdom of heaven on the earth will have to
>wait for Christ's return.  But when he returns will he be recognized
>and will he find faith on this earth.  Isn't it about time for his
>return.  It's been almost 2000 years.

We know neither the time nor the place.  He will return as a thief in the night.

Peace.

Rob

---
-legal mumbo jumbo follows-
This mail/post only reflects the opinions of the poster (author), 
and in no manner reflects any corporate policy, statement, opinion,
or other expression by Network Systems Corporation.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20723
From: rcfec@westminster.ac.uk (James Holland)
Subject: Re: Help

In article <Apr.21.03.26.51.1993.1379@geneva.rutgers.edu> lmvec@westminster.ac.uk (William Hargreaves) writes:
>Hi everyone, 
>	   I'm a commited Christian that is battling with a problem.  I know
>that romans talks about how we are saved by our faith not our deeds, yet
>hebrews and james say that faith without deeds is useless, saying' You fools,
>do you still think that just believing is enough?'

some deleted

>Now I am of the opinion that you a saved through faith alone (not what you do)
>as taught in Romans, but how can I square up in my mind the teachings of James
>in conjunction with the lukewarm Christian being 'spat-out'
>
>Can anyone help me, this really bothers me.

Dear Will,

I've never replied on this thing before so I hope it gets thru ok.
I had a few thoughts!:

"Faith on its own, if not accompanied by action is dead" - James 2:17

Faith is both belief and action.
If I say that I am a great swimmer but I never go swimming, am I really a
swimmer? and will people believe that I am?
Likewise if I say I'm a Christian but I never talk to God, am I really a
Christian? My faith is demonstrated by my action. The fact that we talk to
God proves we have faith. Satan believes in God but does not follow Him!

In a similar vein, I have recently been challenged by 1John2:3-6
v3 says "We know that we have come to know Him if we obey His commands"
I find this verse quite encouraging as it could imply that 'if we have
come to know Him, then we'll obey His commands' cos He lives within us and
we cannot help but obey what He says.
I tend to feel that as we daily submit ourself to God He will keep changing
us into the likeness of Jesus and His fruit and works will be automatically
produced in our lives.

Hope this helps.

James Holland (rcfec@westminster.ac.uk)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20724
From: dotsonm@dmapub.dma.org (Mark Dotson)
Subject: Re: Hell_2:  Black Sabbath

: I may be wrong, but wasn't Jeff Fenholt part of Black Sabbath?  He's a
: MAJOR brother in Christ now.  He totally changed his life around, and
: he and his wife go on tours singing, witnessing, and spreading the
: gospel for Christ.  I may be wrong about Black Sabbath, but I know he
: was in a similar band if it wasn't that particular group...

   Yes, but Jeff also speaks out against listening to bands like Black
Sabbath. He says they're into all sorts of satanic stuff. I don't know.

                          Mark (dotsonm@dmapub.dma.org)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20725
From: stoney@oyster.smcm.edu (Stanley Toney)
Subject: Re: Am I going to Hell?

In article <Apr.23.02.55.31.1993.3123@geneva.rutgers.edu>  
tbrent@ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes:
> I have stated before that I do not consider myself an atheist, but 
> definitely do not believe in the christian god.  The recent discussion
> about atheists and hell, combined with a post to another group (to the
> effect of 'you will all go to hell') has me interested in the consensus 
> as to how a god might judge men.  As a catholic, I was told that a jew,
> buddhist, etc. might go to heaven, but obviously some people do not
> believe this.  Even more see atheists and pagans (I assume I would be 
> lumped into this category) to be hellbound.  I know you believe only
> god can judge, and I do not ask you to, just for your opinions.
 excellent question timothy. i hpoe the answers you get will be satisfactory  
as we can not understand the mind of god. but to attempt to answer you  
clearly. GOD of the Bible has given us humans relativly little about how he  
intends to judge mankind. the first test is those who have beleived that Jesus  
Christ is the Son of GOD and that his death and resurrection was sufficent to  
serve justice for all the acts we commit that are wrong in the eyes of god,  
the bible calls this sin. for those who die before the end of the world/have  
already died it is more complicated to explain without lapsing in to cliche.
  God must judge people on the baasis of their works in this world. however  
there is no plus and minus system for GOD. he has declared that he can not  
tolerate spiritual imperfection, thus he can only based your worthiness to  
live with him on the wrong in your life. 
  Good people, yes even Christians are going to constantly sin before GOD, The  
Christian hoever thanks GOD that Christ has given his life for his sin's  
penalty. the proscribed punishment for sin is death, just as the proscribed  
punishment for robbery is time in jail. God then cannot ask for anything but  
punishement for those sins. He does not want to condem. the Bible says in John  
3:17, that God did not send his son in to the word to condem it but that  
through him it might be saved." when i realize that i have sinned, and i do  
with painful regularity, i must approach GOD and ask him to not hold thew sin  
against me, i have that right and privlige only because of Christ. as for Jews  
they are promised that they must believe on the Messiah who would come, and  
dis come in Jesus of Nazereth. Muslims, i fear have been given a lie from the  
fater of lies, Satan. They need Christ as do us all.
  for those who don't have that right, in the view of the bible they stand  
olone in their defense. are you going to hell? i can not answer that for you.  
i can only say that perhaps it is eaiser to ask and answer how can i not go to  
Hell? that step is much more rewarding.

stan toney stoney@oyster.smcm.edu
my opinions are my own, you may borrow them

p.s. stay in touch and keep asking questions not just to us but to God as  
well, he listens too.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20726
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?

To recapitulate a bit:

- The essence of marriage is two people's commitment to each other.

- If two people claim to be married "in their hearts" but are not
  willing to have the marriage recognized by church and state, that's
  prima facie evidence that the commitment isn't really there.

- There are obvious situations in which Christian marriage is possible
  without a civil or church wedding: if you're stranded on a desert
  island, or if your state forbids the marriage for an unjust reason
  (e.g., laws against interracial marriage).

- The legal concept of "common-law marriage" is meant to ensure that
  the state will recognize marriages that did not start out with the
  usual ceremony and record-keeping.

- Pastorally, I'm concerned that people should not use "being married
  in God's eyes" as an excuse for living together without a formal wedding.
  One has a duty to have one's marriage properly recorded and witnessed.
  
- But there are also people who have been through a wedding ceremony
  without making a genuine commitment, and therefore are not married
  in God's eyes.  Right?
-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

[I think the last statement is dangerous.  I believe as long as
someone has formally undertaken the responsibility of marriage, they
have a moral obligation, even if their intention was not right.  Other
people are involved in the marriage covenant.  If they believed in
good faith that a marriage occurred, then I think there are
obligations created to them.  Of course there are situations where
intent can cause a marriage not to exist.  The classic example is when
it's done as part of a play.  But these are exceptions, and should be
clear to all parties.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20727
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Re: Assurance of Hell

In a previous article, lfoard@hopper.virginia.edu (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>
>> did you know that Jesus talked more
>> about hell than He did about heaven!  
> 
> Thank you for this info.  What respect I had for the man now
>      has been diminished tenfold.  I promise never again to
>      say how wise or loving this man was...

I have a hard time understanding this attitude.

If the gospels are the least bit accurate, then there can be little
doubt that Jesus belived hell was a reality.

As a teacher, what would be the wise and loving thing to do if people
in your audience were headed there?  To warn them!  It would, however, 
be rather cruel and/or sadistic to believe that such a place exists 
and then remain quiet about it.  

The only scenario I can envision in which dimished respect would be
justified is if Jesus knew there was no such place as hell, and spoke
about it anyway, just to scare people. Unless you would accuse Jesus
of this, I would encourage you to reconsider what a loving response 
is when you perceive someone to be in danger. 

---
Dave Weaver                  | "He is no fool who gives what
weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com   |  he cannot keep to gain what he
                             |  cannot lose." - Jim Elliot (1949)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20728
From: revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille)
Subject: Re: Serbian genocide Work of God?

James Sledd (jsledd@ssdc.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: Are the Serbs doing the work of God?  Hmm...

: I've been wondering if anyone would ever ask the question,

: Are the governments of the United States and Europe not moving
: to end the ethnic cleansing by the Serbs because the targets are
: muslims?

: Can/Does God use those who are not following him to accomplish
: tasks for him?  Esp those tasks that are punative?

: James Sledd
: no cute sig....  but I'm working on it.

Are you suggesting that God supports genocide?
Perhaps the Germans were "punishing" Jews on God's behalf?

Any God who works that way is indescribably evil, and unworthy of
my worship or faith.

revdak@netcom.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20729
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (boundary, the catechist)
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell

>>"We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the
>>life of the world to come."  - Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

>I always took the 'resurrection' in this statement to mean the
>resurrection of the soul, but I guess resurrection does strictly mean
>the raising of the physical body.  I have some questions on this point:

The next time you go to church, you can check the better creed, that is,
the Apostles' Creed.  It says: "the resurrection of the body."  Should
have learned that on the first go around.  But what's a body without 
a little bit a'soul? 

>1.  I always thought that Christians believe the descent into hell was 
>pretty much immediate, and that there are people burning in hell right
>now. Where will my "soul" 
>(which, by the way, I don't believe in) exist until that time?

At the risk of offending everybody, I will interject the 13th century
point of view.  Christ descended immediately into the bosom of Abraham
to set captives captive.  He preached to the saved for three days before
drawing them with Him back to this earth.  I'm no expert on this part,
but Matthew (27:52-53) says about the death of Jesus: "tombs were opened,
and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised.  And
coming forth from the tombs after his resurrection, they entered the
holy city and appeared to many."  (NAB)  Regarding the hell of the
damned, of which you speak, Christ did not see it (Ps 16:10, Acts 2:27),
although it saw Him (cf. Is 45:2).  

Concerning the abodes of the dead, I don't want to subject my brethren
to further anguish, so I will direct you to contact me through e-mail
if you are genuinely concerned. 

>2.  Will the new body I will have be created out of the same atoms 
>that my body now is made of, or will it be built from scratch? 

Your new body might be something like Adam's before his fateful encounter
with the Just One (Acts 7:52, CR trans. Vulgate): filled with infused
knowledge, absent of concupiscence, and immortal.  It would probably be
a little glorified, too.

>3.  Since I will have a physical body, I assume it will need a physical
>place to exist in -- where is this hell?  In the center of the earth?
>Do you think we could find it if we dig?

I wouldn't recommend it.  It's really hot down at the center of the earth!
You know, the normal geothermal gradient, and all that.
  
Regards.

-- 
boundary, the catechist 

no teneis que pensar que yo haya venido a traer la paz a la tierra; no he
venido a traer la paz, sino la guerra (Mateo 10:34, Vulgata Latina) 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20730
From: phs431d@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article <Apr.19.05.11.41.1993.29112@athos.rutgers.edu>, aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker) writes:

> I am asking you to believe in things not visible. I don't know if this is >
believeing blindly or not. I'm not sure how blindness comes into it. I do > not
deny reason, indeed I insist upon it, but reason only draws conclusions > from
evidence. If you decide in advance that your reason will act only on > the
evidence of the five physical senses, then you cut reason off from any >
possibility of reaching a conclusion outside the physical sphere (beyond the >
rather provocative, if inconclusive, conclusion that the physical sphere > is
not self explanatory). 

So your are saying to rely on our feelings and experiences (since
this is the only other source of information left to us).
How can you then convince somebody that your "feelings and experiences"
are the correct ones then if you can't show somebody visible and
measurable effects?  If my experiences say that "there exists no god"
and yours says there does, where does that leave us?  Since we are only
going on experiences, then both of us are correct within our own personal
realities.

Furthermore, the trouble with "feelings and experiences" is that they
can lead you astray, as the tragic outcome of Waco illustrates.  I
am sure that many of Koresh's followers really believed in him but
I think that you and I will agree that they were being misled.

Finally, how on earth do you come to the conclusion that the physical
sphere is not self-explanatory when you only rely on the five senses?

> Christians claim that they have received a different kind of evidence, 
> which they call faith, and which is a gift of God. That is, this evidence
> is the evidence of a thing which chooses to reveal or hide itself. The 
> evidence of the senses cannot tell you is such a ting exists. Reasoning
> on the evidence of the senses won't help either. But Christians do reason
> of the evidence of faith, and do claim that this evidence is wholly
> consistent with the evidence of the other senses, and indeed, that the
> evidence of these other senses is part of God's revelation of himself
> to us.

You must be using a definition of "evidence" that I am not familiar with.
To me, evidence is something you can show others -unambiguously- that
what you are saying is true.

However, I agree with you that belief in a diety is a matter of faith.
It is not something you can share around - others must experience it
independantly.  Unfortunately, as I have explained above, this puts
belief down to a matter of experience.  My impression is that Christians
do not have the monopoly on reason, evidence and faith as far as any of
these things can go.

> In a previous article, phs431d@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au () says:
> 
>>You are right that science and reason cannot PROVE anything.  However, if
>>we do not use them we can only then believe on FAITH alone.  And since
>>we can only use faith, why is one picture of "God" (e.g. Hinduism) any less
>>valid than another (e.g. Christianity)?
>>
> Faith, as I have said, is not opposed to reason, it is simply a new source 
> of evidence on which reason may operate. It is clear that human beings
> have many systems for explaining the evidence of the physical senses, and
> similarly there are many systems for explaining the evidence provided by
> faith. Religious believers in general, and Christians in particular, use
> reason to help sift through the evidence to come to a clearer understanding
> of the evidence provided by faith. Science claims, with good reason, to be
> the most valid system for explaining the physical universe, and Christianity
> claims, also with good reason, to be the most valid system, possessed of the
> best evidence, for explaining Gods revelations of himself to man.

At the risk of repeating my argument : As I have explained previously, 
the trouble is that Moslems, Buddhists, Jews, etc will ALL say that THEY
claim, with good reason, to be a valid system, possessed of the best
evidence, for explaining Gods revelations to man (for Buddhists it
should read "for explaining the non-existence of God").  So not only
must you "prove" your own case, you have to "disprove" theirs.

(alt.messianic is a good place to see people strong in the belief
of their own faiths ... and with their own good reasons)

> If you doubt that Christians use reason, read this newsgroup for a while
> and you will see rational debate aplenty.

I know that ALL people can use reason ... I never claimed that they don't.
I just wish to make sure that their arguments are well-founded.  It goes
without saying that if I make a blunder that I expect people to correct
me.  Once we have all gone through this process of removing the 
non-essential and contradictory bits, we should (hopefully) have made
some progress towards the truth.

> -- 
> ==============================================================================
> Mark Baker                  | "The task ... is not to cut down jungles, but 
> aa888@Freenet.carleton.ca   | to irrigate deserts." -- C. S. Lewis
> ==============================================================================

-- 
Don Lowe, Department of Physics, Monash University, 
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 3168.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20731
From: ss6349@csc.albany.edu (Steven H. Schimmrich)
Subject: Looking for Christians in Urbana, Illinois...


   I apologize if this post isn't entirely appropriate for the newsgroup.

   I would like to correspond with any Christians attending the University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.  I will be transfering there in August to
complete my Ph.D. and I thought it would be nice to correspond with people
before I moved out.

--
Steven H. Schimmrich     Department of Geological Sciences         "Non semper
ss6349@csc.albany.edu    State University of New York at Albany   ea sunt quae
ss6349@albnyvms.bitnet   Albany, New York 12222  (518) 442-4466   videntur."

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20732
From: XOPR131@maccvm.corp.mot.com (Gerald McPherson)
Subject: Re: Am I going to Hell?

In <Apr.23.02.55.31.1993.3123@geneva.rutgers.edu>
Tim asks:

>I have stated before that I do not consider myself an atheist, but
>definitely do not believe in the christian god.  The recent discussion
>about atheists and hell, combined with a post to another group (to the
>effect of 'you will all go to hell') has me interested in the consensus
>as to how a god might judge men.  As a catholic, I was told that a jew,
>buddhist, etc. might go to heaven, but obviously some people do not
>believe this.  Even more see atheists and pagans (I assume I would be
>lumped into this category) to be hellbound.  I know you believe only
>god can judge, and I do not ask you to, just for your opinions.
>
   This is probably too simplistic for some, but John 3:16 saus,
   "For God so loved the world that He gave His only son, that
   whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life".

   Genesis 15:6, "And he (Abram) believed the LORD; and He reckoned
   it to him as righteousness".

   I don't find anywhere that God restricts heaven to particular
   ethnic groups or religious denominations or any other category
   that we humans like to drop people into. But He does REQUIRE
   that we believe and trust Him. In Hebrews it says that God spoke
   of old by the prophets (the old testament), but in these last days
   he has spoken to us by His son Jesus Christ. And we learn of
   Him through the pages of the New Testament. The Bible tells us
   what we need to believe. For those who have never heard, I leave
   them in God's capable care, He will make himself known as he
   desires. It behooves each one of us to act upon the knowledge
   we have. If you reject the claims of Jesus, and still go to
   heaven, then the joke's on me. If you reject him and go to hell,
   that's no joke, but it will be final.


   Gerry

 ============================
   The opinions expressed
   are not necessarily those
   of my employer.
 ============================

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20733
From: max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb)
Subject: Re: Atheist's views on Christianity (was: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")

In article <Apr.14.03.08.08.1993.5448@athos.rutgers.edu> jasons@atlastele.com (Jason Smith) writes:

>One of the Laws of Nature, specifying cause and effect seems to dictate 
>(at least to this layman's mind) there must be a causal event.  No
>reasonable alternative exists.

The big-bang model supposes a temporal singularity at the point of
origin. There was _no_ time for a prior cause to occur in. If you
want to invent fables for the surrounding context, fine, but one fable
is only as good as any other. Why should I prefer to believe in a God that
_just_ exists, as opposed to a singularity that _just happened_, or 
giant puce subspace iguanas, that fling universes off their tongues
like gobs of spit?

|As far as I can tell, the very laws of nature demand a "why".  That isn't
|true of something outside of nature (i.e., *super*natural).

>I believe the "genetic code" will be entirely deciphered in our lifetimes,
>but we will not see man convert entirely inert material into self sustaining, 
>reproducing life, *ever*.  (I've never been much of a prophet, though. I
>can't even *picture* New York in my mind 8^] ).  I don't believe *any*
>technology would be able to produce that necessary *spark* of life, despite
>having all of the parts available. Just my opinion.

Just your opinion, and unfortunately wrong. Self assembling molecules
have already been produced, entirely from inert matter, and have
spontaneously mutated into a more rapidly assembling form on exposure
to ultraviolet light. Both abiogenesis and the beginnings of evolution,
TODAY. (saw this in "Nature", early last year.)

Biological vitalism is dead, and has been dead for many, many years.
Give it up. Life is not a 'spark'. Life is the self-organization
of systems poised between chaos and order.

>Until the King returns,
>
>Jason

Your King baldly and repeatedly stated he would be back within the lifetime
of some then present and alive. "Soon, soon" he said, over and over - as
have many would be messiahs.

It is Nineteen Ninety Three
	of Years Anno Domini
Tell me, Tell me, where is He?
	Nowhere at all, Q. E. D.

	Max G. Webb

[I should have watched this more closely.  We had a discussion about
the first cause, etc., not long ago.  I'm not up for a replay.
There was also a detailed discussion of the point Max brings up
here about the initial singularity.  The geometry near the big bang
is very interesting.  Time turns into space, so there is no "before".
--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20734
From: u2i02@seq1.cc.keele.ac.uk (RJ Pomeroy)
Subject: Re: Losing your temper is not a Christian trait

From article <Apr.15.00.58.22.1993.28891@athos.rutgers.edu>, by ruthless@panix.com (Ruth Ditucci):
> Coming from a long line of "hot tempered" people, I know temper when I see
> it.  One of the tell tale signs/fruits that give non-christians away - is
> when their net replies are acrid, angry and sarcastic.  

I do hope that you are not suggesting that merely because a person
replies in an "acrid, angry and sarcastic" manner that this
demonstrates their 'non-christianity'?  The simple fact is that there
is not a Christian on the face of the planet (that I know of!) that is
perfect.  I have been known at times to have a fit of temper, or a
sulk, but this does not make me any the less a Christian.

One of the points of being a Christian (as I perceive it) is to become
MORE LIKE Christ.  This statement inherently suggests that we ARE NOT
already like Christ.  Jesus never unrighteously lost his temper.  I
do.  Jesus was perfect.  I'm not.

> We in the net village do have a laugh or two when professed, born again
> christians verbally attack people who might otherwise have been won to
> christianity and had originally joined the discussions because they were
> "spiritually hungry."  Instead of answering questions with sweetness and
> sincerity, these chrisitan net-warriors, "flame" the queries. 

You must understand that this is because Christians often forget to
treat others as our role-model - Christ - would.  This is because we are
human and falible.  I, for one, do not pretend to be infalible, and I
hope that my fellow-men will bear with me when I make mistakes.  This
surely is not too much to ask, when I make every effort to bear with
_them_.


> You don't need any enemies.  You already do yourselves the greatest harm.

And don't we know it!

> Again I say, foolish, foolish, foolish.

Again I say, we are ALL human!

To my brethren, this:  

Ms Duticci has a valid point and we as Christians ought to heed the
warning in her article.  We oftimes discredit ourselves and our
Saviour, in the way that we treat others.  Strive towards the goal set
us by our Lord, but in the meantime, remember :

     "There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ..."

When you blow it - go easy on yourself.  Forgive yourself, as your
Father in heaven forgives you!  And remember - and this is something I
firmly beieve and cling to - one day, we shall see Him face to face,
and in that day, we shall (finally!) be perfected.  

I look forward to seeing you there.


     RRRRR        OO       BBBBB          :
     R    R     OO  OO     B    B         :
     R     R   OO    OO    B    BB        :          Robert Pomeroy
     R   RR    O      O    B    B         :
     RRRR      O      O    BBBBB          :    u2i02@teach.cs.keele.ac.uk
     R  R      O      O    B    B         :
     R   R     OO    OO    B    BB        :              1993
     R    R     OO  OO     B    B         :
     R     R      OO       BBBBB          :


PS  If you want to draw anything to my attention, then please mail me
direct, because I don't often read the news...

PPS  If I have offended anyone with this article, I beg your
forgiveness, in advance!

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20735
From: jono@mac-ak-24.rtsg.mot.com (Jon Ogden)
Subject: Re: Hell_2:  Black Sabbath

In article <Apr.23.02.54.12.1993.3063@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
salaris@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrabbits) wrote:

> Jeff Fenholt claims to have once been a roadie for Black Sabbath.
> He was never ever a musician in the band.  He was in St. Louis several
> months back.  The poster I saw at the Christian bookstore I frequent
> really turned me off.  It was addressed to all "Homosexuals, prostitutes,
> drug addicts, alcoholics, and headbangers..." or something like that.
> 
> Well, if I showed up with my long hair and black leather jacket I
> would have felt a little pre-judged. 

I have seen Jeff Fenholt speak and I didn't find him judgemental.  I think
that the wording for that add was certainly inappropriate, but I think they
were trying to say that headbangers would like the program.  But I would
NOT put headbangers in the same class as alcholics, etc.  it is
condescending.  And I believe that Jeff was wearing black when I saw him.

By the way, Fenholt played Jesus in Jesus Christ Superstar.

Personally, I'm a headbanger at times too, but I have a hard time with what
most of the secular metal groups promote.  Free sex and drugs (my opinion
that many promote these) aren't my thing.  I HAVE found several good
Christian metal groups that I like.


Jon

------------------------------------------------
Jon Ogden         - jono@mac-ak-24.rtsg.mot.com
Motorola Cellular - Advanced Products Division
Voice: 708-632-2521      Data: 708-632-6086
------------------------------------------------

They drew a circle and shut him out.
Heretic, Rebel, a thing to flout.
But Love and I had the wit to win;
We drew a circle and took him in.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20736
From: jono@mac-ak-24.rtsg.mot.com (Jon Ogden)
Subject: Re: Losing your temper is not a Christian trait

In article <Apr.23.02.55.47.1993.3138@geneva.rutgers.edu>, jcj@tellabs.com
(jcj) wrote:

> I'd like to remind people of the withering of the fig tree and Jesus
> driving the money changers et. al. out of the temple.  I think those
> were two instances of Christ showing anger (as part of His human side).
> 
Yes, and what about Paul saying:

26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:
(Ephesians 4:26).

Obviously then, we can be angry w/o sinning.

Jon

------------------------------------------------
Jon Ogden         - jono@mac-ak-24.rtsg.mot.com
Motorola Cellular - Advanced Products Division
Voice: 708-632-2521      Data: 708-632-6086
------------------------------------------------

They drew a circle and shut him out.
Heretic, Rebel, a thing to flout.
But Love and I had the wit to win;
We drew a circle and took him in.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20737
From: djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson)
Subject: Re: harrassed at work, could use some prayers

(Well, I'll email also, but this may apply to other people, so
I'll post also.)

>I've been working at this company for eight years in various
>engineering jobs.  I'm female.  Yesterday I counted and realized that
>on seven different occasions I've been sexually harrassed at this
>company.

>I dreaded coming back to work today.  What if my boss comes in to ask
>me some kind of question...

Your boss should be the person bring these problems to.  If he/she
does not seem to take any action, keep going up higher and higher.
Sexual harrassment does not need to be tolerated, and it can be an
enormous emotional support to discuss this with someone and know that
they are trying to do something about it.  If you feel you can not
discuss this with your boss, perhaps your company has a personnel
department that can work for you while preserving your privacy.  Most
companies will want to deal with this problem because constant anxiety
does seriously affect how effectively employees do their jobs.

It is unclear from your letter if you have done this or not.  It is
not inconceivable that management remains ignorant of employee
problems/strife even after eight years (it's a miracle if they do
notice).  Perhaps your manager did not bring to the attention of
higher ups?  If the company indeed does seem to want to ignore the
entire problem, there may be a state agency willing to fight with
you.  (check with a lawyer, a women's resource center, etc to find out)

You may also want to discuss this with your paster, priest, husband,
etc.  That is, someone you know will not be judgemental and that is
supportive, comforting, etc.  This will bring a lot of healing.

>So I returned at 11:25, only to find that ever single
>person had already left for lunch.  They left at 11:15 or so.  No one
>could be bothered to call me at the other building, even though my
>number was posted.

This happens to a lot of people.  Honest.  I believe it may seem
to be due to gross insensitivity because of the feelings you are
going through.  People in offices tend to be more insensitive while
working than they normally are (maybe it's the hustle or stress or...)
I've had this happen to me a lot, often because they didn't realize
my car was broken, etc.  Then they will come back and wonder why I
didn't want to go (this would tend to make me stop being angry at
being ignored and make me laugh).  Once, we went off without our
boss, who was paying for the lunch :-)

>For this
>reason I hope good Mr. Moderator allows me this latest indulgence.

Well, if you can't turn to the computer for support, what would
we do?  (signs of the computer age :-)

In closing, please don't let the hateful actions of a single person
harm you.  They are doing it because they are still the playground
bully and enjoy seeing the hurt they cause.  And you should not
accept the opinions of an imbecile that you are worthless - much
wiser people hold you in great esteem.
-- 
Darin Johnson
djohnson@ucsd.edu
  - Luxury!  In MY day, we had to make do with 5 bytes of swap...

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20738
From: gchin@ssf.Eng.Sun.COM (Gary Chin)
Subject: Christians that are not church members

Over the years, I have met Christians who are not associated with
any local church and are not members of any local church. This is
an issue that may be very personal, but is important.  What does
the Bible say about this and how can we encourage our friends with
regard to this issue?

|-------------------|
| Gary Chin         |
| Staff Engineer    |
| Sun Microsystems  |
| Mt. View, CA      |
| gchin@Eng.Sun.Com |
|-------------------|

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20739
From: khan0095@nova.gmi.edu (Mohammad Razi Khan)
Subject: Re: Am I going to Hell?

tbrent@ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes:

>I have stated before that I do not consider myself an atheist, but 
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So you believe in the existance of One creator I assume.


>definitely do not believe in the christian god.  The recent discussion
>about atheists and hell, combined with a post to another group (to the
>effect of 'you will all go to hell') has me interested in the consensus 
>as to how a god might judge men.  As a catholic, I was told that a jew,
>buddhist, etc. might go to heaven, but obviously some people do not
>believe this.  Even more see atheists and pagans (I assume I would be 
>lumped into this category) to be hellbound.  I know you believe only
>god can judge, and I do not ask you to, just for your opinions.

Ok, god has the disclaimer, reserves the right to judge individual
cases.  If we believe him to be loving, then we also believe him to be
able to serve justice to all.  Don't worry if a Jew, or athiest is
going to heaven or hell, for that is god to judge (although truly
if you were concerned you could only worry abput those who refuse to
believe/satisfy gods decrees) as much as keeping yourself straight.
If you see something going on that is wrong, discuss it and explore it
before making summary judgement.  People have enough free will to choose
for themselves, so don't force choices on them, just inform them
of what they're choices are.  God will take care of the rest in his justice.

>Thanks,
>-Tim
--
Mohammad R. Khan                /    khan0095@nova.gmi.edu
After July '93, please send mail to  mkhan@nyx.cs.du.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20740
From: khan0095@nova.gmi.edu (Mohammad Razi Khan)
Subject: Re: Bible Unsuitable for New Christians

news@cbnewsk.att.com writes:

>True.

>Also read 2 Peter 3:16

>Peter warns that the scriptures are often hard to understand by those who
>are not learned on the subject.

Where do insparations/Miracles fit in?  I was a new reader to the bible
and Qu'ran at the same time in my life and I can tell you that I would 
have drifted in my faith if Those books were not exposed to me.



>Joe Moore
--
Mohammad R. Khan                /    khan0095@nova.gmi.edu
After July '93, please send mail to  mkhan@nyx.cs.du.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20741
From: lmvec@westminster.ac.uk (William Hargreaves)
Subject: Re: Help

: > 	   I'm a commited Christian that is battling with a problem.  I know
: > that romans talks about how we are saved by our faith not our deeds, yet
: > hebrews and james say that faith without deeds is useless, saying' You fools,
: > do you still think that just believing is enough?'
: 
: [Stuff deleted]
:  
: > Now I am of the opinion that you a saved through faith alone (not what you do)
: > as taught in Romans, but how can I square up in my mind the teachings of James
: > in conjunction with the lukewarm Christian being 'spat-out'
: > 
: > Can anyone help me, this really bothers me.
: 

I have received tons of mail from people replying to this article I wrote, and
I would just like to thank everyone who took the time to give me a hand.  It
has indeed helped me and re-affirmed alot of theories that I held but was a
little unsure about.

God bless you all

Will 
-- 
============================================
| Dallas Cowboys - World Champions 1992-93 |
============================================

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20742
From: scott@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Scott Shalkowski)
Subject: Re: Doing the work of God??!!)

Desiree Bradley (Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca) wrote:

<. . ..

: The next Sunday, the sermon was about Joshua 6 (where the Israelites
: take Jericho and then proceed to massacre everybody there --- except
: for Rahab, who had sheltered the spies).  With those reports about
: Bosnia in my mind, I felt uncomfortable about the minister saying that
: the massacre (the one in Joshua) was right.  But what really bothered
: me was that, if I was going to try taking Christianity seriously, I
: shouldn't be so troubled about the reports of "ethnic cleansing" in
: Bosnia.  Certainly, my sympathies shouldn't be with the Moslims.
: Considering that the Bosnian Muslims are descendants of Christians
: who, under Turkish rule, converted to Islam could the Serbs be doing
: God's work?

Perhaps it would be useful to ask whether those doing the ethnic
cleansing could be said to be loving those they are killing in the very
act of killing.  Does it reflect the attitude of God, who sends rain to
both the just and the unjust?  If not, then Christians should be
uncomfortable with it.  Jesus gave his followers the law of love to
follow and it is by exhibiting this that disciples will be known. 
Doctrinal (or political) correctness is not the standard, so I don't see
why Christians should be moved against the Serbs because their ancestors
converted from Christianity to Islam.  It seems to me that as a
Christian you _should_ be troubled by the ethnic cleansing.
--


Peace,
Scott Shalkowski                            scott@arts.uwa.edu.au

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20743
From: gchin@ssf.Eng.Sun.COM (Gary Chin)
Subject: National Day of Prayer,5/6/93

This is an annual time of prayer organized by the Focus on the Family
organization.  If you have not heard about it on your Christian radio
station or at your local church, call them and they may be able to
give you the information.

Many cities in the San Francisco bay area have local coordinators
organizing the time and the place to meet to pray.  In San Francisco,
Oakland, Berkeley, San Jose, people will be meeting at ~12:15pm at
each city's City Hall.

Last year, I attended at the Mountain View city hall.  It was a very
quiet and meaningful time of prayer.

|-------------------|
| Gary Chin         |
| Staff Engineer    |
| Sun Microsystems  |
| Mt. View, CA      |
| gchin@Eng.Sun.Com |
|-------------------|

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20744
From: MANDTBACKA@finabo.abo.fi (Mats Andtbacka)
Subject: Re: Hell_2: Black Sabbath

In <Apr.22.00.57.03.1993.2118@geneva.rutgers.edu> jprzybyl@skidmore.edu writes:

> I may be wrong, but wasn't Jeff Fenholt part of Black Sabbath?  He's a
> MAJOR brother in Christ now.  He totally changed his life around, and

      Why should he have been any different "then"? Ozzy Osbourne,
ex-singer and main character of the Black Sabbath of good ole days past,
is and always was a devout catholic. Or so I've heard over on the
alt.rock-n-roll.metal newsgroups, an' I figure those folks oughta know..

-- 
  Disclaimer?   "It's great to be young and insane!"

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20745
From: ide!twelker@uunet.uu.net (Steve Twelker)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

>	Why do we follow God so blindly?  Have you ever asked a
>physically blind person why he or she follows a seeing eye dog?
>The answer is quite simple--the dog can see, and the blind person
>cannot.
...
>	Of course, you may ask, if I cannot trust my own senses,
>how do I know whether what I see and hear about God is truth or
>a lie.  That is why we need faith to be saved.  We must force
>ourselves to believe that God knows the truth, and loves us
>enough to share it with us, even when it defies what we think
>we know.  Why would He have created us if He did not love us 
>enough to help us through this world?


Seems to me if you learned to differentiate between illusion and
reality on your own you wouldn't need to rely on doctrines that
need to be updated.  My experience of Christianity (25+ years) is
that most Christians seek answers from clergymen who have little
or no direct experience of spiritual matters, and that most of
these questions can be answered by simple introspection.  Most
people suspect that they cannot trust their senses, but few take
the next step to figure out that they can trust themselves.  Not to
get too esoteric, but it seems that most religions, Christianity
included, are founded by particularly intuitive people who understand
this.

(stuff deleted)

>	As for you, no one can "convert" you.  You must
>choose to follow God of your own will, if you are ever to
>follow Him.  All we as Christians wish to do is share with
>you the love we have received from God.  If you reject that,
>we have to accept your decision, although we always keep
>the offer open to you.  If you really want to find out
>why we believe what we believe, I can only suggest you try
>praying for faith, reading the Bible, and asking Christians
>about their experiences personally....

And what if the original poster, Pixie, is never "converted?"
Does it make sense that she (or I, or the majority of humanity
for that matter) would go to hell for eternity, as many 
Christians believe?  It makes more sense to me that rather
than be converted to a centuries-old doctrine that holds no
life for her, that she simply continue to decide for herself
what is best.  

--------------------------------------------

[You may be right about Christians relying on clergy, but I have some
reason to hope you're not.  Protestants emphasize conversion,
experience of the Holy Spirit, and use of the Bible.  This is intended
to make sure that Christians have religious experience of their own,
and that they have some basis on which to judge claims of clergy and
other Christians.  I can't speak for Catholics and Orthodox, but I
believe they also attempt to avoid having members who simply repeat
what they are told.  I admit that this isn't always successful -- we
certainly see young people join our church because at that age parents
expect it.  But most of our members do seem quite able and willing to
make judgements for themselves, and have a commitment that comes out
of their own experience.  Unfortunately, it's the nature of Usenet
that doctrinal disagreements get emphasized, so it looks like we spend
most of our time dealing with doctrine.  That's certainly not my
experience of the way Christians really live.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20746
From: kramersc@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Kramer)
Subject: Re: Daily Verse

In article <Apr.15.00.58.36.1993.28909@athos.rutgers.edu> Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch) writes:
>How much better to get wisdom than gold, to choose understanding rather
>than silver! 
>
>Proverbs 16:16

Ah and how...??? Amen to that one!!!!!!  Thanks Chuck for sharing...
after all, no one can serve two masters...God and money......
after all, the preciousness of God as Lord and Savior is far more valuable than
being a millionaire will ever be...


In Him,
Scott

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20747
From: nichael@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Subject: Re: Some questions from a new Christian

OFM responds to a query about reference works:

   [Aside from a commentary, you might also want to consider an
   introduction.  These are books intended for use in undergraduate Bible
   courses.  They give historical background, discussion of literary
   styles, etc.  And generally they have good bibligraphies for further
   reading.  I typically recommend Kee, Froehlich and Young's NT
   introduction...

Two other Intros to consider:

The "Introduction" by Ku:mmel is a translation of a strandard NT text.
The references are slightly dated and the style is somewhat dense, but
the book contains a wealth of information.

Perrin and Duling's Intro is also very good.  It's somewhat more
modern than Ku:mmel's but not quite so densely packed.  Also the
authors tend to go through the books of the NT in the historical order
of composition; this gives a very useful perspective on the
development of the NT.

   ... There are also some good one-volume commentaries.  ... Probably the
   best recommendation these days would be Harper's Bible Commentary.

A slight dissent: I think the Harper's is "OK" but not great.  One
particular problem I have is that it tends to be pretty skimpy on
bibliographic material.  My feeling is that it is OK for quick
look-ups, but not real useful for study in depth (e.g. I keep a copy
in my office at work).

   ... (I think there may be a couple of books with this title...

So far as I know there is the only one book with this exact title
(James L Mays, general editor, Harper and ROw, 1988) although I think
I recall a (older) series under the name "Harper Commentaries".  Also
there's a separate Harper's Bible Dictionary (most of my comments on
the HC also apply to the HBD.)

My favorite one-volume commentary is the "New Jerome Biblical
Commentary".  The NJBC is rather Catholic in focus and somewhat biased
towards the NT.  (The reader can decide for her- or himself whether
these are pluses or minuses.)  In any case the scholarship is by and
large excellent.

NOTE: The NJBC is a completely reworked, updated version of the
"Jerome Biblical Commentary", copies of which can still be found on
sale.

Nichael

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20748
From: tsmith@cs.stanford.edu (Todd Michael Smith)
Subject: God-shaped hole (was Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")

In article <Apr.14.03.07.38.1993.5420@athos.rutgers.edu>, johnsd2@rpi.edu (Dan Johnson) writes:

|> >Those who have an empty spot in the God-shaped hole in their hearts must 
|> >do something to ease the pain.
|> 
|> I have heard this claim quite a few times. Does anybody here know
|> who first came up with the "God-shaped hole" business?
|> 

Was it Pascal, or maybe Descartes, who first used this figure of speech? 
I seem to have some vague recollections from reading some of their essays,
but I certainly couldn't say it was one of them for sure.

----
Todd Smith
tsmith@cs.stanford.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20749
From: J.Hale@latrobe.edu.au
Subject: Re: Can sin "block" our prayers?

In article <Apr.7.23.20.24.1993.14263@athos.rutgers.edu>, 
	3225200@qucdn.queensu.ca writes:
> I have heard an interesting notion that sin can "block" our prayers to God,
> i.e. God will not hear our prayers if we have not confessed our sins. Now I am
> totally supportive of confessing our sins before God, but I simply do not
> believe God will "shut us out" just because we did not confess. This is kind of
> like the idea that suffering is caused by sin, which, as any Job reader will
> realize, is too simpilistic.
{rest deleted}

Can the Father possibly not hear the words of His children.
Of course He hears all your prayers.
Whether you are a sinner or a saint, no questions.
The real question you should be asking is: "Does sin block OUR hearing His
answer?" And the answer to that question is a resounding YES.
To paraphrase the gospel "Many are called but few choose to listen"
and so it is with prayer. 


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
_____________________________________________________________________________

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20750
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Subject: Daily Verse

Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of
sins. 

IPeter 4:8

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20751
From: phs431d@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article <Apr.13.00.08.07.1993.28379@athos.rutgers.edu>, aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker) writes:
>  
> [Very good and reasonable statements on "authority" deleted]
> 
> The atheist position seems to be that there are no authorities. This is a
> reasonable assertion in itself, but it leads to a practical difficulty.
> If you reject all authority out of hand, you reject all possibility of
> every receiving information. Thus the atheist position can never possibly
> change. It is non-falsifiable and therefore unscintific. 

This is not true.  The athiest's position is that there is no PROOF of the
existence of God.  As much as some people accept their Church, their priests
or straight from their own scriptures as the "proof", this does not 
satisfy atheists.

Atheists DO believe in recognisable authorities.  If they were as dogmatic as
you claim they are, they would be trying to prove 1 + 1 =2 every time they
got up.  What they dispute is that Churches, priests, scriptures etc.
represent true authorities and know the TRUTH.

> To demand scintific or rational proof of God's existence, is to deny
> God's existence, since neither science, nor reason, can, in their very
> nature, prove anything.

Are you asking us to believe blindly?  You are trying to deny that part of
us that makes us ask the question "Does God exist?" i.e. self-awareness and
reason.  If we do not use our ability to reason we become as ignorant
as the other animals on this earth.  Does God want us to be like that?

You are right that science and reason cannot PROVE anything.  However, if
we do not use them we can only then believe on FAITH alone.  And since
we can only use faith, why is one picture of "God" (e.g. Hinduism) any less
valid than another (e.g. Christianity)?

> ==============================================================================
> Mark Baker                  | "The task ... is not to cut down jungles, but 
> aa888@Freenet.carleton.ca   | to irrigate deserts." -- C. S. Lewis
> ==============================================================================

-- 
Don Lowe, Department of Physics, Monash University, 
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 3168.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20752
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Ancient Books

In article <Apr.14.03.07.58.1993.5438@athos.rutgers.edu>, mayne@ds3.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne) writes:
> In article <Apr.13.00.09.02.1993.28445@athos.rutgers.edu> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>>[Any former atheists converted by argument?}
>>This is an excellent question and I'll be anxious to see if there are
>>any such cases.  I doubt it.  In the medieval period (esp. 10th-cent.
>>when Aquinas flourished) argument was a useful tool because everyone
>>"knew the rules."  Today, when you can't count on people knowing even
>>the basics of logic or seeing through rhetoric, a good argument is
>>often indistinguishable from a poor one.
> 
> The last sentence is ironic, since so many readers of
> soc.religion.christian seem to not be embarrassed by apologists such as
> Josh McDowell and C.S. Lewis.

I haven't followed whatever discussion there may have been on these
people, but I feel that C. S. Lewis is an excellent apologist and I
see no reason for embarrassment.  If you think that errors and flawed
arguments are a reason for dismissing a thinker, you must dismiss
nearly every thinker from Descartes to Kant; any philosophy course
will introduce you to their weaknesses.  
 
  The above also expresses a rather odd sense
> of history. What makes you think the masses in Aquinas' day, who were
> mostly illiterate, knew any more about rhetoric and logic than most people
> today? If writings from the period seem elevated consider that only the
> cream of the crop, so to speak, could read and write. If everyone in
> the medieval period "knew the rules" it was a matter of uncritically
> accepting what they were told.

I said nothing about "the masses."  However comparing "the masses" in
our day and in Aquinas' day really *is* odd.  Read Ortega y Gasset on
this.

I'm talking about the familiar experience of arguing all night and
winning on logic and evidence, only to discover your opponent to be
unaware, even intuitively, of things like entailment (let alone
pragmatics).  (I am assuming that both parties are college graduates
or better...)  Myself, I don't bother any more.

Ken
-- 
miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu | Nobody can explain everything to everybody.
opinions are my own      | G. K. Chesterton

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20753
From: sdittman@liberty.uc.wlu.edu (Scott Dittman)
Subject: Re: Some questions from a new Christian

Steven R Hoskins (18669@bach.udel.edu) wrote:
: Hi,

: I am new to this newsgroup, and also fairly new to christianity.
: ... I realize I am very ignorant about much of the Bible and
: quite possibly about what Christians should hold as true. This I am trying
: to rectify (by reading the Bible of course), but it would be helpful
: to also read a good interpretation/commentary on the Bible or other
: relevant aspects of the Christian faith. One of my questions I would
: like to ask is - Can anyone recommend a good reading list of theological
: works intended for a lay person?

I'd recommend McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" books (3 I
think) and  Manfred Brauch's "Hard Sayings of Paul".  He also may have
done "Hard Sayings of Jesus".  My focus would be for a new Christian to
struggle with his faith and be encouraged by the historical evidence,
especially one who comes from a background which emphasizes knowable faith.
-- 
Scott Dittman                    email: sdittman@wlu.edu
University Registrar             talk: (703)463-8455   fax: (703)463-8024
Washington and Lee University    snail mail:  Lexington Virginia 24450

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20754
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?

In article <Apr.14.03.07.21.1993.5402@athos.rutgers.edu> randerso@acad1.sahs.uth.tmc.edu (Robert Anderson) writes:
>I would like to get your opinions on this: when exactly does an engaged
>couple become "married" in God's eyes? 

Not if they are unwilling to go through a public marriage ceremony,
nor if they say they are willing but have not actually done so.

Let's distinguish _real_ logistical problems (like being stranded on a
desert island) from _excuses_ (such as waiting for so-and-so's brother
to come back from being in the army so he can be in the ceremony)...


-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20755
From: smayo@world.std.com (Scott A Mayo)
Subject: Re: proof of resurection

jsledd@ssdc.sas.upenn.edu (James Sledd) writes:

>Finally:
>There is no proof of the resurrection of Christ, except in our spirits
>communion with his, and the Father's.  It is a matter of FAITH, belief
>without logical proof.  Incedently one of the largest stumbling blocks for
>rational western man, myself included.
>I hope that this is taken in the spirit it was intended and not as a 
>rejection of the resurrection's occurance.  I beleive, but I wanted to point 
>out the weakness of logical proofs.

Terms are being used in a loaded way here.

"Logical proof" is an extremely messy thing to apply to real
life. If you think otherwise, try to construct a proof that
yesterday happened. Obviously it did; anyone old enough to be
reading this was there for it and remembers that it happened.
But *proof*? A proof starts with axioms and goes somewhere.
You need axioms to talk about logical proof. You can say that
you remember yesterday, and that you take as axiom that anything
you clearly remember happened. I could counterclaim that you
hallucinated the whole thing.

To talk about proofs of historical events, you have to relax the
terms a bit. You can show evidences, not proofs. Evidences of the
resurrected Jesus exist. Proofs do not.

I think Christianity goes down in flames if the resurrection is
ever disproved. I also think that this will not happen, as
the evidence for the resurrection is quite good as these things
go. It is not entirely fair to claim that you can only take
the resurrection on faith. There are reasons to believe it
that appeal to the mind, too.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20756
From: pwhite@empros.com (Peter White)
Subject: Some questions from a new Christian

Reply-To: pwhite@empros.com
In article <Apr.15.00.58.29.1993.28900@athos.rutgers.edu>, 18669@bach.udel.edu (Steven R Hoskins) writes:
 
|> I have another question I would like to ask. I am not yet affiliated
|> with any one congregation. Aside from matters of taste, what criteria
|> should one use in choosing a church? I don't really know the difference
|> between the various Protestant denominations.
 
Here in America people tend to think of choosing a church much like they
think of choosing a car or a country club. What I mean is that our 
culture is such that we tend towards satisfying our own wants rather
than considering things with others in mind and not making prayer 
an initial and primary part of the decision process. People tend to
treat church as they would a club and when something is less than to
their liking, off they go to another one.

I think that scripture presents the idea that God takes a different 
perspective on the "church choosing process". It seems to me from 1Cor 12
that God doesn't subscribe to the idea of us choosing a church at all
but that he places us in the body as he wants us. So, I think a better
question is not how do I choose a church but how do I figure out where
God is trying to place me.

If a person was instrumental in leading you to Christ, the church they
go to is a logical first choice. You have been born into the family of
God. People should hop around from church to church as often as they
hop from natural family to family.

If you met the Lord on your own (so to speak) there may not be an 
easily identifiable church to try for starters. Here you are more
like an orphan. Prayerfully go and "leave yourself on a few doorsteps"
and see if anyplace feels like home. 

I wouldn't expect that God want to place you in a church where you
have difficulty fitting in with the people, but on the other hand
there are no perfect churches. If you have an attitude of looking
for problems you will both find them and make them. On the other hand
if you have an attitude of love and committment, you will spread that
wherever you go. 

In general, I think that God will try to place you in a church that
talks about the Lord in the way that you have come to know him and is
expanding on that base.
-- 
Peter White
disclaimer: None of what is written necessarily reflects 
     			a view of my company.
	Phil    I want to know Christ and the power of his
	3:10 	resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in
	NIV		his sufferings, becoming like him in his death	

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20757
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: RE: Does God love you?

In article <Apr.13.00.08.10.1993.28382@athos.rutgers.edu> jayne@mmalt.guild.org
(Jayne Kulikauskas) writes:

>I am uncomfortable with the tract in general because there seems to be 
>an innappropriate emphasis on Hell.  God deserves our love and worship 
>because of who He is.  I do not like the idea of frightening people into 
>accepting Christ.  

And yet, Jayne,  as we read the Gospels and in particular the topics that Jesus
himself spoke on, Hell figures in a large % of the time -certainly more than
heaven itself.  Paul, as we learn in I Thess, taught new believers and new
churches eschatology and did not hesitate to teach hell and damnation.  Rev,
chapter 20:11-15 is very specific and cannot be allegorized.  I think the word
"throne" is used 45 times in Rev and that the unbelieving come to receive the
assignment of the severity of judgement, for in John 3 we read that they are
already judged.  Rom 3 speaks that every mouth will be shut.  There is no
recourse, excuse or defense.
>
>I see evangelism as combining a way of living that shows God's love with 
>putting into words and explaining that love.  Preaching the Gospel 
>without living the Gospel is no better than being a noisy gong or a 
>clanging cymbal.

Yes I agree with you.  Life is often like a pendulum where it swings to
extremes before stopping at "moderation."  I think we have seen the extreme of
the "hell fire & brimstone" preacher, but also we have seen the other extreme
where hell not talked about at all for fear of offending someones
sensibilities.

I forget who founded the Word of Life Ministries, but I remember him telling a
story.  He was in a small town hardware store and some how a man got to the
point of telling him that he didn't believe in Satan or hell.  He believed
everybody was going to heaven.  It was at this point that the man was asked to
pray to God that He would send his children to hell!  Of course the man
wouldn't do it.  But the point was made.  Many people say they don't believe in
hell but they are not willing to really place their faith in that it doesn't
exist.  If this man had, he would of prayed the prayer because hell didn't
exist and there would have been no fear in having his prayer answered.  And
yet, they walk as if they believe they will never be sent there.

I'd use a different illustration however.  I have to include myself in it. 
When I watch, say a Basketball (go Bulls!) game, and I see a blatant foul that
isn't called, oi vey!.  What's with that ref that he didn't make that call. 
It's unfair.  And just so in life, righteousness demands payment.  As the
surgeon takes knife in hand to cut the cancer away, so God cuts off that which
is still of the old creation.  We must preach the Gospel in all its richness
which includes the fact that if you reject The Way and The Truth and The Life,
then broad is the way to distruction.

>
>Here's a question:  How many of you are Christians because you are 
>afraid of going to Hell?  How many are responding to God's love?

I think I would fall in there somewhere.  Actually it was both.  After all,
repentance isn't only a turning towards, but also a turning away from!
No, again, if Jesus used it in His ministry then I can surely see that we
should do it also.  In love, of course, but in truth most assuredly.  

I have thought about writing something on this topic, but not now and here.  I
would say that there are some good reasons for its existence and its
eternality.

1) God is Light.  Yes He is love, but His love has the boundary of Holiness.
2) Dignity of Man.  Either a man is a robot or he is a responsible creature.
   If responsible, then he is also accountable.
3) The awfulness of sin.  Today we have a poor, poor concept of sin & God.
4) Christ.  He was willing to die and go there Himself to offer an avenue to
   the "whosoever will."

--Rex

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20758
From: af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.)
Subject: MAJOR VIEWS OF THE TRINITY

[With Frank's permission, I have added some information here (and in
one case changed the order of his contributions) in order to clarify
the historical relationship of the views.  My comments are based
primarily on William Rusch's historical summary in "The Trinitarian
Controversy", Fortress.  I'm going to save this as an FAQ.  --clh]

MAJOR VIEWS OF THE TRINITY
 
[SECOND CENTURY

The writers of the 2nd Cent. are important, because they set up much
of the context for the later discussions.  Justin Martyr, Aristides,
Athenagoras, Tatian, and Theophilus of Antioch are known as the
"Apologists".  Their theology has often been described as "Logos
theology".  Based strongly on wording in John, they took more or less
a two-phase approach.  Through eternity, the Logos was with the
Father, as his mind or thought.  This "immanent Word" became
"expressed" as God revealed himself in history, ultimately in Jesus.
Thus Jesus' full distinction from the Father only became visible in
history, though the Logos had been present in God from eternity.
Rusch regards this view is containing many of the emphases of the
final orthodox position, but in a form which is less sophisticated,
because it did not have the technical language to properly deal with
the eternal plurality in the Godhead.

Irenaeus held views somewhat similar to the Apologists.  However he
was uncomfortable with the two-stage approach.  He still viewed God as
one personage, with distinctions that did not become fully visible
except through his process of self-revelation (the "economy").  The
distinctions are present in his essential nature.  Irenaeus emphasized
the Holy Spirit more than the Apologists.  Irenaeus' views should
probably be called "economic trinitarianism", though that term is
normally used (as below) to refer to later developments.


THIRD CENTURY

--clh]

Dynamic Monarchianism
 
Source: Theodotus
Adherents: Paul of Samosota, Artemon, Socinus, Modern Unitarians
Perception of God's Essence: The unity of God denotes both oneness of nature
and oneness of person. The Son and the Holy Spirit therefore are
consubstantial with the Father's divine essence only as impersonal attributes.
The divine dunamis came upon the man Jesus, but he was not God in the strict
sense of the word.
Perception of God's Subsistence: The notion of a subsistent God is a palpable
impossibility, since his perfect unity is perfectly indivisible. The
'diversity' of God is apparent and not real, since the Christ event and the
work of the Holy Spirit attest only to a dynamic operation within God, not to
a hypostatic union.
Asignation of Deity/Eternality:
 Father: Unique originator of the universe. He is eternal, self-existent, and
without beginning or end.
 Son: A virtuous (but finite) man in whose life God was dynamically present in
a unique way; Christ definitely was not deity though his humanity was deified.
 Holy Spirit: An impersonal attribute of the Godhead. No deity or eternality
is ascribed to the Holy Spirit.
Criticism(s): Elevates reason above the witness of biblical revelation
concerning the Trinity. Categorically denies the deity of Christ and of the
Holy Spirit, thereby undermining the theological undergirding for the biblical
doctrine of salvation.
[In summary, this probably best thought of as not being Trinitarianism
at all.  God is an undifferentiated one.  Son and Holy Spirit are seen
as simply names for the man Jesus and the grace of God active in the
Church.  --clh]

 
Modalistic Monarchianism
 
Source: Praxeas
Adherents: Noatus, Sabellius, Swedenborg, Scleiermacher, United Pentecostals
(Jesus Only)
Perception of God's Essence: The unity of God is ultra-simplex. He is
qualitatively characterized in his essence by one nature and person.  This
essence may be designated interchangeably as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
They are different names for but identical with the unified, simplex God. The
three names are the three modes by which God reveals Himself.
Perception of God's Subsistence: The concept of a subsistent God is erroneous
and confounds the real issue of the phenomenon of God's modalistic manifesting
of himself. The paradox of a subsisting "three in oneness" is refuted by
recognizing that God is not three persons but one person with three different
names and corresponding roles following one another like parts of a drama.
Asignation of Deity/Eternality:
 Father: Fully God and fully eternal as the primal mode or manifestation of
the only unique and unitary God
 Son: Full deity/eternality ascribed only in the sense of his being another
mode of the one God and identical with his essence. he is the same God
manifested in temporal sequence specific to a role (incarnation).
 Holy Spirit: Eternal God only as the tile designates the phase in which the
one God, in temporal sequence, manifested himself pursuant to the role of
regeneration and sanctification.
Criticism(s): Depersonalizes the Godhead. To compensate for its Trinitarian
deficiencies, this view propounds ideas that are clearly heretical. Its
concept of successive manifestations of the Godhead cannot account for such
simultaneous appearances of the three persons as at Christ's baptism.
[Rusch comments that evidence on these beliefs is sketchy.  There are
actually two slightly different groups included: Noetus and his
followers, and Sabellius.  Noetus was apparently more extreme.
Sabellius followed him, and attempted to use some features of economic
Trinitarianism to create a more sophisticated view.  Unfortunately,
information about Sabellius comes from a century later, and there
seems to be some confusion between him and Marcellus of Ancyra. --clh]
 
[I've moved the following description to be with the other
third-century views.  It originally appeared near the end.  --clh]

"Economic" Trinitarianism
 
Source: Hippolytus, Tertullian
Adherents: Various "neo-economic" Trinitarians
Perception of God's Essence: The Godhead is characterized by triunity: Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit are the three manifestations of one identical,
indivisible substance. The perfect unity and consubstantiality are especially
comprehended in such manifest Triadic deeds as creation and redemption.
Perception of God's Subsistence: Subsistence within the Godhead is articulated
by means of such terms as "distinction" and "distribution" dispelling
effectively the notion of separateness or division.
Asignation of Deity/Eternality:
The equal deity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is clearly elucidated in
observation of the simultaneous relational/operational features of the
Godhead. Co-eternality, at times, does not intelligibly surface in this
ambiguous view, but it seems to be a logical implication.
Criticism(s): Is more tentative and ambiguous in its treatment of the
relational aspect of the Trinity.
[Note that this is a development of the Apologists and Irenaeus, as
mentioned above.  As with them, the threeness is visible primarily in
the various ways that God revealed himself in history.  However they
did say that this is a manifestation of a plurality that is somehow
present in the Godhead from the beginning.  Tertullian talks of
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as being three that are one in
substance.  Many people regard this view as being essentially
orthodox, but with less developed philosophical categories.  --clh]

[Origen, developing further an approach started by Clement, attempted
to apply neo-Platonism to Christian thought.  He set many of the terms
of the coming battle.  In Platonic fashion, he sees the Son as a
mediator, mediating between the absolute One of God and the plurality
of creating beings.  The Son is generated, but he is "eternally
generated".  That is, the relationship between Father and Son is
eternal.  It cannot be said that "there was once when he was not" (a
phrase that will haunt the discussion for centuries).  Having the Son
is intrinsic to his concept of God.  The Father and Son are described
as separate "hypostases", though this may not have quite the meaning
of separate subsistence that it had in some contexts.  The union is
one of love and action, but there is some reason to think that he may
have used the term homoousios ("of the same substance").  The Holy
Spirit is also an active, personal substance, originated by the Father
through the Son.  Origen's intent is trinitarian, not tritheistic, but
he pushes things in the direction of separateness.


FOURTH CENTURY

--clh]

Subordinationism  [often called Arianism --clh]
 
Source: Arius
Major Adherents: Modern Jehovah's Witnesses, and several other lesser known
cults
Perception of God's Essence: The inherent oneness of God's nature is properly
identifiable with the Father only. The Son and the Holy Spirit are discreet
entities who do not share the divine essence.
Perception of God's Subsistence: The unipersonal essence of God precludes the
concept of divine subsistence with a Godhead. "Threeness in oneness" is self-
contradictory and violates biblical principles of a monotheistic God.
Asignation of Deity/Eternality:
 Father: The only one, unbegotten God who is eternal and without beginning.
 Son: A created being and therefore not eternal. Though he is to be venerated,
he is not of the divine essence.
 Holy Spirit: A nonpersonal, noneternal emanation of the Father. He is viewed
as an influence, an expression of God.  Deity is not ascribed to him.
Criticism(s): It is at variance with abundant scriptural testimony respecting
the deity of both Christ and the Holy Spirit. Its hierarchial concept likewise
asserts three essentially separate persons with regard to the Father, Christ,
and the Holy Spirit. This results in a totally confused soteriology.
[Note also that in most versions of this view, the Son is not fully
human either.  He is supernatural and sinless.  That distinguishes this
view from adoptionism.  --clh]
 
Orthodox Trinitarianism
 
Source: Athanasius
Adherents: Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Augustine, Thomas
Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Contemporary orthodox Christianity
Perception of God's Essence: God's being is perfectly unified and simplex: of
one essence.  This essence of deity is held in common by Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit. The three persons are consubstantial, coinherent, co-equal, and co-
eternal.
Perception of God's Subsistence: The divine subsistence is said to occur in
three modes of being or hypostases. As such, the Godhead exists "undivided in
divided persons." This view contemplates an identity in nature and cooperation
in function without the denial of distinctions of persons in the Godhead.
Asignation of Deity/Eternality:
In its final distillation, this view unhesitatingly sets forth Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit as co-equal and co-eternal in the Godhead with regard to both
the divine essence and function.
Criticism(s): The only shortcoming has to do with the limitations inherent in
human language and thought itself: the impossibility of totally describing the
ineffable mystery of "three in oneness."
[At least in the 4th Cent, there were several different approaches, all
of which fit the description here, and all regarded as orthodox, but which
are somewhat different in detail.  Nicea was originally held to respond
to Arius.  Arius can be thought of as carrying Origen's thought a bit
too far, to the point of making the Son a separate entity.  In general
the East tended to take an approach based on Origen's, and it was hard
to get acceptance of Nicea in the East.  Its final acceptance was
based on the work of Athanasius with the Cappadocians: Gregory of Nyssa and
Gregory of Nazianzus, among others.  While starting with three,
they show that their unity in nature and and action is such that one
must think of them as being a single God.  This allowed the Council
of Constantinople, in 381, to get wide agreement on the idea of
three hypostatese and one ousia.  --clh]

Adapted from _Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine_, by H. Wayne House.


Frank
-- 
"If one wished to contend with Him, he could not answer Him one time out
 of a thousand."  JOB 9:3

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20759
From: cs89mcd@brunel.ac.uk (Michael C Davis)
Subject: Love Europe

Are any readers of s.r.c. going to the Love Europe congress in Germany this
July?
-- 
Michael Davis (cs89mcd@brunel.ac.uk)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20760
From: hedrick@cs.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: Doing the work of God??!!)

Desiree Bradley (Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca) asked us whether we
should think of the Serbs as doing God's work in Bosnia.  I've
refrained from posting, in hope that someone who is more familiar with
the OT than I would answer.  But at this point I feel I have to say
something.

Many things about this posting bother me.  I know of not the slightest
suggestion in the NT that Christians should use force to propagate the
Gospel, and the idea that we should not be concerned about the death
of Moslems violates the heart of the Gospel.  Christ died to break
down these distinctions.  In him there is neither Jew nor Greek, there
is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female.  If
Moslems do not know him, we may preach to them, but we don't kill
them.  Furthermore, the attack is between states, not religions.
There are Christians being attacked as well.  One of the towns under
attack is one of the few places where Christians and Moslems are
living together peacefully.

The precedents being suggested are from the OT.  There are in fact two
different things being alluded to.  The first is from the entry into
Canaan.  For that to be a parallel, we would need for God to have
promised this land through a prophet.  And we would need the war to be
a holy war.  There were tight constraints on behavior in those
attacks.  Any violations were likely to cause the Israelites to be
defeated.  Rape would not have been tolerated.  While the accounts in
Joshua emphasize towns that were totally destroyed, note that it was
possible for a town to make peace with the Israelites, and that once
that was done -- even when deception was involved -- they were
expected to honor it.  In contrast, there have been many violations of
agreement in this incident. I see no evidence that God has granted
Bosnia to the Serbs as a promised land, and if he had, their behavior
would have disqualified this from being a holy war.

The other OT parallel is from later, when Israel was defeated by
Assyria and Babylonia.  The prophets saw this as a judgement on Israel
for her sins.  Someone asks whether we shouldn't see this as a
judgement on the Bosnians for their sins.  This sounds like a replay
of the old claim that we shouldn't have doctors or hospitals because
illness is God's judgement.  Yes, even bad things may be used by God
for good.  That includes actions of bad people.  But that doesn't
justify them.  If you read the prophets, you find them very clear that
in attacking Israel, the Assyrians and Babylonians were acting as
*unintentional* agents of God.  Their intent was to attack God's
people, and they would be judged for it.  The fact that they were
actually carrying out God's plan didn't excuse their action.
Furthermore, we shouldn't conclude from this that all attacks are
judgements from God.  God explicitly interpreted that case, through
his prophets.  As far as I know, he did not send any prophets to
Bosnia.  While I find it hard to see any good in the current fighting,
I am sure God will eventually make good come out of bad.  But that
doesn't justify it, and it won't save the people who are doing it from
judgement.

I am particularly concerned about the implications of this issue
because of current tensions between the West and Moslem-oriented
nations.  What we do not need is for Moslems to conclude that
Christians think it's OK to kill Moslems.  The implications for the
mid-East, and even relations with American Moslems, could be quite
serious.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20761
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Subject: Daily Verse


   But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." 
    Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what
I do. 

James 2:18

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20762
From: labson@borneo.corp.sgi.com (Joel Labson)
Subject: Maybe?????

Hi Christian friends,

My name is Joel, I have a sister who's 25th birthday is tomorrow.....She
used to be on fire for the Lord, but somehow, for some reason, she
became cold....she don't want to associate anymore with her old
christian friends.........so I thought maybe some of you could help her
out again by sending her a postcard or card with a little message of
encouragement.....hand written is okay....her address is 3150 Hobart
Ave. San Jose Ca. 95127...........

Thank you and God Bless.

PS: Jesus Christ is LORD!!!!!!!! 

[I have some qualms about postings like this.  You might want to
engage in a bit more conversation with Joel before deluging 
someone who doesn't expect it with cards.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20763
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Hell_2:  Black Sabbath

In article <Apr.21.03.25.03.1993.1292@geneva.rutgers.edu>
salaris@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrabbits) writes:

>I like those lyrics,
>since whenever I am approached by judgemental, pharisitical,
>evangelical fundamentalists who throw the Bible at me because
>I have long hair, wear a black leather jacket, and listen to Black
>Sabbath, I have something to throw back....

>It just goes to show that there are more important evils in the
>world to battle than rock lyrics...........


It just goes to show that not all evangelical fundamentalists are pharisitical!
I wear a black leather jacket, like classic rock, but no longer have the long
locks I once had.  However,  I too rely upon the Bible as a basis for Christian
ethics.

a fundamentalistic evangelical,
--Rex 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20764
From: jono@mac-ak-24.rtsg.mot.com (Jon Ogden)
Subject: Re: Help

> 	   I'm a commited Christian that is battling with a problem.  I know
> that romans talks about how we are saved by our faith not our deeds, yet
> hebrews and james say that faith without deeds is useless, saying' You fools,
> do you still think that just believing is enough?'

[Stuff deleted]
 
> Now I am of the opinion that you a saved through faith alone (not what you do)
> as taught in Romans, but how can I square up in my mind the teachings of James
> in conjunction with the lukewarm Christian being 'spat-out'
> 
> Can anyone help me, this really bothers me.


Will, there has been a lot of discussion going on about this over in
s.r.c.b-s.
I will make the case here though and try to help you out:

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it
is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
(Ephesians 2:8-9).

Yes, it is by God's grace and our faith that we are saved.  We are not
saved by what we do.  However,

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
(John 14:15).

Keeping Christ's commandments is a "work" per se, and a demonstration of
our love for him.  Also,

6 He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his
vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.
7 Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years
I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why
cumbereth it the ground?
8 And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I
shall dig about it, and dung it:
9 And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it
down.
(Luke 13:6-9).

Again,

16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye
should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that
whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
(John 15:16).

It is clear from these verses that we are called to bring forth fruit. 
What is that fruit.  Well, Paul speaks of the fruit of the spirit being
love, joy, peace, patience, etc.  All of these are things that are manifest
in the actions that we carry out.

If a person claims to believe in Jesus Christ, but does not do the things
Christ commanded, I dare say, that they really don't have any faith. 
Asking which is more important, faith or works, is like asking which blade
on a pair of scissors is most important or like asking which leg of your
pants is more important.

Good works should come out of and be a result of our faith.  To have faith,
true faith in Christ requires you to do what he commands.  The parable
above speaks allegorically of a person who does bear no fruit.  Christs
commands are actions, and if we don't do those actions and produce fruit,
then we shall be uprooted just like the tree. 

It is a dead and useless faith which has no action behind it.  Actions
prove our faith and show the genuineness of it.  I can sit and talk for
days about the fact that I have so much faith in my ability to jump off a
building and not hit the ground.  In other words, I can sit and tell you
all day long that I have faith in my ability to fly.  I really don't have
that faith though unless I am willing to jump off the roof and take the
test.  Words and talk mean nothing.

I could go on and give more scriptures and if people want me to I will, but
this should be sufficient.

Hope it helped.

Jon

----------------
sig file broken....

please try later...
----------------

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20765
From: parkin@Eng.Sun.COM (Michael Parkin)
Subject: Re: Being right about messiahs

In article 2262@geneva.rutgers.edu, Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca (Desiree Bradley) writes:
> I must have missed the postings about Waco, David Koresh, and the Second
> Coming.  How does one tell if a Second Coming is the real thing, unless the
> person claiming to be IT is obviously insane?

First by his fruits.  The messiah comes to build the kingdom of heaven
on the earth.  He also comes to first reveal the root cause of
original sin (fallen nature) and then provide a means to cut the
connection to that original sin.  He also wants to create world peace
based on Godism.  The messiah's teachings will build on the foundation
of the Bible but provide profound new insights into the nature of God,
the fall of man, the purpose of creation, and God's providence of
restoration.  It will also provide a foundation for the unity of all
the World's religions.

Many Christians expect Jesus to come on literal clouds, so they may
miss him when he returns. Just as the Jewish people missed Jesus 2000
years ago.  They are still waiting for his first coming.  The Jewish
people of that age expected Elijah to come first.  Jesus said that
John the Baptist was Elijah. But John the Baptist denied that he was
Elijah.  (How did this reflect on Jesus?)  Later in prison John even
questioned who Jesus was: "is he the one who is to come or do we look
for another". (see book of Matthew)

> 
> I'm not saying that David Koresh is the Second Coming of Christ.  How could
> somebody who breaks his word be the Second Coming?  Koresh did promise that
> he would come out of his compound if only he was allowed to give a radio
> broadcast.  He didn't.  Still it seems to me that he did fool some people.

David Koresh didn't even come close.  The problem is that people like
this make it difficult for people to believe and trust in the real
Messiah when he does show up.

> 
> And, from my meagre knowledge of the Bible, it seems that Christians have
> been hard on the Jews of Christ's day for being cautious about accepting
> somebody that their religious authorities didn't accept as the Messiah.
> 
> So I was surprised that nobody had discussed the difficulty of wanting to be
> early to recognize the Second Coming while, at the same time, not wanting to
> be credulously believing just anybody who claims to be God.

Very good point and perhaps the most important point of all for
Christians: How to recognize the Second Coming?

The Messiah should not claim to be God.  What sets a Messiah apart is
that he is born without original sin.  He is not born perfect but
achieves perfection after a period of growth.  Adam and Eve were born
sinless but they fell, and this tragedy meant that it would take God
thousands of years to create the kingdom of heaven on the earth as God
originally intended.  God's restoration providence is still not
complete.  The messiah is the true Son of God, one with God, God's
representative on the earth, but not God himself.  There is only one
God.

> [Mark 13:21   And then if any one says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' 
> or 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it. 
...
> Mark 13:26   And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with 
> great power and glory. 

> My understanding of Jesus' answer is that, unlike his first coming,
> which was veiled, the second coming will be quite unmistakeable.

> By the way, from Koresh's public statement it's not so clear to me
> that he is claiming to be Christ.

Who else in this world is claiming to be the Messiah.  Maybe he's already here.

Mike

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20766
From: bohja@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Subject: WITCHES AND WICCAN:  your opinion

I am a student at UW-Eau Claire.  I am doing a paper an witches and wanted to
get your point of view.  I will not use you name unless you specifically tell
me to do so.

Please answer this question:

As a Christian, are you offended by witches and Wiccan?  Do you feel that tehy
are pagan in the evil sense of the word?

You time and cooperation is appreciated.  Thanks, J.

-This survey is being conducted in partial fulfillment of the course
requirements for Engl 201, taught by Karen Welch at the University of
Wisconsin-Eau Claire.  This course is in compliance with the course
certification requirements of the University Institutional Review Board for the
PRotection of Human Subjects.

[but is it in compliance with any reasonable method for choosing
samples???  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20767
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Assurance of Hell

In article <Apr.21.03.26.39.1993.1370@geneva.rutgers.edu>
lfoard@hopper.virginia.edu (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:

[ -and many others mailed me.  Here is a reply to one of the letters.  Seems to
me that atheist do not like the doctrine of hell!]

>There's nothing like a preacher to put fear into an
>     ignorant man...

>If God hadn't created Hell in the first place, there'd be no
>     no need to "die" and save us.  Isn't it also a bit paradoxical
>     to say "God died" when, in fact, no such thing is remotely
>     possible.  Can the infinite die?

Your using 20th century concepts to interprete 1st century writers.  Of course,
in your termonology, God could not "cease to exist."  However, that is not what
death ever means in the Scriptures.  If you will study the word, you will see
that it signifies "separation."  Death is separation, not ceastation.  This is
the reason for the agony of the cross.  For the first time in eternity, one
member of the Godhead was separated from the other two.  

I once met a young lady that was as beautiful as any model that ever lived. 
She was as personable as any saint ever imagined.  She was to become my
"girlfriend" for several years.  However, having been drafted, we were
separated by distance.  To me that was a form of death.  Later, she decided
that she couldn't wait for me to come home and bid me adue.  That to me was
death.  It was separation from that which had made me whole.  Death is
separation and eternal death is eternal separation from His fellowship, not
because He chose to send you into outer darkness, but because you chose to go
there.  

>> did you know that Jesus talked more
>> about hell than He did about heaven!  

>Thank you for this info.  What respect I had for the man now
>     has been diminished tenfold.  I promise never again to
>     say how wise or loving this man was...

When I rebelled against my earthly father, he spanked me.  I found no wisdom in
that until I had grown older and especially until I had my own children.  He
was trying to guide me away from hurt that would enter my life if I continued
on my suicidal course.  He did it in love though I interpreted it as harsh and
unloving.  If God warns of impending danger, that is love.  If choose to let us
do as we please, and then at the end tell us the rules, that would be harsh. 
You have a conscience, no matter how calused or fallen it is, that witnesses to
you that a thing is wrong and that there is cause for fear.  

>Being Jesus was allegedly God, I doubt he could honestly feel
>     the pinpricks man dealt him...

This may give light to the error of your understanding.  One must have correct
knowledge in order to have correct faith.  Faith and knowledge are inseparable.
 Jesus most certainly felt the "pinpricks" of life.  As the Scripture say:

Heb. 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our
weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without
sin.

The kenosis passage of Phil 2 states that He gave up His Godhead attributes
when He took upon Himself humanity.  It has been a favorite meditation of mine
to think about this.  It was to be my PhD thesis.  "The Consciousness of
Christ."  I have talked at length with a great many people about this
interesting study, including clh.  

It is my conclussion that as Jesus, the 2nd member of the Trinity, actually
suffered as we do.  He became part of the human race and experienced it as we
do.  He "grew in knowledge."  He chose not to grasp His omniscience, but chose
to be taught.  It is my understanding that He was "led of the Spirit" to such
an extent that sometimes it is hard to distinquish between Jesus the man and
Jesus as God.  But in Jn 8 where the adulterous women was thrown before Him,
the tenses are quite clear in that the whole situation took Him by surprise. 
That is, He was not aware that this event was to take place in time.  He was
living sequential history as you or I.  

Maybe some other time we can discuss this, but it is a very lengthy discussion
and one that causes the curcuit breakers of the brain to pop more often than
not.

>Thanks again for the info.  Just so you know, some friends and I
>     are starting a Freethinkers organization-- and I'm going to
>     use some of the info you provided for an organization intro-
>     duction... :-)

I was once a member of that club.  THe "free thinker" is a glorious ideal.  By
contrast, of course, you believe that the believer is the unforunate repository
of everything that is dogmatic, inhibited, reactionary and repressive.  I find
such a stance to be as amusing as it is absurd.   If the liberal humanist
wishes to criticize a Christian or a Buddhist or a Marxist, that is his right. 
But what he must not pretend is that he was led to this solely by his "rational
doubt" when in fact he was led to it by his "faith".  He must acknowledge that
while it is rational doubt for him as a "free thinker" to criticize the
Christian, it might equally be a rational doubt for the Christian to criticize
him as a humanist.  If there is no faith, there can be no dout.  There is no
faith which cannot choose to cast doubt on some other faith.

Pascal pointed out that "sceptical arguments allow the positive to be positive.
 Few. . .speak dubiously of scepticism."  The fact that skeptics are not
skeptical about skepticism is further evidence that to doubt anything we must
believe in something else!  THe person who is skeptical toward one faith or
even most faiths, will be the devoted adherent of another.  In fact, it is a
measure of his poverty both that he is unaware of it and that he can define
himself only in negative terms, hence the term "a"-theist.

Some people claim otherwise and argue vociferously for complete skepticism.  In
my campus ministry I ran across this more times than I care to remember. 
However, they disproved their own argument with every thought, every word,
every point of logic that they used.  Every moment of shared communication
speaks against their total skepticism.  Their very insistence of trying to make
sense is eloquent testimony to assumptions that are powerful though silent.

That is to say, that complete skepticism is impossible and limited skepticism
is arbitrary.  Next time you're in a room of skeptics, yell out "Look, your fly
is undone!"  Each person chooses what he is skeptical about and what he
believes without skepticism.  To stress this is to belabor the obvious, but it
underlines the point that no one can know exhaustively how he knows what he
knows.  Pure objectivism is a myth and complete skepticism an impossiblity. 
The answer to this impasse lies in  a 3rd way of knowing, one which is based on
presuppositions.  But if knowledge proceeds on what must be presupposed before
it is proved, the cover is blown on the pretentions of critical doubt, and
critical doubt depends on the idea that human knowledge is totally objective
and neutral.  In other words, another myth.  

Presuppositions my friend.  It is impossible to doubt anything unless there is
something we do not doubt -our own assumptions/presuppostions.  Even these can
be criticezed only upon the basis of other assumptions.  Presuppostitons are
our silent partners in thought but their silence must not be mistaken for
absence.

>  I tell you what-- if God condemns me for being honest, He is
>    unworthy of my worship.  Better to burn in Hell than to
>     serve a tyrant in Heaven..

Of course that is hardly an original statement.  Milton coined it but it had
been in use for millenia.  It was even used in the first "Highlander" movie. 
But again, your presuption is based on a faulty knowledge of the character of
God.  You are operating off of a presuppositional premise of humanistic
theology, not what He has revealed of Himself through history, through His
prophets, through His Word, and lastly, but most of all, thru His Son.  If you
are to reject God's annointed savior, then reject Him from a correct
understanding of Himself.

--Rex

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20768
From: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article <Apr.16.23.18.07.1993.1879@geneva.rutgers.edu> phs431d@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>But what if the geologists are wrong and these people are warning of a
>non-existent danger?  Analogies can only push an argument so far (on both
>sides).  Both Melinda's and yours assume the premises used to set up your
>respective analogies are true and thus the correct conclusion will arise.
>
>The important point to note is the different directions both sides come from.
>Christians believe they know the TRUTH and thus believe they have the right
>(and duty) to tell the TRUTH to all.  
>
>Christians can get offended if others do not believe (what is self-evidently
>to them) the TRUTH. Non-christians do not believe this is the TRUTH and get
>offended at them because they (christians) claim to know the TRUTH.

The analogy does not depend on the premisses being true, because the 
question under discussion is not truth but arrogance. 

A similar analogy might be a medical doctor who believes that a blood 
transfusion is necessary to save the life of a child whose parents are 
Jehovah's Witnesses and so have conscientious objections to blood 
transfusion. The doctor's efforts to persuade them to agree to a blood 
transfusion could be perceived to be arrogant in precisely the same way as 
Christians could be perceived to be arrogant.

The truth or otherwise of the belief that a blood transfusion is necessary 
to save the life of the child is irrelevant here. What matters is that the 
doctor BELIEVES it to be true, and could be seen to be trying to foce his 
beliefs on the parents, and this could well be perceived as arrogance.

============================================================
Steve Hayes, Department of Missiology & Editorial Department
Univ. of South Africa, P.O. Box 392, Pretoria, 0001 South Africa
Internet: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za         Fidonet: 5:7101/20
          steve.hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
FAQ: Missiology is the study of Christian mission and is part of
     the Faculty of Theology at Unisa

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20769
From: mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server)
Subject: Re: src

dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:

>I find it interesting that cls never answered any of the questions posed. 
>Then he goes on the make statements which make me shudder.  He has
>established a two-tiered God.  One set of rules for the Jews (his people)
>and another set for the saved Gentiles (his people).  Why would God
>discriminate?  Does the Jew who accepts Jesus now have to live under the
>Gentile rules.
> 
>God has one set of rules for all his people.  Paul was never against the
>law.  In fact he says repeatedly that faith establishes rather that annuls
>the law.  Paul's point is germane to both Jews and Greeks.  The Law can
>never be used as an instrument of salvation.  And please do not combine
>the ceremonial and moral laws in one.
> 
>In Matt 5:14-19 Christ plainly says what He came to do and you say He was
>only saying that for the Jews's benefit.  Your Christ must be a
>politician, speaking from both sides of His mouth.  As Paul said, "I have
>not so learned Christ."  Forget all the theology, just do what Jesus says.
> Your excuses will not hold up in a court of law on earth, far less in
>God's judgement hall.

Pardon me for being a little confused, but at the beginning of your second 
paragraph, you say, "God has one set of rules for all his people," yet at the 
end of the same paragraph you declare, "please do not combine the ceremonial 
and moral laws in one."  Not only do I not understand where in the Bible you 
find the declaration that there are 2 laws (ceremonial and moral), but I am 
also unclear on whether you think it is bad to have 2 sets of laws in the first 
place.  If it's bad to have 2 sets of laws, how can there be a ceremonial law 
that is different from the moral law (and vice versa)?

I would also be interested in your comments on the passage in I Cor. 10:1-16, 
where Paul teaches different rules for covering you head while praying 
depending on whether you are a man or a woman.  Do you think the apostles can 
prescribe different sets of rules for men and women?  If so, then why not for 
Jews and Gentiles?  Also, why did Paul, who was so opposed to circumcising 
Gentiles, voluntarily circumcise Timothy?

- Mark

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20770
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5

In article <Apr.20.03.02.26.1993.3803@geneva.rutgers.edu> clh writes:
>Re: Are you Christian or Pauline?
>Both.

Sure, why not? But, are you using Paul to correct the words of Jesus?

>There is no doubt in my mind about what is sin and what is
>not, at least not in this case.  Jesus did not deal explicitly with
>the question of whether the Law was binding on Gentiles. 

"So *anyone* who dissolves even one of the smallest commands and teaches
others the same way, will be known as the lowest in the kingdom of the
skies; whereas *anyone* who keeps the commands and teaches them too, will
be known as *someone* great in the kingdom of the skies." Mat5:19 (Gaus)

Are you an "anyone" or are you a "no one?"

Why not assume, that since Jesus didn't say that his words apply only to
Jews, that they apply to all human beings, irregardless of race or sex?

Why not assume, that even though Jesus did not mention your name, still
Jesus was talking directly to you?

>That's why I
>have to cite evidence such as the way Jesus dealt with the Centurion.
>As to general Jewish views on this, I am dependent largely on studies
>of Pauline theology, one by H.J. Schoeps, and one whose author I can't
>come up with at the moment.  Both authors are Jews.  Also, various
>Christian and non-Christian Jews have discussed the issue here and in
>other newsgroups.
>Mat 5:19 is clear that the Law is still valid.  It does not say that
>it applies to Gentiles.

Does it say that it applies to *you*? Are you anyone or no one?

>And yes, I say that the specific requirement for worship on the
>Sabbath in the Ten Commandments is a ceremonial detail, when you're
>looking at the obligations of Gentiles.

Ex20:8-11(JPS) Remember the sabbath day and keep it holy. Six days you
shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of
the LORD your God; you shall not do any work - you, your son or
daughter, your male or female slave, or your cattle, or the stranger who
is within your settlements. For in six days the LORD made heaven and
earth and sea, and all that is in them, and He rested on the seventh
day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and hollowed it.

Note: There is no specific requirement for worship here, however I for
one would not be so bold as to call these verses a "ceremonial detail."

>Similarly circumcision.

Don't many Christians still practice circumcision?

>I'm not sure quite what else I can say on this subject.  Again, it's
>unfortunate the Jesus didn't answer the question directly.

It's unfortunate that Jesus didn't use your name directly, or maybe
Jesus did? Are you somebody or nobody?

>However we
>do know (1) what the 1st Cent. Jewish approach was, (2) how Jesus
>dealt with at least one Gentile, and (3) how Jesus' disciples dealt
>with the issue when it became more acute (I'm referring to Acts 15
>more than Paul).  Given that these are all in agreement, I don't see
>that there's a big problem.

If you don't see a problem, then perhaps there is none. As Paul closes
Romans 14 (Gaus):

  In short, pursue the ends of peace and of building each other up.
Don't let dietary considerations undo the work of God. Everything may be
clean, but it's evil for the person who eats it in an offensive spirit.
Better not to eat the meat or drink the wine or whatever else your
brother is offended by. As for the faith that you have, keep that
between yourself and God. The person is in luck who doesn't condemn
himself for what he samples. On the other hand, the person with doubts
about something who eats it anyway is guilty, because he isn't acting on
his faith, and any failure to act on faith is a sin.

[As far as I know, Christians (except specific Jewish Christian
groups, and maybe some of the sabbatarians -- both of which are very
small groups) do not practice circumcision on religious grounds.  In
some countries it has been done for supposed health reasons, but I've
not heard it argued that it is being done because of the Biblical
commandment.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20771
From: vbv@nomad.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article <Apr.21.03.25.34.1993.1316@geneva.rutgers.edu> caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin) writes:
>vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.) writes:
>> 
>> Hold it.  I said that all of scripture is true.  However, discerning
>> exactly what Jesus, Paul and company were trying to say is not always so
>> easy.  I don't believe that Paul was trying to say that all women should
>> behave that way.  Rather, he was trying to say that under the circumstances
>> at the time, the women he was speaking to would best avoid volubility and
>> cover their heads.  This has to do with maintaining a proper witness toward
>> others.  Remember that any number of relativistic statements can be derived
>> from absolutes.  For instance, it is absolutely right for Christians to
>> strive for peace.  However, this does not rule out trying to maintain world
>> peace by resorting to violence on occasion.  (Yes, my opinion.)
>
>I agree that there is truth in scripture.  There are principles to be 
>learned from it.  Claiming that that truth is absolute, though, seems 
>to imply a literal reading of the Bible.  If it were absolute truth 
>(constant across time, culture, etc.) then no interpretation would be 
>necessary.

I strongly disagree that absolute truth would not require interpretation.
That's because truth may be absolute, but it may not be obvious.  Like
so many things, the truth is always subject to misinterpretation.

I strongly suspect that we are reaching an impasse here, which is why I
deign from commenting much further.

>> Sure.  The Bible preaches absolute truths.  However, exactly what those
>> truths are is sometimes a matter of confusion.  As I said, the Bible does
>> preach absolute truths.  Sometimes those fundamental principles are crystal
>> clear (at least to evangelicals).  
>
>This is where the arrogance comes in to play.  Since these principles 
>are crystal clear to evangelicals, maybe the rest of us should just take
>their word for it?  Maybe it isn't at all crystal clear to *me* that 
>their fundamental principles are either fundamental *or* principles.

Now hold it.  I never said that Christians cannot be arrogant.  Indeed, as
many other Christians on SRC have stressed before, this is a trap that
Christians must always be wary about.  However, this does not mean that if
you believe in the absolutes established by the Bible, you are necessarily
being arrogant.  A Christian can believe that the Word of God is absolute,
but he or she should not expect this to be immediately evident to everyone.
 
>So, I think that your position is:
>The Bible is absolute truth, but as we are prone to error in our 
>interpretation, we cannot reliably determine if we have figured out 
>what that truth is.
>Did I get that right?

Not quite.  You say that according to my stance, we cannot *reliably*
determine what is true.  That is not what I said.  I say that as fallible
human beings, we cannot discern the truth with 100% certainty.  The 
distinction is subtle yet important.

When a scientist performs an experiment, he can claim that his results
are reliable, without claiming that absolutely no mistake whatsoever could
have been made.  In other words, he can admit that he could be mistaken,
without sacrificing his convictions.

Nobody can establish what absolute truth is with 100% certainty.
Throughout the centuries, philosophers have argued about what we can know
with complete certainty and what we cannot.  Descartes made a step in the
right direction when he uttered, "Cogito, ergo sum," yet we have not advanced
much beyond that.

Do you believe that other people aside from you exist?  Do you believe that
the computer terminal you are using exists?  If so, can you be absolutely
certain about that?  Are you sure it is not some grand illusion?  Of course,
you have no such assurance.  This does not mean, however, that for all
practical purposes, you can be certain that they exist.  So it is with
Christianity.  The most mature Christians I know have deep convictions about
absolute morality, yet they acknowledge that there is a non-zero probability 
that they are wrong.  This does not, however, mean that they should (or do) 
abandon these absolutes.

>What's the point of spending all this time claiming and defending 
>absolute truth, when we can never know what those truths are, and we 
>can never (or at least shouldn't) act upon them?  What practical 
>difference can this make?

As I said, we can never be absolutely certain that we are correct.  This does
not mean that we cannot be certain enough, in light of the evidence, to 
render all doubts unreasonable.

-- 
Virgilio "Dean" Velasco Jr, Department of Electrical Eng'g and Applied Physics 
	 CWRU graduate student, roboticist-in-training and Q wannabee
    "Bullwinkle, that man's intimidating a referee!"   |    My boss is a 
   "Not very well.  He doesn't look like one at all!"  |  Jewish carpenter.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20772
From: mussack@austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Subject: Re: Questioning Authority

Despite my trendy, liberal, feminist tendencies and the fact
that I basically agree with what you are saying I will rebut:

(Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
> (Chris Mussack) writes:
> > For all those people who insist I question authority: Why?
> ...
> Authorities sometimes tell people to do evil things.  People who "just
> follow orders" have tortured and killed others in very large numbers,
> and protest their innocence afterwards.
 
The basic question here is "how do I know what I am supposed to do?"
This is true in every situation that comes up. Some people do not
think about it at all and merely follow their impulses. I claim
that is just as dangerous as "following authority". I could site
sexually transmitted diseases, drug abuse, all manner of criminal
activity, the savings and loan scandal, car accidents, eggs thrown
at my house, all are examples of people not "following authority".
I could easily argue that in the evil examples you gave the 
problem was a leader not following _his_ authority and doing what 
he wanted. Of course, where is the top of the chain? Therein lies 
our search.
 
> When your authority starts telling you to do things, you should ask
> questions.  Except for situations of pressing need ("I said shut the
> hatch because the submarine is filling with water!"), any reasonable
> authority should be able to give at least some justification that you
> can understand.

I don't think it's as simple as you are claiming. "Pressing need" is
ambiguous. Should I recycle or not? 
 
Realize that I have four kids who, despite being very precocious 
of course, are very tiring with their constant lack of understanding
the tremendous knowledge I wish to impart to them.

> Just be sure to listen when authority answers.

Ahh! An ironic ending.
 
The irony I was implying in my initial pithy retort to the bumper 
sticker cliche "Question Authority" was that I was questioning 
the authority of the person telling me to question authority.
It seems there is a certain segment of society that finds meaning
only in being different, only in rebelling, forsaking everything
for the sake of freedom. I question their integrity and fortitude. 
There is another freedom that comes from doing a task correctly.
Different people are at different levels of development in different
areas. Part of the challenge of life is to find the right authorities
to follow, we can't know everything about everything. Often 
when learning a new skill or subject I will follow the teacher,
perhaps blindly. Only when I have learned enough to ask appropriate
questions should I question him, only when I have developed
my skills enough should I challenge him. Once again, how do I know
when I get to those stages?

If you have to be told to question authority, perhaps you shouldn't.

Chris Mussack
(A good comedian should never have to explain his jokes.)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20773
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

I've just read Carol's response and I just had to get into this.  I've
got some verses which are not subject to interpretation because they say
what they say.  They are 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and
Galatians 1:11-12.  

Also, based on the fact that Jesus is the Word incarnate and he judges
people if they follow him (see Acts 17:29-31 and John 5:21-27) and that
those who reject Jesus' teachings are judged by the very words he spoke
(see John 12:47-50), then Jesus' words are true and do not need
interpretation, nor would it be just of God to judge based on his word
if it had to be interpreted.

Joe Fisher

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20774
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Cell Church discussion group

In article <Apr.21.03.25.58.1993.1337@geneva.rutgers.edu> reid@cs.uiuc.edu (Jon Reid) writes:
>I am beginning an e-mail discussion group about cell churches.  If you are

Please, define cell church.  I missed it somewhere in the past when this
was brought up before.

Joe Fisher

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20775
From: KEMPJA@rcwusr.bp.com
Subject: Re: Religious wars


In article <Apr.21.03.24.44.1993.1288@geneva.rutgers.edu>, fraseraj@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Andrew J Fraser) writes:
> "Well you know that religion has caused more wars than
> anything else"
> It bothers me that I cannot seem to find a satisfactory
> response to this. After all if our religion is all about
> peace and love why have there been so many religious wars?

Of course if this question was asked in a group dealing with economics,
the answer would be that the cause of war was economic. My observations
over the past 30 years (and not withstanding a little history reading
beside) is that while religious differences do play a part in many of
the conflicts, so does (unfortunately) race, economics and any other
items that identify one group of men as being different from another.

If we want to couch the cause of conflict in Christian terms, I would
put it while Christ died for our sins, we are yet sinners. While some
individuals assume "Christlike" natures, most of us do not even
come close.

I realize that in many ways this is a trite answer, but I guess that
it is my way of rationalizing man's constant (or so it seems)
conflict.


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Jerry Kemp (Somtime Consultant)
Internet: kempja@rcwusr.bp.com
          kemp_ja@tnd001.dnet.bp.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20776
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: prayers and advice requested on family problem

Julie, it is a really trying situation that you have described.  My
brother was living with someone like that and things were almost as bad
(although he left after a considerably shorter amount of time due to
other problems with the relationship).  Anyway, the best thing to do
would be to get everyone in the same room together (optimally in a room
with nothing breakable), lock the door behind you, throw the key out
underneath the door (just as far as the longest hand can reach.  You
would like to get out after the conclusion, I would imagine), and hash
things out.  More than likely, there will be screaming, crying, and
possibly hitting (unless of course someone decided to bring some rope to
tie people down).  Some of the best strategies in keeping things calmer
would include:
   have each individual own their own statements (ie, I feel that this
relationship is hurting everyone involved because.... or I really don't
understand where you're coming from.)
   reinforce statements by paraphrasing, etc. (ie, So you think that we
did this because of...?  Well, let me just say that the reason for this
was ....)
   don't accuse each other (It was your fault that ... happened!)
   find a common ground about SOMETHING (Lampshades really are
decorational and functional at the same time.)
   Guaranteed, in a situation like this, there is going to be some
gunnysacking (re-hashing topics which were assumed resolved, but were
truly not and someone feels someone else is to blame).  However, this
should be kept to a minimum and simply ask for forgiveness or apologize
about each situation WITHOUT holding a smoldering grudge.  

The relationship really can work.  It's just a matter of keeping things
smooth and even.  It's sort of like making a peace treaty between
warring factions:  you can't give one side everything; there must be a
compromise.  Breaks can be taken, but communication between everyone
involved must continue if the relationships here are to survive.

Joe Fisher

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20777
From: rbutera@owlnet.rice.edu (Robert John Butera)
Subject: Re: about Eliz C Prophet

In article <Apr.21.03.27.03.1993.1388@geneva.rutgers.edu> JEK@cu.nih.gov writes:
>Rob Butera asks about a book called THE LOST YEARS OF JESUS, by
>Elizabeth Clare Prophet.

> ...

>marriage, if I remember aright), base almost all their teachings on
>messages they have allegedly received by telepathy from Tibet. I
>should be surprised if the book you mention has any scholarly basis.

Actually, there was very little to the book.  First of all looking at
the titles of her other books, I would personally consider her 
to be engaged in a bizarre form of Christian-like mysticism
heavily influenced by eastern philosphies (great titles like 
_The_Astrology_of_the_4_Horsemen_).

However, other than the Chapter One into, there's nothing original,
biased, or even new this book.  It is basically a collection of previously
published works by those who claim that there exist Buddhist and Hindu
stories that Christ visited India and China (he was known as Issa) 
during the period from late teens to age 30.

Conclusion:  the book actually lets you come to your own view by presenting
a summary of various published works and letters, all of which you
could verify independently.  It includes refutations to such works as
well.  Therefore, even if you think she is theologically warped, this 
book is a nice reference summary for the interested.	 

-- 
Rob Butera        |
ECE Grad Student  |     "Only sick music makes money today" 
Rice University   |
Houston, TX 77054 |               - Nietzsche, 1888

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20778
From: kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko)
Subject: Re: Atheist's views on Christianity (was: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")

First, I thank collectively all people who have given good answers
to my questions. In my follow-up to Jason Smith's posting, I will
address some issues that have caused misunderstanding:

Jason Smith (jasons@atlastele.com) wrote:

> In article <Apr.19.05.13.48.1993.29266@athos.rutgers.edu> kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko) writes:

> I also concede that I was doubly remiss, as I asserted "No reasonable
> alternative exists", an entirely subjective statement on my part (and one
> that could  be invalidated, given time and further discovery by the
> scientist).  I also understand that a proving a theory does not necessarily
> specify that "this is how it happened", but proposes a likely description of
> the phenomena in question.  Am I mistaken with this understanding?

Yes, to some degree. There was an excellent discussion in sci.skeptic
on the nature of scientific work two weeks ago, I hope it did not
escape your notice. 

The correct word is 'likely'. There is no way to be sure our models and
theories are absolutely correct. Theories are backed up by evidence,
but not proved - no theory can be 'true' in a mathematical sense.

However, theories are not mere descriptions or rationalisations of
phenomena. It is extremely important to test whether theories can
_predict_ something new or not yet observed. All successful theories
science has come up with have passed this test, including the Big
Bang theory of cosmic evolution, the theory of natural selection etc.
It does not mean they _must_ be correct, but they are not mere
'best fits' for the data. 

> = But if you claim that there must be
> = an answer to "how" did the universe (our spacetime)  emerge from 
> = "nothing", science has some good candidates for an answer.

> All of which require something we Christians readily admit to: ``Faith''.

Well, yes, if you want to _believe_ in them. This is not what science
requires - take a good look at the theory and the evidence, see if
the theory has made any successful predictions, and use your reason.
Disbelievers are not punished. 

> The fact that there are several candidates belies that *none* are conclusive.  
> With out conclusive evidence, we are left with faith.

This is what puzzles me - why do we need to have faith in _anything_?
My fellow atheists would call me a weak atheist - someone who is
unable to believe, ie, fails to entertain any belief in God. 

Yes, I know that one can't believe without God's help; Luther makes
this quite clear in his letter to Erasmus. I'm afraid this does not
change my situation. 

> [ a couple of paragraphs deleted.  Summary: we ask "Why does the
> universe exist" ]


> = I think this question should actually be split into two parts, namely
> = 
> = 1) Why is there existence? Why anything exists?
> = 
> = and
> = 
> = 2) How did the universe emerge from nothing?

(deletions)

> = The question "why anything exists" can be countered by
> = demanding answer to a question "why there is nothing in nothingness,
> = or in non-existence".  Actually, both questions turn out to be
> = devoid of meaning. Things that exist do, and things that don't exist
> = don't exist. Tautology at its best.

> Carefully examine the original question, and then the "counter-question". 
> The first asks "Why", while the second is a request for definition. 

No, it is not, although it does look like one. This is a true dichotomy,
either something exists, or nothing exists. If nothing exists, nobody
would ask why. If something exists, it is possible to ask why, but
actually no existing being could give an answer. 

Imagine, for a moment, that the nobodies in non-existence could also
ask: "Why nothing exists?" This is equivalent to my counter-question,
"why nothing exists in nothingness". 

Now, "why anything exists" is equivalent to "why something exists in
somethingness".  _This_ is what I meant with my tautology, my apologies
for the poor wording in my previous post.

> I might add, the worldview of "Things that exist do, and things that
> don't...don't" is as grounded in the realm of the non-falsifiable,
> as does the theist's belief in God.  It is based on the assumption
> that there is *not* a reason for being, something as ultimately
> (un)supportable as the position of there being a reason.  Its very
> foundation exists in the same soil as that of one who claims there *is* a
> reason.

I do indeed think there probably _is_ no reason for being, or existence,
in general, for reasons I stated above. However, they will still
leave open the question "why this, and not that", and this is where
theistic explanations come in.

Science cannot give reasons for any _particular_ human being's existence.

> We come to this. Either "I am, therefore I am.", or "I am for a reason."

This is a deep philosophical question - is determinism true, or not?
Also, is God deterministic or not? I tend to think this question has
no meaning in His case. 

If I am for a reason, I've yet failed to see what it would be. 
From our perspective, it looks like 'I' exist for truly random
reasons. I just rolled two dice - why did I get 6 and 1? How can
I believe there is any better reason for my existence?

> If the former is a satisfactory answer, then you are done, for you are
> satisfied, and need not a doctor.  If the latter, your search is just
> beginning.  

Yes, I am satisfied with this reason, until I find something better.
My 15 years of Christianity were of no help in this respect, I have
to admit, but I am patient.

> = Another answer is that God is the _source_ of all existence.
> = This sounds much better, but I am tempted to ask: Does God
> = Himself exist, then? If God is the source of His own existence,
> = it can only mean that He has, in terms of human time, always
> = existed. But this is not the same as the source of all existence.

> This does not preclude His existence.  It only seeks to identify His
> *qualities* (implying He exists to *have* qualities, BTW).

No, it doesn't, but I think an existing God cannot know why He exists,
for an answer to this question is not knowable. Of course, this
should not be any obstacle to belief in His existence.

> I also have discovered science is an inadequate tool to answer "why".   It
> appears that M. Pihko agrees (as we shall see).  But because a tool is
> inadequate to answer a question does not preclude the question.  Asserting
> that 'why' is an invalid question does not provide an answer.  

It is impossible to know unknowable things. However, the question 
"why do I exist, in particular" is _not_ an invalid question - this
is not what I said. But from our perspective, it is impossible to
tell, and I can't just believe in any given explanation instead of
another, especially since I found I was deluding myself. 

> My apologies.  I was using why as "why did this come to be".  Why did
> pre-existence become existence.  Why did pre-spacetime become spacetime.

I think "pre-existence" is an oxymoron. There is no time 'outside' of
this spacetime (except in some other universe), and from that 
perspective, our universe never was. It exists only for those who
are inside it. 

> But we come to the admission that science fails to answer "Why?".  Because
> it can't be answered in the realm of modern science, does that make the
> question invalid?

No. The validity of the question has to be discussed separately; I think
philosophy is of great help here. What can be known, and what is not
knowable?

> M. Pihko does present a good point though.  We may need to ask "What do I 
> as an individual Christian base my faith on?"  Will it be shaken by the
> production of evidence that shatters our "sacred cows" or will we seek to
> understand if a new discovery truly disagrees with what God *said* (and
> continues to say) in his Word?

This is a very good question. In trying to answer this, and numerous
other questions that bothered me, I finally found nothing to base
my faith on. 

I think it would be honest if we all asked ourselves, "why do I believe"
or "why I don't believe". 

Petri

--
 ___. .'*''.*        Petri Pihko    kem-pmp@          Mathematics is the Truth.
!___.'* '.'*' ' .    Pihatie 15 C    finou.oulu.fi    Physics is the Rule of
       ' *' .* '*    SF-90650 OULU  kempmp@           the Game.
          *'  *  .*  FINLAND         phoenix.oulu.fi  -> Chemistry is The Game.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20779
From: healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy)
Subject: Re: Branch Davidians info

In article <Mar.18.02.31.54.1993.25350@athos.rutgers.edu> clitton@opie.bgsu.edu writes:
>From: clitton@opie.bgsu.edu
>Subject: Branch Davidians info
>Date: 18 Mar 93 07:31:55 GMT
>I am looking for any information on the Branch Davidians.  Send info to Chad
>Litton, ACS Dept. BGSU, Bowling Green OH  43403.  Or e-mail to
>clitton@andy.bgsu.edu  Thanks in advance.

I don't claim to be an expert on the branch Davidians, but I might know more 
than most.

The Branch Davidian group (led by Koresh) is actually one of two off-shoots 
of a group known as the Shephard's Rod.  The Shephard's Rod (now 
defunct as far as I know)broke off from the SDA Church in the 30's.

The Shephard's Rod broke away from the SDA Church because they felt that the 
SDA Church was becoming weak and falling into apostacy.  They felt that they 
were the remnant spoken about in Revelation.

About the Koresh group, Koresh gained control of it in 1987 or 1988.  Once 
in control, he made himself the center of it. He proclaimed himself as 
Christ.

Koresh himself came from an SDA background. He was excommunicated as a young 
adult by the local congregation for trying to exert too much control over 
the youth in the church.  After this, he joined the Branch Davidians.

They were/are a survivalist cult. This is why they had the stockpile of 
weapons, food, a bomb shelter, etc.  They had no intent of raiding the US 
government or anything. They were preparing for Armaggedon and were 
putting themselves in a self defense position.  

In my opinion, if the ATF and the FBI had left well enough alone, we wouldn'
t have the blood of 20+ children crying out from the ashes in Waco.

If you want to know about The Shephard's Rod, you might want to visit the 
local SDA church and talk to some of the older people.  They could give you 
some insight into where Koresh got his theology.

Tammy

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20780
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (boundary, the catechist)
Subject: Re: Assurance of Hell

In article <Apr.21.03.26.39.1993.1370@geneva.rutgers.edu> lfoard@hopper.virginia.edu (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:

>A God who must motivate through fear is not a God worthy of worship.
>If the God Jesus spoke of did indeed exist he would not need hell to

The reason for the existence of hell is justice.  Fear is only an effect
of the reality of hell.

-- 
boundary, the catechist 

no teneis que pensar que yo haya venido a traer la paz a la tierra; no he
venido a traer la paz, sino la guerra (Mateo 10:34, Vulgata Latina) 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20781
From: schnitzi@osceola.cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell

db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes:

>Mark Schnitzius writes:

>>>  Literal interpreters of the Bible will have a problem with this view, since
>>>the Bible talks about the fires of Hell and such.  
>> 
>>This is something I've always found confusing.  If all your nerve endings
>>die with your physical body, why would flame hurt you?  How can one "wail
>>and gnash teeth" with no lungs and no teeth?

>One can feel physical pain by having a body, which, if you know the
>doctrine of the resurrection of the body, is what people will have after
>the great judgement.  "We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the
>life of the world to come."  - Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.  You
>will have both body and soul in hell - eventually.

Now this is getting interesting!

I was raised Roman Catholic before becoming an atheist, so I have stated
this Creed you quote nearly every Sunday until I was about 18.  For some
reason, I always took the 'resurrection' in this statement to mean the
resurrection of the soul, but I guess resurrection does strictly mean
the raising of the physical body.  I have some questions on this point:

1.  I always thought that Christians believe the descent into hell was 
pretty much immediate, and that there are people burning in hell right
now.  You seem to be implying that it will not occur until after the
"great judgement" (which I read as meaning the proverbial Judgment Day).
I was always a little confused on this point, even when I was with the
church -- maybe someone can clear it up for me.  Where will my "soul"
(which, by the way, I don't believe in) exist until that time?

2.  Will the new body I will have be created out of the same atoms 
that my body now is made of, or will it be built from scratch?  My
physical body now is susceptible to aging, etc. -- so I guess my
new body will have to be radically different in order to be immortal
so it can be tortured for all eternity?

3.  Since I will have a physical body, I assume it will need a physical
place to exist in -- where is this hell?  In the center of the earth?
Do you think we could find it if we dig?

Mark Schnitzius
schnitzi@eola.cs.ucf.edu
Univ. of Central Florida

[There is not complete agreement on the details of the afterlife.  I
think the most common view is that final disposition does not occur
until a final judgement, which is still in the future.  In the
meantime, some believe that people "sleep" until the final
resurrection (or because God is above time, pass directly from death
to the future time when the resurrection occurs), while others believe
that souls have a disembodied, pre-resurrection existence until then.
There are probably other alternatives that I'm omitting.

The new body is generally conceived of being implemented in a
different "technology" than the current one, one which is not mortal.
(Paul talks about the mortal being raised to immortality, and Jesus'
resurrected body -- which is the first example -- clearly was not
subject to the same kind of limitations as ours.)  It is assumed that
there are enough similarities that people will recognize each other,
but I don't think most people claim to know the details.  I don't
think I'd say it's the same atoms.  I'd assume there would be some
analog of a physical place, but I wouldn't expect to find it under the
earth or up in the sky.  I'd suspect that it's in another dimension,
outside this physical world, or whatever.  But again, we have little
in the way of details.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20782
From: cs89mcd@brunel.ac.uk (Michael C Davis)
Subject: Re: WBT (WAS: Re: phone number of wycliffe translators UK)

poram%mlsma@att.att.com wrote:
: Having met Peter Kingston (of WBT) some years back, he struck me 
: as an exemplery and dedicated Christian whose main concern was with
: translation of the Word of God and the welfare of the people
: group he was serving.
: WBT literature is concerned mainly with providing Scripture
: in minority languages.

Yes, in fact Peter is now at Wycliffe HQ in the U.K., and is a member of my
church. I would fully endorse the above -- Peter is a very Godly man, with a
passion for serving Christ.

On one occasion he specifically addressed the issue of ``cultural
interference'' in a sermon, presumably from his experience of allegations
directed at Wycliffe. (Perhaps I could find the tape...?)
-- 
Michael Davis (cs89mcd@brunel.ac.uk)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20783
From: jprzybyl@skidmore.edu (jennifer przybylinski)
Subject: Re: Hell_2:  Black Sabbath

Hey...

I may be wrong, but wasn't Jeff Fenholt part of Black Sabbath?  He's a
MAJOR brother in Christ now.  He totally changed his life around, and
he and his wife go on tours singing, witnessing, and spreading the
gospel for Christ.  I may be wrong about Black Sabbath, but I know he
was in a similar band if it wasn't that particular group...

HOW GREAT IS TH LOVE THE FATHER HAS LAVISHED ON US, THAT WE SHOULD BE
CALLED CHILDREN OF GOD!  AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE!  (1 JOHN 3:1)

Grace and peace to all, (I'll see you ALL Someday!)
Jenny
jprzybyl@scott.skidmore.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20784
From: marka@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley)
Subject: Re: hearing sinners

In article <Apr.21.03.24.19.1993.1271@geneva.rutgers.edu> JEK@cu.nih.gov writes:
>On the question, "Does God hear the prayers of sinners?" we need to
>distinguish.
>If we say that He never hears the prayers of any who have sinned, we
>make pointless all prayers by anyone born less than 19 centuries
>ago.
>But if we consider the prayers of the impenitent sinner, of someone
>who says, "Lord, I want you to do this for me, but don't expect me
>to change my way of life," that is a different matter. 

I have no doubt that God hears everybody's prayers.
However, He does things His way, i.e. things will happen
only if it is His will.

Now if the question really is "Does God grant everybody's wishes ?"
then you'll get a brutal shot of reality similar to when you didn't
get that toy you wanted for Christmas. You just cannot expect
to get everything you want in this world.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Ashley                        |DISCLAIMER: My opinions. Not Harris'
marka@gcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com      |
The Lost Los Angelino              |

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20785
From: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?

In article <Apr.16.23.15.27.1993.1836@geneva.rutgers.edu> cs89mcd@brunel.ac.uk (Michael C Davis) writes:

>: I would like to get your opinions on this: when exactly does an engaged
>: couple become "married" in God's eyes?  Some say that if the two have
>: publically announced their plans to marry, have made their vows to God, and
>: are unswervingly committed to one another (I realize this is a subjective
>: qualifier) they are married/joined in God's sight.
>
>The way I read Scripture, a couple becomes married when they are *physically*
>married, i.e. when they first have sexual intercourse.

Some years ago an Anglican synod was discussing the marriage canons and 
there was some debate on what actually constituted a marriage.

The bishop of Natal, whose wife of many years had died, and who had recently 
remarried, announced "It MUST be consummated" and looked like that cat that 
got the cream.

So I suppose he at least would agree with you.

============================================================
Steve Hayes, Department of Missiology & Editorial Department
Univ. of South Africa, P.O. Box 392, Pretoria, 0001 South Africa
Internet: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za         Fidonet: 5:7101/20
          steve.hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
FAQ: Missiology is the study of Christian mission and is part of
     the Faculty of Theology at Unisa

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20786
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: Latest on Branch Davidians

In article <Apr.20.03.02.42.1993.3815@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt) wrote:
>
>
> I think it's really sad that so many people put their faith in a mere
> man, even if he did claim to be the son of God, and/or a prophet.

I'll pose a question here that's got me thinking:  what distinguishes
"true" religion from cults (I'm speaking generally here, not specifially
about Christianity)?  Jerry Falwell was on Good Morning America on 
Tuesday ostensibly to answer this question.  Basically, he said that
true religion follows a message whereas a cult follows a person.
But, then, Christianity is a cult because the message of Christianity
IS the person of Jesus.  So what distinguishes, for example, the
Branch Davidian "cult" from the Presbyterian "church"?  Doctrinal
differences don't answer the question, IMHO, so don't use them as
an answer.

  -- Scott at Brandeis

	"But God demonstrates His     "The Lord bless you, and keep you;
	 own love for us, in that      the Lord make His face shine on you,
	 while we were yet sinners,    and be gracious to you;
	 Christ died for us."	       the Lord lift up His countenance on you,
				       and give you peace."
		-- Romans 5:8 [NASB]		-- Numbers 6:24-26 [NASB]

[There have been some attempts to characterize "cult".  Most commonly
it uses characteristics involving high pressure, brainwashing
techniques, etc.  But some people characterize it by doctrinal
error.  In the end I'm afraid it becomes a term with no precise
meaning that's used primarily to dismiss groups as not worthy
of serious consideration.  That doesn't mean that there aren't
groups that do highly irresponsible things and have serious
doctrinal errors.  But past discussions have not suggested to me
that "cult" is a very helpful term.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20787
From: reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: proof of resurection

In article <Apr.23.02.56.33.1993.3165@geneva.rutgers.edu>, andrew@srsune.shlrc.mq.edu.au (Andrew McVeigh) writes:

> The Bible's message is that we are to love all people, and
> that all people are redeemable.  It preaches a message of
> repentance, and of giving.  Unfortunately, all people have
> deceitful hearts, and are capable of turning this message
> around and contorting it in sometimes unbelievable ways.
> This is also a fundamental Christian doctrine.

Andrew,

   How I wish this were true, and how I long for the day in which it will
be true.  But alas, it is not true of history.  The Bible does not have a 
message -- it has messages.  And some of those are messages of repentance and
giving, to turn the other cheek, and do unto the least of these.  But some
of the messages are the complete opposite.  Like the isrealites order to 
wipe out other tribes including women and children down to cattle, and 
punished severely when they were less than complete about the job.  Like
jews who are said to have cried out in Matthew, "His blood be upon our heads
and our childrens heads" A verse quoted in every pogrom from the crusades to
the holocaust.  Have these been misunderstood?  I think not.  They have only
been understood too clearly.  It is essential that christians grasp firmly
the good the bible teaches, the meek carpenter from Nazareth is a potent 
symbol for how we should be, his teachings we must take to heart, but we
cannot ignore the other material in the bible which is not to our liking and
say those who live by that have misread it.  To say that is only to chose a
point of interpretation and declare it normative.  Such can be done with the
same legitmacy by anyone.  Instead we must let the text critique the text.
Understanding that there is both good and bad in our sacred corpus, we test
all things and hold fast to that which is good. 
> 
> 
> p.s. I believe that a line of questioning like you presented
> is, strangely enough, compatible with becoming a Christian.
> Certainly Christianity encourages one to question the behaviour
> of the world, and especially Christians.  I praise God for
> Jesus Christ, and the fact that we can doubt our beliefs
> and still come back to God and be forgiven, time and time
> again.
> 

At the risk of sounding heretical (well ok, more heretical) I don't think
that doubt is something which requires forgiveness, it is something which
requires introspection and reflection.  If that is a sin, then there can
be no salvation, for doubt is an inescapble part of being human.  Consider
Job.  His friends had no doubt. Whereas Job had no doubt in himself but
doubted the wisdom and justice of God.  When God finally did appear he 
rebuked the friends and had job make sacrifices for them.  To be a Christian
it to always have doubt, or not to have honesty.

Randy 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20788
From: caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

> I've just read Carol's response and I just had to get into this.  I've
> got some verses which are not subject to interpretation because they say
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> what they say.  
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Joe, just 'cause you say they aren't subject to interpretation doesn't
necesarily make it so.  That's *your* *interpretation* of these texts.

> They are 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and
> Galatians 1:11-12.  

2 Peter 1:20-21
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter 
of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of
human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

The study notes in my Bible offer three possible meanings for verse 20.
Apparantly it's not as clear to Charles Ryrie as it is to you.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for
reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of
God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Galations 1:11-12
For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached
by me is not according to man.  For I neither received it from man, 
nor was I taught it, but I receieved it through a revelation of Jesus
Christ.

When I read these passages, it was not immediately clear to me what
every phrase meant.  I had stop and think about the possible
connotations of words, what the intent of the author may have been,
wonder if the translator used the correct English word to convey the 
same meaning: I had to interpret.  If you want to believe that your 
are not interpreting Scripture as you read, there's probably nothing 
I can say to change your mind.  But I think it's naive to think that 
our culture, experiences, education, do not affect everything we read.

> Also, based on the fact that Jesus is the Word incarnate and he judges
> people if they follow him (see Acts 17:29-31 and John 5:21-27) and that
> those who reject Jesus' teachings are judged by the very words he spoke
> (see John 12:47-50), then Jesus' words are true and do not need
> interpretation, nor would it be just of God to judge based on his word
> if it had to be interpreted.

In college, I took an entire course in Biblical interpretation.  Go to
any Christian bookstore, there are scores of books on interpreting and
understanding Scripture.  If interpretation is unnecessary, there are 
an awful lot of misguided Christians out there wasting a lot of time 
and energy on it.

Carol Alvin
caralv@auto-trol.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20789
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: iterations of the bible

OFM replies to a question on the multiplicity of translations of the bible,

>As far as I know, no Christians
>believe that the process of copying manuscripts or the process of
>translating is free of error.  

Unfortunately, this isn't true.  On another news group earlier this year,
someone posted that the King James Bible was the divinely inspired version
of the Bible in English and was, therefore, inerrant; all other English
translations were from Satan, trying to deceive the body of Christ.  A
few years ago, the pastor of a church I was attending showed me a poster
advertising the availability of a certain man to address congregations.
Very prominantly on the poster was the fact that the man used only the KJV.
The idea that the KJV is THE English Bible is more prevalent than many
might think.

  -- Scott at Brandeis

	"But God demonstrates His     "The Lord bless you, and keep you;
	 own love for us, in that      the Lord make His face shine on you,
	 while we were yet sinners,    and be gracious to you;
	 Christ died for us."	       the Lord lift up His countenance on you,
				       and give you peace."
		-- Romans 5:8 [NASB]		-- Numbers 6:24-26 [NASB]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20790
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Serbian genocide Work of God?

D. Andrew Kille writes:

>Are you suggesting that God supports genocide?
>Perhaps the Germans were "punishing" Jews on God's behalf?
> 
>Any God who works that way is indescribably evil, and unworthy of
>my worship or faith.

The Bible does tell us that governments are ordained by God (Romans 13).
 And furthermore, God foreknows everything that would happen.  It is
just to difficult for humans to graps with our limited minds, the
inevitablity of the sucess of God's plan, and this is especially hard to
grasp when we see governemnts doing evil.  However, though they are
doing evil (and we should not cooperate with them when they do such), it
must be understood that what happens is what God wanted so as to lead to
the final sucess of His plan to save as many souls from hell as is
possible.  In short, the slaughter in Bosnia, though deplorable in the
eyes of God (maybe, then again, they might be getting their just deserts
now rather than later; there are plenty of examples of God killing
people for their sins - Onan in the Old Testmament for example, and
Annias and Spahira in the New) is what he willed to happen so that His
plan might be accomplished.
    But don't forget, it is not unbiblical for God to use one nation to
execute His just judgement upon another.  The Romans were used to
fulfill the chorus of "Let his blood be upon our hands" of the crowd in
Jersualem.  And Chaldea was chastised by Babylon, which got Israel,
which was inturn gotten by Persia, etc.  God does use nations to punish
other nations, as the Bible very clearly shows in the Old Testament. 
Don't you remember the words of God recorded in Daniel, "Mene, mene,
tekel, peres?"  Babylon had been weighed in the balance scales of God's
justice, found severly wanting, and was thus given over to the Persians
as their due punishment for their rebellion.  Another exammple is the
extirmination of the Cannanites, ordered by God as the task of Israel. 
The Cannanites had been given their chance, found severly wanting, and
the Great Judge, carried out His just sentence accrodingly.  I could go
on with more examples, but I see little need to do so, as my point is
quite clear.
Two things need to be remembered at all times. 1) It is not up to us to
question why God has ordered the world as He has.  In His divine Wisdom,
He made the world as was best in His eyes, and like Paul says in Romans
9, the clay is not one to tlak back to the potter.  2) The message of
Jesus Christ is as follows: "Repent now, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at
hand."  Jesus Christ did not allow any time for dilly-dallying - "Let
the dead bury the dead, come, follow me."  There is not an infinite
amount of time, rather Christ is passing by right now, calling people to
follow Him and become fishers of men.  He does not say, "well, alright,
you can call me back in a week and see if my Kingdom fits in with your
plans."  He said "Follow me."  His message is NOT "I'm just a sweety-pie
who would never hurt a fly, you've got all the time in the world, and
Divine Judgement, that's only a fairy tale."  "Our great God and Savior"
Jesus Christ (Titus 2.5) is also the just and righteous Judge of the
world.  And it is not up to the defendants in the trial to be
questioning his entirely just sentences of either chastisement or mercy.

D. Andrew Byler
"Does not He who ways the heart perceive [sin], and will He not judge
men according to their works?" - Proverbs 24.12

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20791
From: mwhaefne@infonode.ingr.com (Mark W. Haefner)
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell

In article <Apr.20.03.01.40.1993.3769@geneva.rutgers.edu> trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:
>
>I don't have a problem with being condemned to Hell either.  The
>     way I see it, if God wants to punish me for being honest in
>     my skepticism (that is, for saying he doesn't exist), He
>     certainly wouldn't be changing His nature.  Besides, I would
>     rather spend an eternity in Hell than be beside God in Heaven
>     knowing even one man would spend his "eternal life" being
>     scorched for his wrongdoings...
>

I see some irony here. Jesus was willing to go through torture to free
you from the definite promise of hell (based on Adam/Eve's fall from grace)
but rather than allow him to stand in your place, you would give up
your redemption to stand with those who do not accept his grace.
God would rather have none in hell, which seems to put the burden of 
choice on us. Of course, this is all fictional anyway since you reject him
also.

My former sociology professor once told us at the beginning
of our term, "you all start out with an A...what you do with that during
the course of this term is up to you". In the beginning...Adam and Eve
were given an A. 



Mark Haefner

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20792
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Cell Church discussion group

Then by that definition, I would be in a cell church only here at IU,
not when the whole group gets together at Indianapolis (>950 every week
in attendance).

Joe Fisher

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20793
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Christians that are not church members

Here are some notes about what the church is to be like and some helpful
ideas about how to choose a church:

Colossians 1:15-18
   A.  Jesus is the head of the body, the church
   B.  You cannot say "yes" to Jesus, but "no" to the church

Ephesians 2:19-22
   A.  The church is the family of God
   B.  The church is based on the Word of God only
          Cornerstone=Christ
          Foundation= Apostles=New Testament
                      Prophets=Old Testament  (see Revelation 21:9-14)

1 Corinthians 12:12-13
   A.  Baptism is when we become a member of the church

As for the question of denominations:
   A.  The Bible teaches that there is only ONE church from Ephesians
4:4-6, Romans 12:4-5, 1 Corinthians 12:12-13
   B.  1 Corinthians 1:10-13 says that there should be no divisions in
the church.  There should be no following of personalities in the church
(and in time, their writings)
   C.  There are so many churches today because of a problem.  2 Timothy
4:1-4 says that people will turn away from the truth and try to find a
church that teaches a doctrine that suits their lifestyle

Hebrews 10:24-25
   A.  Do not miss church
   B.  Purpose is to encourage each other, so we will remain faithful.
Involved on a relationship level in the church
   C.  Must come to ALL services

Another verse which is helpful is Hebrews 3:12-15.  The church should be
encouraging daily, as it is their duty to do.

Of course, more standards apply:
   1 Timothy 4:16  People in the church should be watching their lives
and doctrines to make sure they both live up to the Word entirely (ie,
disciples).
   Acts 17:10-12  The pastor does not come close to the Apostle Paul
(natural conclusion since the Apostle Paul talked with Jesus directly
face to face), so if the Bereans, who were considered noble, didn't take
Paul at his word but checked out what he said with Scripture to verify
his statements, then church members are to do the same and verify the
pastor's statements.  If they are not verifiable or valid in light of
other verses, then that group should be avoided as a church (would've
made a wonderful suggestion to the Waco group, especially in light of
Matthew 24).

Joe Fisher

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20794
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?

i have a question for you all related to this.  jesus condemns divorce
several times in the new testament, and i have a hard time with this.
the catholic church (as far as i can tell) does grant annulments with
the statement that the marriage never really existed in God's eyes.
(please, if i am mistinterpreting, correct me.)  however, i have
witnessed marriages where two people were very much in love but
recognized that they were destroying themselves and each other by
staying in a marriage, and that the problems were due to personal
childhood issues that had never been resolved.  i ask you, is divorce
justified in such a case?  they knew who they were, what they were
doing, they were deeply in love, but in the end, it did not work out.
i must admit that i don't see jesus forcing them to live together, or
even condemning that they go and seek happiness with someone else
later on.  opinions?

vera
*******************************************************************************
I am your CLOCK!     |  I bind unto myself today    | Vera Noyes
I am your religion!  |  the strong name of the	    | noye@midway.uchicago.edu
I own you!	     |  Trinity....		    | no disclaimer -- what
	- Lard	     |	- St. Patrick's Breastplate | is there to disclaim?
*******************************************************************************

[This is a commonly discussed question, though it's been long enough
that I'll allow it to be asked.  As you might expect, there is a range
of answers.  Catholics and some others will say that divorce is never
justified.  (By the way, in situations where someone is being abused,
or for other serious cause, separation is allowed by all traditions
that I know.  No one should be forced to stay in a situation where
they are in danger.)  Others see it as a last resort in situations
that have fallen apart badly enough that the best we can hope for is
to choose the lesser of evils.  In some sense the difficult legal
question turns out not to be divorce, but remarriage.  That's because
of Jesus' statement in Mark 10:11-12 and par.  As with so many other
things, this turns on your approach to the Bible.  Conservative
Protestants tend to see statements like this as having no exceptions.
More liberal ones are willing to make allowances for situations where
a literal interpretation would lead to painful results.  (It is noted
that at the time it was possible for a man to divorce his wife almost
on a whim.  Thus a common explanation in the more liberal approach is
that Jesus was trying to protect people from this sort of thing, not
to establish an absolute rule to which there could never be
exceptions.)  Catholics, as is typical with Catholic ethics, take a
theoretical hard line, but allow for exceptions in practice through
the process of anullment.  In the last discussion most of our
non-Catholic readers seemed to accept with some reluctance that
in some cases there might be no good alternative, but there was a
feeling that the church should often be doing a better job of
helping people prepare for marriage and deal with problems that
come up during it, and that in a properly run church, divorce
should not be necessary.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20795
From: spebcg@thor.cf.ac.uk (BCG)
Subject: Re: Knowing God's Will

Hi,

I don't know much about Bible. Could you tell me the relations of
Christians with non-Christians in Bible? How should be The relations of
christian nations with each other and the relations of Christian nations
with other nations who are not Christians?

The other question is about the concept of religion in Bible. Does the
religion of God include and necessitate any law to be extracted from
Bible or is the religion only a belief and nothing to do with the
government sides? If for example, any government or a nation is one of
the wrongdoings according to Bible, how should they be treated? 

Is there any statement in Bible saying that Bible is a guide for every
aspects of life?  

Thank you.

Beytullah
 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20796
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: harrassed at work, could use some prayers

i'd just like to repeat and emphasize that because someone else is
trying to make you feel horrible and worthless does not mean that you
should feel that way, although that's easier to say than believe
sometimes.  remember, God made you and loves you, so he must think
you're something special.  (excuse the trite language here.)  also,
the bully may just be someone who is mean for no reason -- not out of
intentional mental torture.  has anyone else been harassed?  maybe
they're just not talking about it.  

i would have emailed but my reactions weren't fast enough and the post
i'm responding to didn't include your address.  just take courage and
remember that all of us on the net are rooting for you.

take care!
vera
_______________________________________________________________________________
Hand over hand				noye@midway.uchicago.edu
Doesn't seem so much			(Vera Noyes)
Hand over hand				
Is the strength of the common touch	drop me a line if you're in the mood
	- Rush, "Hand Over Fist"
_______________________________________________________________________________

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20797
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: Am I going to Hell?

In article <Apr.24.01.09.10.1993.4254@geneva.rutgers.edu> stoney@oyster.smcm.edu (Stanley Toney) writes:
> Muslims, i fear have been given a lie from the  
>fater of lies, Satan. They need Christ as do us all.
>
>stan toney stoney@oyster.smcm.edu
>my opinions are my own, you may borrow them

just picked out this one point because it struck me....
why do you believe this?  muslims believe in many of the same things
that christians and jews believe; they believe jesus, while not the
messiah, is a prophet.  this seems to me to be much closer to
christianity than other religions are.  (then again i tend to be
somewhat liberal about others' beliefs.)

this also relates to the serbian "ethnic cleansing" question.  i have
been waiting for condemnations of this and have seen very few.  HOW
can we stand by and watch innocent people, even people whose beliefs
we condemn, if this is the case (and don't get me wrong, the things
fundamenalist muslims have to say about women make my blood boil), be
tortured, raped (the stories about that made me physically ill), and
killed?  jesus loves all, not just those who love him back -- and he
would advocate kindness toward them (in the hopes of converting them,
if that's the way you want to put it) rather than killing them.  

i'm sorry i got off the subject here -- maybe i should have used a
different title.  i did need to get this off my chest, however.

peace (shalom),
vera shanti
_______________________________________________________________________________
Hand over hand				noye@midway.uchicago.edu
Doesn't seem so much			(Vera Noyes)
Hand over hand				
Is the strength of the common touch	drop me a line if you're in the mood
	- Rush, "Hand Over Fist"
_______________________________________________________________________________

[I am also worried about this issue.  I've made a posting under my own
name earlier today.  I do not much want to discuss Moslem beliefs
here.  This isn't the right group for it.  Their beliefs about Jesus
appear to come as much from the Koran as the Bible.  This means that
while they honor him, what they think he did and stood for differs in
many ways from Christian beliefs about him.  But Moslem beliefs are
an appropriate topic for soc.religion.islam.

As I'm sure you know, many Christians believe that you must accept
Christ in order to be saved.  While Stanley's comment appears to be
anti-Moslem, I would assume he would say the same thing about all
religions other than Christianity.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20798
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (boundary, the catechist)
Subject: Re: Am I going to Hell?

In article <Apr.23.02.55.31.1993.3123@geneva.rutgers.edu> tbrent@ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes:
>I have stated before that I do not consider myself an atheist, but 
>definitely do not believe in the christian god.  The recent discussion
>about atheists and hell, combined with a post to another group (to the
>effect of 'you will all go to hell') has me interested in the consensus 
>as to how a god might judge men.  As a catholic, I was told that a jew,
>buddhist, etc. might go to heaven, but obviously some people do not
>believe this.  Even more see atheists and pagans (I assume I would be 
>lumped into this category) to be hellbound.  I know you believe only
>god can judge, and I do not ask you to, just for your opinions.

Dear Tim:

You say that you were a "catholic," but if you do not believe in the Christian
God (I suppose that means the God of the Bible) and publicly state this,   
you are in all probability not a Roman Catholic.  "Public heretics, even
those who err in good faith (material heretics), do not belong to the body
of the Church" (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 1960, Ludwig Ott, p. 311).

All is not lost, however, as you still might belong spiritually to the
Church by your desire to belong to it.  As you said, only God can judge
the condition of a man's soul.  About judgment, on the other hand, St. Paul 
1 Cor 5:12) urges Christians to judge their fellow Christians. 
Following the Apostle's teaching, I judge that you should reconsider   
returning to the Christian fold and embrace the God of Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob.  He is the God who lives.  

Concerning what you were told about non-believers when you were a catholic,
that is true.  As I have posted before, Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, II,   
n. 16) teaches: "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know
the Gospel of Christ or His Chruch, but who nevertheless seek God with a
sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will
as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may
achieve eternal salvation."  

Responding to your solicitation for opinions on the thinking processes
of God, the best I can do is refer you to Scripture.  Scripture is one
of the best sources for learning what can be known about God.  

Stick with the best.
-- 
boundary, the catechist 

no teneis que pensar que yo haya venido a traer la paz a la tierra; no he
venido a traer la paz, sino la guerra (Mateo 10:34, tr. esp. Vulgata Latina) 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20799
From: johnsd2@rpi.edu (Dan Johnson)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article 1328@geneva.rutgers.edu, gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (boundary) writes:
>dleonar@andy.bgsu.edu (Pixie) writes:
[deletia- sig]
>>     p.s.  If you do sincerely believe that a god exists, why do you follow
>>it blindly?  
>>     Do the words "Question Authority" mean anything to you?
>>     I defy any theist to reply.      
>

[deletia- formalities]

I probably should let this pass, it's not worth the time, and it's not
really intended for me. But I couldn't resist. A personal weakness of mine.
Jerkius Kneeus. Tragically incurable.

>The foundation for faith in God is reason, without which the existence
>of God could not be proven.  That His existence can be proven by reason
>is indisputable (cf. my short treatise, "Traditional Proofs for the 
>Existence of God," and Summa Theologica).

Not so; I can prove that the existance of God is disputable
by showing that people dispute it; This is easy: I dispute that
God exists. Simple.

I missed your "Traditional Proofs" treatise, but the proofs I remember
from the Summa Theologic (the 5 ways I think it was) were rather poor
stuff. The Ontological argument is about a billion times better, imho.

I would think you'd want non-traditional proofs, considering the general
failure of the traditional proofs: at least the ones I know of.
(I am thinking of the Ontological Argument, the Cosmological Argument and
the Teleological argument. Those are the ones traditional enough to
have funny names, anyway.)

>Now, given that God exists, and that His existence can be proven by reason,
>I assert that His commands must be followed blindly, although in our fallen
>condition we must always have some measure of doubt about our faith.  Why?

This is the real question. So to discuss it, I'll assume God exists.
Otherwise, there is no heavenly authority to babble about.

>Because God is the First Cause of all things, the First Mover of matter,
>the Independent Thing that requires nothing else for its existence, the
>Measure of all that is perfect, and the essential Being who gives order
>to the universe (logos).

Please show this is the case. I am familiar with the First Cause
argument, and I'll accept (for the sake of argument) that there
is a First Cause, even though I find some of its premices
questionable. The rest you'll have to show. This includes
that the First Cause is God.

>I next assert that God is all good.

Got it. I deny that God is all good. So there.

>  If this is so, then that which is
>contrary to the will of God is evil; i.e., the absence of the good.  And,
>since God can never contradict Himself, then by His promise of a Savior
>as early as the Protoevangelium of Genesis 3:5, God instructs that because
>a human (Adam) was first responsible for man's alienation from the Source
>of all good, a man would be required to act to restore the friendship.
>Thus God became incarnate in the person of the Messiah.

This isn't self-consistent: if humans must renew the relationship,
then God (incarnate or not) can't do it. Well, unless you think God is
human. Granted, God made himself 'human', but this is nonetheless cheating:
The intent of the statement is clearly that man has to fix the problem
he caused. God fixing it- even by indirect means- contradicts this.

>Now this Messiah claimed that He is the Truth (John 14:6).  If this claim
>is true, then we are bound by reason to follow Him, who is truth incarnate.

Why?

Also, why assume said claim is true anyway?

If *I* claim to be Truth, are you bound by reason to follow me?

>You next seem to have a problem with authority.  Have you tried the United
>States Marine Corps yet?  I can tell you first-hand that it is an excellent
>instructor in authority.

:)

Undoubtably. Do you mean to imply we should all obey the commands of the
Marines without question? You seem to imply this about God, and
that the Marines are similar in this respect.. If this is not what
you are trying to say, they please explain what it is you are saying,
as I have missed it.

>  If you have not yet had the privilege, I will
>reply that the authority which is Truth Incarnate may never be questioned,
>and thus must be followed blindly.

Why? Why not question it? Even if it *is* truth, we cannot know this
certainly, so why is it so irrational to question? Perhaps we will
thus discover that we were wrong.

You assert that God is Truth and we can't question Truth. But
I assert that God is not Truth and anyway we can question Truth.
How is it my assertion is less good than yours?

>  One may NOT deny the truth.

Oh?

I hereby deny 1+1=2.

I hope you'll agree 1+1=2 is the truth.

Granted, I look pretty damn silly saying something like that,
but I needed something we'd both agree was clearly true.

Now, you'll notice no stormtroopers have marched in to drag
me off to the gulag. No heaven lighting bolts either. No mysterious
net outages. I seem to be permited to say such things, absurd or not.

>  For
>example, when the proverbial apple fell on Isaac Newton's head, he could
>have denied that it happened, but he did not.  The laws of physics must
>be obeyed whether a human likes them or not.  They are true. 

They are certainly not true. At least, the ones Newton derived are
not true, and are indeed wildly inaccurate at high speeds or small
distances. We do not have a set of Laws of Physics that always
works in all cases. If we did, Physics would be over already.

Science is all about Questioning this sort of truth. If we didn't,
we'd still follow Aristotle. I'd generalize this a little more:
If you want to learn anything new, you MUST question the things
you Know (tm). Because you can always be wrong.

>Therefore, the Authority which is Truth may not be denied.

Even presupposing that Truth may not be Denied, and may
not be Questioned, and that God is Truth, it only follows
that God may not be Denied or Questioned. NOT that he must
be obeyed!

We could unquestioningly DISobey him. How annoying of us.
But you have not connected denial with disobedience.

---
			- Dan "No Nickname" Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions probably show what I know.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20800
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Subject: Re: Was Jesus Black?

This subject seems to be incredibly inflammatory.  Those who subscribe to
_Biblical Archaeology Review_ will remember a spectacular letter battle set off when someone
complained about a Franklin Mint ad.  (_BAR_ is a great magazine, but the
contrast between the rather scholarly articles and the incredibly sleazy ads
is extreme.)  In this ad, they were hawking a doll with a head based on the
famous bust of Nefertiti, giving the face a typical doll-pink complexion.
The letter complained about this as a misrepresentation on the grounds that
Nefertiti was "a beautiful black queen."  This set off an exchange of
hotheaded letters than ran for several issues, to the point where they had
an article from an Egyptologist titled "Was Cleopatra Black?"  (The answer
to the title is "no"-- she was greek.)

I have to say that I hear a hysterical note in much of the complaining.  I
personally have seen only one blond-haired Jesus (in the National Shrine in
Wash. DC), and I found it very jarring.  Western representations vary
enourmously, but in general the image of is of a youngish male with dark
hair and beard, of a sort that can be found (modulo the nose) all up and
down the Mediterranean.

(Also, if what I remember is correct, the "Black Madonna" doesn't represent
a person with negroid features.  It is black because of an accident.  Joe
Buehler....?)

In the presence of all those marble statues, one is prone to forget that
greeks are rather likely to have black hair.  When one crosses the bosporus,
the situation breaks down completely.  Are Turks white?  How about Persians,
or various groups in the indian subcontinent?  Was Gandhi white?  How about
the Arabs?  Or picture Nassar and Sadat standing side by side.  And then
there are the Ethiopians....

Those of a white racist bent are not likely to say that *any* of these
people are "white" (i.e., of the racist's "race").  If I may risk a
potentially inflammatory remark, one undercurrent of this seems to be the
identification of modern jews as members of the oppressor race.  Considering
the extreme dicotomy between medieval religion on the one hand and medieval
antisemitism on the other, I don't think that this "Jesus was white" thesis
ever played the roles that some hold it did.

Representations of Jesus as black or korean or whatever are fine.  It seems
awfully self-serving to insist that Jesus belongs to one's own racial group.
-- 
C. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
                  +    but strife closed in the sod.
mangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
tove!mangoe       +    the marv'lous peace of God."

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20801
From: FSSPR@acad3.alaska.edu (Hardcore Alaskan)
Subject: Looking for videotapes

I have been looking at some of the recent productions on homosexuality
and decided that I was interested in videotaped copies of these.  If
anyone can help me out here, I would very much appreciate it.

Here is what I am looking for:

* - "The Gay Agenda" produced by Ty Beeson's group The Report.

* - John Ankerberg's recent series "Understanding Homosexuality and
Experiencing Genuine Change."

* - James Kennedy's special on homosexuality which aired this week,
and the portion of the previous week's program which discussed "The
Gay Agenda."

I will not pay money for copies, since this is copyrighted material
and that would be illegal.  I will pay for return postage.  If
somebody can think of something they would desire in trade, please let
me know and I'll see what I can do.

Oh, BTW, I'm watching the March On Washington right now on C-SPAN. 
Other than the fact that I'm generally repulsed by what I'm watching,
I found one thing of interest.  General David Dinkins just finished
speaking, and remarked that the New York City delegation consists of
about 200,000 people.  Funny, I don't see 200,000 people out there,
period.  Must've been quite the party scene last night.  Or maybe
their exaggerations were just too much.

Sean Patrick Ryan****fsspr@aurora.alaska.edu or sean@freds.cojones.com
3215 Oregon Dr. #2, Anchorage, AK  99517-2048****907-272-9184****fnord
Abortion stops a beating heart****Disclaimer:  I didn't inhale, either
IDITAROD SCOREBOARD 1993 - MEN 16, WOMEN 5****Read alt.flame.sean-ryan

[I don't suppose you'd be interested in hearing about the homosexual
agenda from homosexual Christians?  These portrayals of the homosexual
agenda are regarded by some as being somewhat akin to trying to
understand fundamentalist Christianity by looking at the Branch
Dividians.  You might also want to look at some outside evaluations of
the groups claiming to change homosexuals.  When our church (the
Presbyterian Church (USA)) looked into this issue, even the
conservative members of the committee were concerned about how real
and long-lasting the changes were.  I'll be interested to get reports
from police and the press about the number of people participating
today.  Presumably we'll have a better idea by tomorrow.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20802
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: Am I going to Hell?

XOPR131@maccvm.corp.mot.com (Gerald McPherson) writes:

>   If you reject the claims of Jesus, and still go to
>   heaven, then the joke's on me. If you reject him and go to hell,
>   that's no joke, but it will be final.

If this is God's attitude, then I'll think I'll go along with
Terry Pratchett's religious philosophy:

"Oh, I believe in God. I just don't actually _like_ the blighter."

P.
-- 
 moorcockpratchettdenislearydelasoulu2iainmbanksneworderheathersbatmanpjorourke
clive p a u l  m o l o n e y  Come, let us retract the foreskin of misconception
james trinity college dublin  and apply the wire brush of enlightenment - GeoffM
 brownbladerunnersugarcubeselectronicblaylockpowersspikeleekatebushhamcornpizza 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20803
From: trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre)
Subject: Theists And Objectivity

Can a theist be truly objective?  Can he be impartial
     when questioning the truth of his scriptures, or
     will he assume the superstition of his parents
     when questioning? 

I've often found it to be the case that the theist
     will stick to some kind of superstition when
     wondering about God and his scriptures.  I've
     seen it in the Christian, the Jew, the Muslim,
     and the other theists alike.  All assume that
     their mothers and fathers were right in the
     aspect that a god exists, and with that belief
     search for their god.
     
Occasionally, the theist may switch religions or
     aspects of the same religion, but overall the
     majority keep to the belief that some "Creator"
     was behind the universe's existence.  I've
     known Muslims who were once Christians and vice
     versa, I've known Christians who were once
     Jewish and vice versa, and I've even known
     Christians who become Hindu.  Yet, throughout
     their transition from one faith to another,
     they've kept this belief in some form of higher
     "being."  Why?
     
It usually all has to do with how the child is
     brought up.  From the time he is born, the
     theist is brought up with the notion of the
     "truth" of some kind of scripture-- the Bible,
     the Torah, the Qur'an, & etc.  He is told
     of this wondrous God who wrote (or inspired)
     the scripture, of the prophets talked about in
     the scripture, of the miracles performed, & etc.
     He is also told that to question this (as
     children are apt to do) is a sin, a crime
     against God, and to lose belief in the scrip-
     ture's truth is to damn one's soul to Hell.
     Thus, by the time he is able to read the
     scripture for himself, the belief in its "truth"
     is so ingrained in his mind it all seems a
     matter of course.
     
But it doesn't stop there.  Once the child is able
     to read for himself, there is an endeavor to
     inculcate the child the "right" readings of
     scripture, to concentrate more on the pleasant
     readings, to gloss over the worse ones, and to
     explain away the unexplainable with "mystery."
     Circular arguments, "self-evdent" facts and
     "truths," unreasoning belief, and fear of
     hell is the meat of religion the child must eat
     of every day.  To doubt, of course, means wrath
     of some sort, and the child must learn to put
     away his brain when the matter concerns God.
     All of this has some considerable effect on the
     child, so that when he becomes an adult, the 
     superstitions he's been taught are nearly
     impossible to remove.
     
All of this leads me to ask whether the theist can
     truly be objective when questioning God, Hell,
     Heaven, the angels, souls, and all of the rest.
     Can he, for a moment, put aside this notion that
     God *does* exist and look at everything from
     a unbiased point of view?  Obviously, most
     theists can somewhat, especially when presented
     with "mythical gods" (Homeric, Roman, Egyptian,
     & etc.).  But can they put aside the assumption
     of God's existence and question it impartially?
     
Stephen

    _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   _/       _/    * Atheist
   _/        _/    _/   _/ _/ _/ _/     * Libertarian
  _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   _/   _/  _/      * Pro-individuality
       _/  _/     _/  _/       _/       * Pro-responsibility
_/_/_/_/  _/      _/ _/       _/ Jr.    * and all that jazz...

-- 

[This is ad hominem attack of the most basic kind.  None of their
statements matter -- they believe the way they do because they were
brought up that way.  Of course there are atheists who have become
theists and theists who have become atheists.  Rather more of the
latter, which is not surprising given the statistics.  It's hard to
see how one could possibly answer a posting of this sort, since any
answer could immediately be assumed to be just part of the
brainwashing.  That is, how can anyone possibly show that they aren't
biased?  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20804
From: reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

In article <Apr.21.03.26.15.1993.1349@geneva.rutgers.edu> reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu writes:

>The basic problem with your argument is your total and complete reliance on
>the biblical text.  Luke's account is highly suspect (I would refer you to
>the hermeneia commentary on Acts).  ...

In article <Apr.23.02.56.43.1993.3174@geneva.rutgers.edu>, ata@hfsi.hfsi.com ( John Ata) writes:

> Even if there was no independent proof that Luke's account was
> valid, I find it strange that you would take the negation of it as
> truth without any direct historical evidence (at least that you've
> mentioned) to back it up.  The assertion was made, unequivocally
> that no Christian ever sufferred for their faith by believing in
> the Resurrection.  Luke's account suggests otherwise, and in the
> absence of direct eyewitnesses who can claim that Luke is mistaken,
> then I suggest that this unequivocal assertion is suspect.
> 

John,
The problem here is that you have taken one peice of my response, without
bothering to connect it with the other parts.  I have repeatedly noted that
one needs to take the problematic historcity of acts and then examine the
work of John Dominic Crossan and Burton Mack.  Once you have taken the time
to examine recent developments in biblical scholarship, I think you will 
grasp more clearly what I am saying.



> [I think the original claim may have been somewhat more limited than
> this.  It was an answer to the claim that the witnesses couldn't
> be lying because they were willign to suffer for their beliefs.
> Thus it's not necessary to show that no Christian ever suffered
> for believing in the Resurrection.  Rather the issue is whether
> those who witnessed it did.
> 
> I do agree that the posting you're responding to shows that there
> can be liberal as well as conservative dogmatism.
> 
> --clh]

Certainly this is an issue as I think the situation in Waco shows most 
clearly.  If all that is required is that people are willing to die for a
belief for it to be true, then surely David Koresh is the son of God.  No,
the spurrious arguement that the resurrection had to be true for people to be
willing to die must be put to rest.  The other problem is that it is so 
monologocentric.  Even if the resurrection was a big deal (which it doesn't
seem to have been for either Q, Thomas, or even John to a certain degree)
there are a lot of other things which the Early Christians could have been
doing together that would have been worth dying for.  It is my belief that
even the idea of a mixed race community, which brought down regional/national
boundaries in the name of koinonia could have been enough for people to be
willing to die.  Radical communties do that (e.g. Jonestown, Waco, Warsaw, etc)
But my original point was that roman persecution (which is the only persecution
we have documented proof of) was not about whether a carpenter came back from
the dead.  Such a claim was not unique nor particularly abhorent to the roman
or greek mind.  My point is that avoidance of military and civic duty (i.e.
emperor worship) would have been much more problematic -- which has nothing
to do with the resurrection at all.  When nero used christians as human 
torches to light up his dinner party it wasn't because the believe in a 
risen savior, it was because they were supposedly involved in incest and
cannablism.  The argument that christians were martyred for the resurrection
just cannot stand up to critical examination.

randy
 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20805
From: regy105@cantva.canterbury.ac.nz (James Haw)
Subject: Any good electronic Christian magazine?

Hi,
   I'd like to subscribe to Leadership Magazine but wonder if there is one on
disk instead of on paper. Having it on disk would save me retyping
illustrations, etc into a word processor. It's just cut and paste.
   If there are other good Christian magazines like Leadership on disk media,
I'd appreciate any info.

With gratitude,
James.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20806
From: shimpei@leland.Stanford.EDU (Shimpei Yamashita)
Subject: Survey: Faith vs. Reason

The following is a survey we are conducting for a term project in a philosophy
class. It is not meant to give us anything interesting statistically; we want
to hear what kind of voices there are out there. We are not asking for full-
blown essays, but please give us what you can.

As I do not read these groups often, please email all responses to me at
shimpei@leland.stanford.edu. As my mail account is not infinite, if you can
delete the questions and just have numbered answers when you write back
I would really appreciate it.

Since we would like to start analyzing the result as soon as possible, we
would like to have the answers by April 30. If you absolutely cannot make
it by then, though, we would still liken to hear your answer.

If anyone is interested in our final project please send a note to that effect
would like to have the answers by April 30. If you absolutely cannot make
it by then, though, we would still like to hear your answer.

If anyone is interested in our final project please send a note to that effect
(or better yet, include a note along with your survey response) and I'll try
to email it to you, probably in late May.

SURVEY:

Question 1)
Have you ever had trouble reconciling faith and reason? If so, what was the
trouble?
(For example: -Have you ever been unsure whether Creationism or Evolutionism
               holds more truth?
              -Do you practice tarot cards, palm readings, or divination that
               conflicts with your scientific knowledge of the world?
              -Does your religion require you to ignore physical realities that
               you have seen for yourself or makes logical sense to you?)
Basically, we would like to know if you ever _BELIEVED_ in something that your
_REASON_tells you is wrong.

Question 2)
If you have had conflict, how did/do you resolve the conflict?

Question 3)
If you haven't had trouble, why do you think you haven't? Is there a set of
guidelines you use for solving these problems?

Thank you very much for your time.




-- 
Shimpei Yamashita, Stanford University       email:shimpei@leland.stanford.edu
             "There are three kinds of mathematicians: 
              those who can count and those who can't."

[It seems to be that time of year.  Please remember that he's asked for
you to respond by email.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20807
From: jkellett@netcom.com (Joe Kellett)
Subject: Re: sex education

In article <Apr.20.03.01.57.1993.3782@geneva.rutgers.edu> bruce@liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens) writes:
>I'd be fascinated to see such evidence, please send me your article!
>On the negative side however, I suspect that any such simplistic link
>    abstinence-education => decreased pregnancy,
>    contraceptive-education => increased pregnancy
>is false.  The US, which I'd guess has one of the largest proportion of 
>"non-liberal" sex education in the western world also has one of the highest
>teenage pregnancy rates.  (Please correct me if my guess is wrong.)

I've sent the article.  In terms of the group discussion, I wanted to point
out that "non-liberal education" (head in the sand) is not the same as
"abstinence education".

We had "non-liberal education" regarding drugs when I was a kid in the 60's,
which didn't do us a lot of good.  But "abstinence education" regarding
drugs has proven effective, I think.

-- 
Joe Kellett
jkellett@netcom.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20808
From: khan0095@nova.gmi.edu (Mohammad Razi Khan)
Subject: Re: Doing the work of God??!!)

hedrick@cs.rutgers.edu writes:

>down these distinctions.  In him there is neither Jew nor Greek, there
>is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female.  If
>Moslems do not know him, we may preach to them, but we don't kill
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

As a muslim (spelled sometimes as Moslem) I must say that Muslims strong
ly believe in Jesus.  Refered in islamic text as eesau(as)

         Jesus ==>  J - esu  - s    ===> esu (pronounced eee-saw)

Yah we knew him well.  Ideally, this war should not even be.  And even in
a time of war, our goal is peace.  We should try to refrain from viloating
the peace of others as then if we do violate, we will not have peace in
ourselves.  I don't like this war eaither,  It is a conflict of territory.
Croats, Muslims, and Serbs lived together before in peace.  The rallying
point is 'race'.  And Im sure that there is a General out there who wouldn't
mind being a president.

--
Mohammad R. Khan                /    khan0095@nova.gmi.edu
After July '93, please send mail to  mkhan@nyx.cs.du.edu

[From a Christian perspective, Moslem ideas about Jesus look rather
seriously erroneous.  I've generally tried to avoid discussions of
Islam in this group, since soc.religion.islam is the right place for
that.  Thus I don't much want to go into detail.  I will simply note
that Moslems reject most of what Christians regard as the most
essential facts about Jesus.  So at least from a Christian perspective
Moslems don't know Jesus.  Again, this is no justification for
Christians to hate Moslems or to kill them.  I agree with you that
this war should never be.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20809
From: reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Q the Lost Gospel

Just finished reading Burton Mack's new book, _The Lost Gospel, Q and Christian
Origins_.  I thought it was totally cool.  Anyone else read it and want to 
talk?

Randy

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20810
From: cbc5b@virginia.edu (Charles Campbell)
Subject: Re: Was Jesus Black?


	Jesus was born a Jew.  We have biblical accounts of
both his mother's ancestry and his father's, both tracing back
to David.  It seems reasonable to assume, therefore, that Jesus
was Semitic.
	As an interesting aside, Jesus' being semitic makes him
neither "white" nor "black," and in some sense underscores the
point made earlier that his color was not important, it was his
message, his grace, and his divinity that we should concentrate
on.
	Finally, I would direct anyone interested in African
involvement in the church to the account of the conversion of
the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts chapter 9 (I think it's chapter
9).  This is one of the earliest conversions, and the eunuch,
treasurer to the queen of the Ethiopians, was definitely
African.  Because "Ethiopia" at that time indicated a region
just south of Egypt, many also speculate that this man was not
only the first African Christian, but the first black Christian
as well.  
God bless,
Charles Campbell

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20811
From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Subject: Re: Christians that are not church members

In article gchin@ssf.Eng.Sun.COM writes:

>Over the years, I have met Christians who are not associated with
>any local church and are not members of any local church. This is
>an issue that may be very personal, but is important.  What does
>the Bible say about this and how can we encourage our friends with
>regard to this issue?

This brings up an interesting subject that has not been discussed much,
and probably has not been studied much.

As some of you may be aware, I've posted a lot of articles lately on
personality typing (of which the MBTI is a test vehicle).  To come up
to speed, just read 'alt.psychology.personality' and/or ask for by
personality type summary file.

One observation is that people have significantly different personalities
(no question on this) which seem to be essentially in-born.  With respect
to church attendance and participation, some people thrive on this, while
other people have real difficulty with this because they prefer a more
solitary and contemplative lifestyle - that is, they are de-energized if
confronted with excessive closeness to outside activities and lots of
people.  Of course this is measured by extroversion/introversion.

My impression is that many churches are totally blind to this fact, and
create environments that 'scare away' many who are naturally introverted
(there are many introverted characters in the Bible, btw).  I know, I am
quite introverted in preference, and find the 'pressure' by many churches
to participate, to meet together in large groups, etc., to be very
uncomfortable.  Knowing what I know now, these churches have been overly
influenced by highly extroverted people who thrive on this sort of thing.
(BTW, there's nothing wrong with either extroversion or introversion, both
preferences have their place in the Body).

Maybe I should define extrovert/introvert more carefully since these words
are usually not used correctly in our culture.  The extrovert/introvert
scale is a measure of how a person is energized.  The following is
excerpted from my summary:

1.  Energizing - How a person is energized:

        Extroversion (E)- Preference for drawing energy from the outside
                          world of people, activities or things.

        Introversion (I)- Preference for drawing energy from one's internal
                          world of ideas, emotions, or impressions.


Hopefully this will elicit further discussion as to how churches can
structure themselves to meet the real needs of the people who comprise
the Body of Christ, instead of trying to change people's personalities
to fit them into a particular framework.  I'm sure there are other aspects
of how churches have not properly understood personality variances among
their members to the detriment of all.

Jon Noring

-- 

Charter Member --->>>  INFJ Club.

If you're dying to know what INFJ means, be brave, e-mail me, I'll send info.
=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.com        |                          |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   | FRED'S GOURMET CHOCOLATE |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | CHIPS - World's Best!    |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 417-4101   |                          |
=============================================================================
Who are you?  Read alt.psychology.personality!  That's where the action is.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20812
From: todd@nickel.laurentian.ca
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?y

In article <Apr.24.01.08.03.1993.4202@geneva.rutgers.edu>, marka@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley) writes:

> Those with Bibles on hand can give the exact chapter & verse...
> At the time Jesus told Peter that he was the "rock", He said
> whatever you hold true on earth is held true in heaven, and 
> whatever you don't hold true won't be true in heaven.
> 
> Therefore, with respect to marriage, the ceremony has to be
> done by an RC priest. No big parties required. Just the priest,
> the couple and witnesses. "Divorce" is not allowed. But anullments
> are granted upon approval by either the bishop or the Pope 
> (not sure if the Pope delegates this function).
> 
Maybe I'm a little tired but I can't seem to follow the logic here. If 
whatever is held true on earth is held true in heaven how is it that a priest
(RC only apparently) is required. 

In fact if I read the next verse correctly (Matthew 18:19) I understand that
for a marriage to take place only two are required to agree on earth touching
one thing and it shall be done.

Todd


> -- 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mark Ashley                        |DISCLAIMER: My opinions. Not Harris'
> marka@gcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com      |
> The Lost Los Angelino              |

[Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any completely precise
statements about what is needed.  (As usual, the current edition of
the Catholic Encyclopedia is frustratingly vague.)  I do know that the
priest is viewed as a witness, and thus in some sense would not be
required.  However part of the purpose of formal marriage is to avoid
any ambiguity about who has and has not taken on the commitment.  The
community provides support to marriage, and in cases of problems are
involved in helping to make sure that the people carry out as much of
their commitment as possible.  Thus marriage must be a public
commitment.  The presence of a priest is required for a regular
marriage.  Where I'm not clear is exactly where the boundaries are in
exceptional cases ("valid but irregular").  Ne Temere (1907) says that
no marriage involving a Catholic is valid without a priest (according
to the Oxford Dictionary of the Church), and they imply that the new
canon law retains this, but I'd rather see a more recent and
authoritative source.  Note that while a Catholic priest is required
for Catholics, the Catholic church does recognize marriage between
baptized non-Catholics as valid without a priest.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20813
From: aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

To what follows, our moderator has already answered the charge of 
arrogance more ably that I could have done so, so I will confine
myself to answering the charge of illogic.
 
In a previous article, Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno) says:

>>If I don't think my belief is right and everyone else's belief is wrong,
>>then I don't have a belief. This is simply what belief means.
>
>Unfortunatly, this seems to be how Christians are taught to think when
>it comes to their religion. 

This is how everyone in the western intellectual tradition is, or was,
taught to think. It is the fundamental premis "A is not not-A". If a thing
is true then its converse is necessarilly false. Without this basic 
asumption theology and science as we know them are alike impossible. We
should distinguish the strong and weak meanings of the word "believe",
however. The weak sense means I am not sure. "I believe Tom went to 
the library." (but he could have gone to the track). The strong sense
means I am so certain that I use it as a basis of thought. "I believe 
that nature operates according to certain fundamental laws." (despite 
the fact that nature *appears* capricious and unpredictable). Christian
belief is of the strong kind. (Though Christians may well hold beliefs
of the weak kind on any number of theological and ecclesiological 
topics.)
 
>Some take it to the extreme and say that
>their religion is the ONLY one and if you don't accept their teachings
>then you won't be "saved". 

Note that these are two separate ideas. Most hold the first view, but the 
majority do not hold the second. Is is again a matter of pure logic that
if Christanity is true, then Hinduism (for example) must necessarilly be
false, insofar as it contradicts or is incompatible with, Christaianity. 
(And, as a matter of *logic*, vice versa.)
 
>It takes quite a bit of arrogance to claim
>to know what God thinks/wants. 

It is arrogant to claim to know what *anyone* thinks or wants, unless 
they have told you. Christians believe God has told us what he thinks
and wants.

>Especially when it's based upon your
>interpretation of a book. 

Most Christians do not base their belief on the Bible, but on the living
tradition of the Church established by Christ and guided constantly
by the Holy Spirit. The Bible is simply the written core of that tradition.

>The logic in the above statement is faulty
>in that it assumes two people with differing beliefs can't both be
>correct. 

If depends what you mean by differing. If I believe Tom is six feet
tall and you believe he weighs 200 pounds, our beliefs differ, but we 
may both be right. If I believe Tom is six feet tall and you beleive
that he is four foot nine, one of us, at least, must be wrong.
 
>It's all about perception. No two people are exactly alike.
>No two people perceive everything in the same way. I believe that
>there is one truth. Call it God's truth, a universal truth, or call it
>what you will. I don't believe God presents this truth. I think it is
>just there and it's up to you to look for and see it, through prayer,
>meditation, inspir- ation, dreams or whatever. Just because people may
>perceive this truth differently, it doesn't mean one is wrong and the
>other is right. 

Thus you believe that there is a single truth but that no human being 
can find it. You assert that anyone who believe that we can find 
absolute truth is mistaken. In short, you believe that anyone who
does not share your belief on this point is wrong. QED.

>As an example, take the question, "Is the glass half
>empty or half full"? You can have two different answers which are
>contradictory and yet both are correct. So, for your belief to be
>true, does not require everyone else's belief to be wrong.

Here I begin to suspect that your real difficulty is not with the
knowability of truth, but simply with language. Saying that the glass 
is half empty is not a contradiction of the statement that it is half
full: it is the same fact expressed in different words. (The whole
point of this phrase is to illustrate the different ways the pessimist
and the optimist express the *same* fact.)
 
It is, of course, quite true that different people may express the 
same belief in different words. It is also true that they may fail
to understand each other's words as expressions of the same belief
and may argue bitterly and believe that they are miles apart. Great
scisms have occurred in just this way, and much ecumenical work has
been done simply in resolving differences in language which conceal
agreement in belief. This does not mean, in any sense, that all beliefs
are equally valid. Since some of the beliefs people hold contradict
some other beliefs that other people hold, after all obfuscations
of language and culture in the expression of those beliefs have
been stripped away, some of the beliefs that some people hold must,
**necessarilly** be false, and it is neither arrogant nor illogical
to say so. If I believe X and you believe Y we may both be correct, 
but if Y is equivalent to not-X then one of us is wrong and as long
as we hold our respective beliefs, we must each regard the other 
as in error.
-- 
==============================================================================
Mark Baker                  | "The task ... is not to cut down jungles, but 
aa888@Freenet.carleton.ca   | to irrigate deserts." -- C. S. Lewis
==============================================================================

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20814
From: marka@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley)
Subject: Re: Was Jesus Black?

In article <Apr.24.01.08.17.1993.4217@geneva.rutgers.edu> shd2001@andy.bgsu.edu (Sherlette Dixon) writes:
>The people who post to this particular newsgroup are either too cowardly,

<...more accusations about a worldwide conspiracy against blacks.>

Since Jesus was born in the Middle East, then I expect his human
features to be similar to Middle Easterners at that point in time.
And since the camera wasn't invented yet we can only guess what 
he looked like. For example, with all the dinosaur bones we're
digging up we still don't know if they were yellow-polka-dotted,
or purplish-orange 8-). Likewise, I don't think anybody has a 
picture of Jesus (is there ? 8-) ) So our current image of 
Jesus is our best guess.

Okay. So let's assume that Jesus is black. Would that make you
follow His techings ? Cause if you follow His teachings, skin 
color becomes a moot point, anyway. What counts more in your
life ? Your faith in Jesus or His skin color (as a human) ?

In the interest of historical accuracy, however, since Jesus
was from Israel wouldn't His skin color be like any other Jew ?
i.e. fair-skinned ? Although probably heavily tanned from the
desert sun ? Experts in this area speak up !!! cause I'm not. 8-)



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Ashley                        |DISCLAIMER: My opinions. Not Harris'
marka@gcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com      |
The Lost Los Angelino              |

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20815
From: fostma@saturn.wwc.edu (Mark Gregory Foster)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5

In article <Apr.15.00.58.33.1993.28906@athos.rutgers.edu> dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:

[FAQ and Darius' response deleted]

>Darius

>[It's not clear how much more needs to be said other than the FAQ.  I
>think Paul's comments on esteeming one day over another (Rom 14) is
>probably all that needs to be said.  I accept that Darius is doing
>what he does in honor of the Lord.  I just wish he might equally
>accept that those who "esteem all days alike" are similarly doing
>their best to honor the Lord.

I am myself an SDA and I am in total agreement with what Darius has to say.  
I also worship on Saturday to honor the Lord.  Your mention of "[esteeming] 
all days alike" IMO has to do with the fast days observed by the Jews.  But 
no matter how you interpret that passage, I do accept your worship on Sunday 
as being done in honor of the Lord, in contrast with what many of my fellow 
SDA believers may believe.  To me, though, the bible overwhelmingly points 
to Saturday as the day to be kept in honor of creation and of God's 
deliverance of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage.  To those who would 
attempt to point out that my observance of Saturday is being legalistic, 
this is simply not the case.  Rather, keeping Saturday allows me a full day 
to rest and contemplate God's goodness and grace.

>
>However I'd like to be clear that I do not think there's unambiguous
>proof that regular Christian worship was on the first day.  As I
>indicated, there are responses on both of the passages cited.

>Similarly with 1 Cor 16:2.  It says
>that on the first day they should set aside money for Paul's
>collection.  Now if you want to believe that they gathered specially
>to do this, or that they did it in their homes, I can't disprove it,
>but the obvious time for a congregation to take an offering would be
>when they normally gather for worship, and if they were expected to do
>it in their homes there would be no reason to mention a specific day.

The idea was introduced to me once that the reason Paul wanted the 
Corinthians to lay aside money for the collection on the first day of the 
week was because that was when they received their weekly wages.  Paul 
wanted them to lay aside money for the collection as first priority, before 
spending their money on other things.  I do not have any proof in front of 
me for this though, although it would explain why they would lay aside money 
in their homes instead of a meeting.  

>So I think the most obvious reading of this is that "on the first day
>of every week" simply means every time they gather for worship.  
>
>I think the reason we have only implications and not clear statements
>is that the NT authors assumed that their readers knew when Christian
>worship was.

It would seem to me that you assume that the christians in the NT regularly 
worshipped on the first day.  I assume that the christians in the NT 
regularly worshipped on the seventh day.  But I agree with you that we only 
have implications because the authors did assume the reader knew when worhip 
was.

--Mark

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20816
From: cs89mcd@brunel.ac.uk (Michael C Davis)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?

Robert Anderson (randerso@acad1.sahs.uth.tmc.edu) wrote:
: I would like to get your opinions on this: when exactly does an engaged
: couple become "married" in God's eyes?  Some say that if the two have
: publically announced their plans to marry, have made their vows to God, and
: are unswervingly committed to one another (I realize this is a subjective
: qualifier) they are married/joined in God's sight.

The way I read Scripture, a couple becomes married when they are *physically*
married, i.e. when they first have sexual intercourse.

e.g. the end of Genesis 2 (quoted from memory) ``for this reason, a man shall
leave his parents and be joined to his wife, and they will become one flesh''
(Jesus also quotes this scripture referring to marriage).

If you read through Genesis in particular, you will often come across the
phraseology: ``[man] lay with [woman], and she became his wife''. This
implies that she became his wife when they lay together, i.e. at the
point of intercourse.

Compare this with Jewish tradition: Joseph, when he heard that Mary
was pregnant, had it in mind to divorce her quietly -- but Mary and Joseph were
*betrothed*, not married. i.e., they were in a binding relationship (which
required a divorce to get out of), but *marriage* would not occur until Mary
and Joseph went to bed together.

Compare with Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5, Revelation 19): the church is
described as the ``bride'' of Christ, but the *marriage* of the Lamb takes 
place when Jesus returns. i.e., we are in a binding love-relationship with
Jesus, but we are still looking forward to the time when the marriage will
take place. I see this as the spiritual equivalent of sexual intercourse,
because it represents the most intimate fellowship possible between man and God.

In summary, engagement should be honoured as a binding relationship, but it is
not marriage. A civil ceremony is not marriage either. Marriage occurs at the
point when the betrothed couple go to bed together. (I don't mean to demean the
civil or church ceremony -- ours was great! I don't mean to be too pedantic.)
Historically, I think I am correct in stating that the civil ceremony (i.e. a
marriage recognised by the state), has only been around in the West since
Napoleon, who introduced it to keep tabs on the people (although I'm ready to be
corrected on that point!)

This view obviously raises some questions:

What about those who have had sex with one or more partners, without considering
marriage. Are those people also ``married''?

If it is true that marriage occurs at the point of intercourse, is it necessary
to be married in the eyes of the state? (I would say Yes, because this honours
the laws of our nations in the West. Although it is not illegal to sleep
together though unmarried in most Western countries, I believe that it is God-
honouring to proclaim our marriage to the state and to our friends before
actually consummating our marriage. Its to do with our being salt and light, and
also to do with how people will perceive us; i.e. it is culturally insensitive
to declare yourself married without going through a civil ceremony.)

-- 

-----
Michael Davis (cs89mcd@brunel.ac.uk)

	And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
	Come to my arms, my beamish boy!

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20817
From: alvin@spot.Colorado.EDU (Kenneth Alvin)
Subject: Re: Certainty and Arrogance

Responding to the moderator:

>In article <Apr.14.03.09.07.1993.5494@athos.rutgers.edu> alvin@spot.Colorado.EDU (Kenneth Alvin) writes:
>>
>>Choosing what to believe and rely on are important areas of personal 
>>sovereignty.  What bothers me is when others suggest that, in these 
>>matters of faith, their specific beliefs are not only true to them 
>>but are absolute and should be binding on others.  It follows from this
>>that God must give everyone the same revelation of truth, and thus 
>>anyone who comes to a different conclusion is intentionally choosing
>>the wrong path.  This is the arrogance I see; a lack of respect for the
>>honest conclusions of others on matters which are between them and God.
>
>[It is certainly reasonable to ask for some humility about our own
>ability to know the truth.  There are also different paths in some
>areas of practice.  But I'd like to see more clarification about what
>you mean when you reject the idea of saying "their specific beliefs
>are not only true to them but are absolute and should be binding on
>others."  If something is true, it is true for everyone, assuming that
>the belief is something about God, history, etc....

Yes, I agree.  What I'm trying to point out is that, in matters of faith
(i.e. tenets which are not logically persuasive), one may be convinced
of the truth of certain things through, for instance, personal
revelation.  And its certainly fine to share that revelation or those
beliefs with others.  And I don't think that its arrogant, persay, to
accepts matters of pure faith as truth for oneself.  Where I think the
conflict arises is in assuming that, where disagreements on beliefs
arise, all others *must* have been given the same truth, and that God 
must reveal His truth to everyone in such a way that all would 
honestly agree.  I think this can lead to the conclusion that anyone 
who disagrees with you are being sinful or dishonest; that they are 
rejecting something they *know* to be truth because it is inconvenient 
for them, or because they wish to spurn God.

I would say that this is equivalent to assuming that *all* truths one 
holds are universal and absolute.  And the problem I see with this is 
that it negates the individuality of humans and their relationships with
God.  This does not mean there is no absolute truth; just that some areas
of doctrinal disagreement may be areas where God has not established or 
revealed that truth.  

-- 
comments, criticism welcome...
-Ken
alvin@ucsu.colorado.edu

[I agree with you.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20818
From: shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker)
Subject: Re: Easter: what's in a name? (was Re: New Testament Double Stan

In article <Apr.14.03.09.10.1993.5497@athos.rutgers.edu> dsegard@nyx.cs.du.edu (Daniel Segard) writes:

>       That argument would be more compelling if it were not for the
>Ishtar eggs and Ishtar bunnies.  Why mix pagan fertility symbols from the
>worship of the pagan goddess of fertility with Biblical belief?  What
>would really be lost if all of you were to just drop the word "Easter" and
>replace all such occurances with "Resurrection Sunday"?  Would you not
>show up for services if they were called "Resurrection Sunday Services"
>rather than "Easter Services"?  

There is another way to view this.  The True Celebration is Easter,
the Resurrection of Our Lord.  This has been true from the foundation
of the world.  Pagan practices are then either:

1. foreshadowings of the True Celebration of the Resurrection, 
   in which dim light was shone forth so that people would
   recognize the full truth when it was manifested, OR

2. satanic counterfeits intended to deceive us so that we would not
   recognize the truth when it was manifested.

I don't believe the second argument, because I believe in the power
of the Resurrection, the fulfillment of the Incarnation, and our hope.
Earlier or parallel ideas in other religions clearly are dim images of
the truth of the Resurrection.  As Paul states, we see through a glass
darkly.  So do others.  It serves no purpose arguing about who has
the darker or lighter glass.  The foreshadowings are not perfect.
So what? Our understnding of God is today imperfect, for we are not
yet perfected.  Theosis is not a gift such that WHAM, we're perfect.

Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com)
-- 
-------
Lawrence Overacker
Shell Oil Company, Information Center    Houston, TX            (713) 245-2965
llo@shell.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20819
From: jsledd@ssdc.sas.upenn.edu (James Sledd)
Subject: intolerance - eternal life - etc

Hi Xian Netters,  God bless you

CONTENTS
1. intro
2. love your neighbor
3. reaction to posts
   a. purpose
   b. eternal life

I've been reading this news group religiously =) for about a month. 
Sometimes It really gives me what I need, spiritually.  At other times I
get a little IRATE.  

There are all kinds of people in every group and I take offense at
intolerance.  It's awfully hard to tolerate such people. =) ( OOPS! I've
gone over my smiley quota already and it's only the second paragraph =(. 
IMHO they should follow the commandment to love thy neighbor and leave
the judging up to GOD.  

SPECIFICALLY:
one's sexual orientation is part of one's self
love the sinner hate the sin DOES NOT APPLY

Pay attention fundaligionists.  Love your neighbor wether you like it
or not.  I'd be happy to get flamed endlessly and loose scripture
quotation contests galore to defend this point.  I beleive this is
correct. 

BTW Love the sinner hate the sin is a slippery slope, with hatred at the
bottom. 


INCREDIBLY CHOPPED UP POST
I won't even try to tell you where the deletions came out
> means Jayne
>> means Dan Johnson
>>> means Eric

In article 28388@athos.rutgers.edu, jayne@mmalt.guild.org 
(Jayne Kulikauskas) writes:
>gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric Molas) writes:

>No free gifts of meaning. (I never quite understood how any
>God can just "give" your life meaning, actually. If he
>says you exists to do or be X, that gives you a purpose
>if you care to accept it, but is that the same thing? But
>I digress...) 

I find that I am dissatisfied with the little purposes that we can
manufacture for ourselves.  Little in the cosmic sense.  Even the
greatest of the great pharos are long gone, the pyramids historical
oddities being worn down by the wind, eventually to be turned into dust.
Mankind itself will one day perish.  Without some interconnectedness
that transcends the physical, without God, it is all pointless in the
end.  Most people are able to live with that, and for them little
purposes (success, money, power, effecting change, helping others)
suffice.  I suppose they never  think about the cosmic scale, or are at
least able to put it out of their minds.

To me, it is comforting to know that reality is an illusion.  That the
true reality underneath the the physical is spirit.  That this world is
a school of sorts, where we learn and grow, and our souls mature.  That
gives a purpose to my little purposes, and takes some of the pressure
off.  It's not so necessary to make this life a success in human terms
if you're really just here to learn.  It's more important to progress,
grow, persist, to learn to love yourself and others and to express your
love, especially when it's dificult to do so.  Honest effort is rewarded
by God, he knows our limitations.


>> I will live forever with God.
>
>Ah, now here we begin to diverge. I will not live forever
>with anyone.
>
>(I don't think you will either, but you are welcome to your
>opinion on the matter.)

Interesting theological question.  I have a feeling that most common
perception of eternal life is WAY off base.  If I were to be imprisoned
in the limited ego/mind I am in now I doubt I would choose imortality. 
It would get awfully boring.  

TWO SERIOUS QUESTIONS/INVITATIONS TO DISCUSSION
1. What is the nature of eternal life?
2. How can we as mortals locked into space time conceive of it?

Possible answer for #2: The best we can do is Metaphor/Analogy
Question 2A  What is the best metaphor?

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20820
From: tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard)
Subject: Re: Can sin "block" our prayers?

In article <Apr.12.03.45.11.1993.18872@athos.rutgers.edu> jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas) writes:
>mike@boulder.snsc.unr.edu (Mike McCormick) writes:
>
>> Not honoring our wives can cause our prayers to be hindered:
>>         prayers may not be hindered.  I Peter 3:7
>
>One interpretation I've heard of this verse is that it refers to the sin 
>of physically abusing one's wife.  The husband is usually physically 
>stronger than his wife but is not permitted to use this to dominate her.  
>He must honor her as his sister in Christ.  This would therefore be an 
>example of a specific sin that blocks prayer.
>Jayne Kulikauskas/ jayne@mmalt.guild.org

I would be a bit more specific in looking at this verse in regard to
'blocking' prayer.  I have trouble thinking that God would allow
anything to block our access to him in prayer, especially if we have
sinned and are praying for forgivenenss.
    I can see, however, how our prayer life might be hindered by our
sin, if we are concentrating on what is causing the sin or what has
happened, we may not be thinking about prayer, thus our prayers are
'hindered' by our own actions.
    But I don't think anything can 'block' the transmission, or
reception of prayer to God.
Shalom,                                      Len Howard

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20821
From: mussack@austin.ibm.com (Chris Mussack)
Subject: Re: Atheist's views on Christianity (was: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...") - soc.religion.christian #16242

In article <Apr.13.00.08.22.1993.28397@athos.rutgers.edu>, trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:
> norris@athena.mit.edu  writes:
> > For example: why does the universe exist at all?  
> 
> Must there be a "why" to this?  I ask because of what you also
>      assume about God-- namely, that He just exists, with no "why"
>      to His existence.  So the question is reversed, "Why can't
>      we assume the universe just exists as you assume God to
>      "just exist"?  Why must there be a "why" to the universe?"

Whether there is a "why" or not we have to find it. This is Pascal's(?) wager.
If there is no why and we spend our lives searching, then we have merely
wasted our lives, which were meaningless anyway. If there is a why and we
don't search for it, then we have wasted our potentially meaningful lives.
Suppose the universe is 5 billion years old, and suppose it lasts another
5 billion years. Suppose I live to be 100. That is nothing, that is so small
that it is scary. So by searching for the "why" along with my friends here
on earth if nothing else we aren't so scared.

What if you woke up at a party, with no memory, and everyone was discussing
who the host might be? There might not be a host, you say. I say let's go
find him, the party's going to be over sometime, maybe he'll let us stay.

Because we recognize our own mortality we have to find the "why".

> ...
> Well, then, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Judaism,
>      Zoerasterism, Shintoism, and Islam should fit this bit of logic
>      quite nicely... :-)  All have depth, all have enduring values,
>      thus all must be true...

This is a good point. But more of a good point for studying religion
than ignoring it. Some Christians disagree with me, but it is worthwhile
to study different religions and philosophies and glean the truth from
them. To quote (of course out of context) "Test everything and keep what is
true."

Chris Mussack

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20822
From: aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In a previous article, mhsu@lonestar.utsa.edu (Melinda . Hsu) says:

>
>Well the argument usually stops right there.  In the end,
>aren't we all just kids, groping for the truth?  If so, do we have
>the authority to declare all other beliefs besides our own as
>false?
>

If I don't think my belief is right and everyone else's belief is wrong,
then I don't have a belief. This is simply what belief means. Where does
the authority for a belief come from? Nowhere, for a belief is itself
authoratative. If I produce authority for a belief, where will I find
authority for my belief in the legitimacy of the authority. In short, 
the mind has to start somewhere. (By the way, the majority of Christians,
i.e. Catholics, believe in the authority of the Church, and derive the
authority of the Bible from its acceptance by the Church.)
-- 
==============================================================================
Mark Baker                  | "The task ... is not to cut down jungles, but 
aa888@Freenet.carleton.ca   | to irrigate deserts." -- C. S. Lewis
==============================================================================

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20823
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Subject: Rom 9-11 article ready..requests

A section of Richard Badenas' book, "Christ The End of the Law, Romans 10.14 
in Pauline Perspective."  The section I have is on the Contextual setting and 
meaning of Romans 9-11.  In addition, there are 111 endnotes.

Since the file is so long, and because of other reasons, I will take requests
for the article personally.

Of course, I believe Badenas' insights to be true, and, quite damaging to the
traditional Augustinian/Calvinist view.

====================================          
Ted Kalivoda (tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu)
University of Georgia, Athens
UCNS/Institute of Higher Ed. 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20824
From: phs431d@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article <Apr.13.00.08.47.1993.28427@athos.rutgers.edu>, hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes) writes:
> 
> Say, for example, there are people living on a volcanic island, and a group 
> of geologists determine that a volcano is imminent. They warn the people on 
> the island that they are in danger, and should leave. A group of people on 
> the island is given the task of warning others of the danger.
> 
> They believe the danger is real, but others may not. 
> 
> Does that mean that the first group are NECESSARILY arrogant in warning 
> others of the danger? Does it mean that they are saying that their beliefs 
> are correct, and all others are false?

But what if the geologists are wrong and these people are warning of a
non-existent danger?  Analogies can only push an argument so far (on both
sides).  Both Melinda's and yours assume the premises used to set up your
respective analogies are true and thus the correct conclusion will arise.

The important point to note is the different directions both sides come from.
Christians believe they know the TRUTH and thus believe they have the right
(and duty) to tell the TRUTH to all.  

Christians can get offended if others do not believe (what is self-evidently
to them) the TRUTH. Non-christians do not believe this is the TRUTH and get
offended at them because they (christians) claim to know the TRUTH.

(BTW this argument goes for anyone, I am not just bagging christians)

Neither side can be really reconciled unless one of the parties changes their
mind.  As Melinda pointed out, there is no point in arguing along these lines
because both approach from a different premise.  A more useful line of
discussion is WHY people believe in particular faiths.

Personally, I don't mind what anyone believes as long as they allow me mine
and we can all live peacefully.

> Steve Hayes, Department of Missiology & Editorial Department

-- 
Don Lowe, Department of Physics, Monash University, 
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 3168.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20825
From: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jesus in your heart..."

I have been told that I seem to be very smug in my post.  I appoligize
if anyone felt this way. I did not at all desire to come across in
that way. I was trying to express that I didn't understand his logic
and that I wished him the best in his life.

In Christ's Love,
Bryan Whitsell

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20826
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: Watt misquoted


 heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:

 >    I realize I'm entering this discussion rather late, but I do
 > have one question. Wasn't it a Reagan appointee, James Watt, a
 > pentacostal christian (I think) who was the secretary of the
 > interior who saw no problem with deforestation since we were
 > "living in the last days" and ours would be the last generation
 > to see the redwoods anyway?

For the Record:

On February 5, 1981, at a House of Representatives
Interior Committee Meeting, Rep. James Weaver (D, Ore), asked Watt
whether "you agree that we should save some of our scenic resources
for our children, not just gobble them up all at once?" Watt's
answer was:

 < Absolutely. That is the delicate balance the Secretary of the
 < Interior must have -- to be steward for the natural resources
 < for this generation as well as future generations. I do not
 < know how many future generations we can count on before the
 < Lord returns.  Whatever it is, we have to manage with a skill
 < to have the resources needed for future generations.

My source is a column by Rowland Evans and Robert Novak on the
op-ed page of the WASHINGTON POST for Friday 21 August 1981.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20827
From: MANDTBACKA@finabo.abo.fi (Mats Andtbacka)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."

In <Apr.13.00.08.15.1993.28388@athos.rutgers.edu> jayne@mmalt.guild.org writes:
> gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric Molas) writes:
> 
>> Firstly, I am an atheist. I am not posting here as an immature flame
>> start, but rather to express an opinion to my intended audience.
>[deleted] 
>> 
>> We are _just_ animals.  We need sleep, food, and we reproduce.  And we
>> die.      
> 
> I am glad that I am not an atheist.  It seems tragic that some people 
> choose a meaningless existence.  How terrible to go on living only 
> because one fears death more than life.

      ?Huh? Okay, so I'm not Eric Molas, but even if that _is_ how he
feels about life, I disagree with it.

      Life, to me, is definitely NOT meaningless; it has precisely the
purpose and meaning I choose to give it. I go on living because I _like_
living; if I needed any further reason, I'd be free - completely free! -
to pick any reason that suited me. That freedom can be almost
intoxicating; it's probably the closest I've ever been to a 'religious'
experience. I'm *very* glad I am an atheist; I wouldn't be anything
else.

> I feel so sorry for Eric and 
> yet any attempts to share my joy in life with him would be considered as 
> further evidence of the infectious nature of Christianity.    

      Not unless, in explaining your own subjective experience, you also
try to convert him or proselytize. Merely explaining the effects you
personally experience religion as having on you, is not "infectious".
Not unless Eric is paranoid, that is. ;->

> As a Christian I am free to be a human person.  I think, love, choose, 
> and create.  I will live forever with God.

      Whatever floats your goat. You sound happy enough; that's fairly
much all that matters, right?

> Christ is not a kind of drug.  Drugs are a replacement for Christ.  

      Erh... Pardon, but it strikes me that sentence sounds reversible.

> Those who have an empty spot in the God-shaped hole in their hearts must 
> do something to ease the pain.

      "Empty spot"? "God-shaped hole"? I hear such things a lot from
theists; never quite did understand what they were talking about.
I have no such 'emptiness' or 'hole'. Maybe some others do, I wouldn't
know; but I don't, and if I did, I'd seek help about it. Doesn't sound
like a mentally healthy situation at all, walking around with a 'hole'
in oneself.

> Thank you, Eric for your post.  It has helped me to appreciate how much 
> God has blessed me.  I hope that you will someday have a more joy-filled 
> and abundant life.

      Well, not having written that original post, I don't know if it
was intended to be interpreted in such a way; but, having reread it
carefully, I somewhat doubt it. At least, that's not how he gets across
to _me_, your mileage may vary...

-- 
  Disclaimer?   "It's great to be young and insane!"

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20828
From: k053730@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Philip G. Sells)
Subject: Hebrew grammar texts--choose English or German?

Greetings,

Probably a tired old horse, but...  maybe with a slightly different
twist.  I wanted to know if there are any good English-language texts
for learning ancient Hebrew, and how these compare with German
educational texts qualitywise, if anybody has an idea.  I can't figure
out if I should buy one here for later study or wait until I get back to
the U.S.

Something I find interesting about studying theology in Germany is the
fact that the students get their ancient language-learning out of the
way early [I'm not a theology student, but I spend a lot of time with
such folks] in their careers.  They take the first two years or so to just
do Greek and Latin and Hebrew [possibly Aramaic, too--who knows].
What's it like at divinity schools or seminaries in the States?  Is
there a lot of language instruction done?  I really don't have a basis
for comparison.

Regards, Phil
-- 
Philip Sells                 Is anything too hard for the LORD?
k053730@hobbes.kzoo.edu           --Gen. 18:14

[For better of worse, we don't have the tradition of classical
education in the U.S., so generally if a seminary believes students
should know Greek, they have to teach it.  It's common for seminaries
to require at least a semester each of Hebrew and Greek, though of
course more is required for serious scholarship.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20829
From: mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server)
Subject: Re: cause

trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:
>norris@athena.mit.edu  writes:
> [some stuff deleted]
>> Fortunately for the convenience of us believers, there is a class of
>> questions that can never be reduced away by natural science.  For
>> example: why does the universe exist at all?  
> 
>Must there be a "why" to this?  I ask because of what you also
>     assume about God-- namely, that He just exists, with no "why"
>     to His existence.  So the question is reversed, "Why can't
>     we assume the universe just exists as you assume God to
>     "just exist"?  Why must there be a "why" to the universe?"
[remainder of message deleted]

Pardon me for replying to only a portion of your message :)

The reason we can say "God just exists" and can't say "The universe just 
exists" is because the universe is a natural realm and is subject to natural 
laws in general and the law of cause and effect in particular.  That is, we 
observe in nature that every cause has an effect, and every effect was produced 
by a cause.  The existence of the natural realm, as an effect itself, cannot be 
its own cause; it must therefore have a supernatural cause.

God, on the other hand, is a supernatural being, and is therefore not subject 
to such natural laws as the law of cause and effect.  As a supernatural being, 
God's eternal existence does not imply a previous cause the way the existence 
of a physical, natural cosmos does.  Thus, those who believe in the 
supernatural have a valid basis for accepting the existence of uncaused 
phenomena such as the eternal God, whereas those who deny the existence of the 
supernatural are faced with the dilemma of a physical universe whose very 
nature shows that it is not sufficient to explain its own existence.

This is, of course, an oversimplification of a complex topic, but I just wanted 
to clarify some important differences between the supernatural (God) and the 
natural (the universe), since you seem to mistake them as being 
interchangeable.

- Mark

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20830
From: rsteele@adam.ll.mit.edu (Rob Steele)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."

In article <Apr.10.05.32.36.1993.14391@athos.rutgers.edu>  
gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric Molas) writes:

> We are _just_ animals.  We need sleep, food, and we reproduce.  And 
> we die.

I agree we need sleep & etc, but I disagree we are _just_ animals.   
That statement is a categorical negative; it's like saying there are  
_no_ polkadoted elephants.  It may be true but one would have to be  
omniscient to know for sure.

------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Steele                 In coming to understand anything 
MIT Lincoln Laboratory    we are rejecting the facts as they
244 Wood St., M-203       are for us in favour of the facts
Lexington, MA  02173      as they are.    
617/981-2575                              C.S. Lewis

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20831
From: rsteele@adam.ll.mit.edu (Rob Steele)
Subject: Re: Atheist's views on Christianity (was: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")

In article <Apr.13.00.08.22.1993.28397@athos.rutgers.edu>  
trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:

> Well, then, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Judaism,
>      Zoerasterism, Shintoism, and Islam should fit this bit of logic
>      quite nicely... :-)  All have depth, all have enduring values,
>      thus all must be true...

Yep.  There's truth in all those religions, even in science.   
Christianity doesn't claim to know it all.  It does claim certain  
things are true though that contradict other religions' truth claims.   
So they can't all be true.

------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Steele                 In coming to understand anything 
MIT Lincoln Laboratory    we are rejecting the facts as they
244 Wood St., M-203       are for us in favour of the facts
Lexington, MA  02173      as they are.    
617/981-2575                              C.S. Lewis

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20832
From: rsteele@adam.ll.mit.edu (Rob Steele)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?

I think it was Lewis who said that in a wedding, it's the principals  
that marry each other; the church and the state are present merely as  
witnesses.

------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Steele                 In coming to understand anything 
MIT Lincoln Laboratory    we are rejecting the facts as they
244 Wood St., M-203       are for us in favour of the facts
Lexington, MA  02173      as they are.    
617/981-2575                              C.S. Lewis

[This is not just Lewis -- it's a summary of standard Catholic
theology.  However this doesn't mean that the presence of those
witnesses is optional, except in odd situations like the standard
desert island.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20833
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe)
Subject: Re: Some questions from a new Christian

18669@bach.udel.edu (Steven R Hoskins) writes:

> ... I realize I am very ignorant about much of the Bible and
> quite possibly about what Christians should hold as true. This I am trying
> to rectify (by reading the Bible of course), but it would be helpful
> to also read a good interpretation/commentary on the Bible or other
> relevant aspects of the Christian faith. One of my questions I would
> like to ask is - Can anyone recommend a good reading list of theological
> works intended for a lay person?

I won't even recommend books from my congregation.  What you ask sounds
attractive but it is dangerous.  As a new Christian you don't want to be
contaminated with other people's interpretation.  Steep your self in
scripture, and discuss with other christians.  Read if your must but
remember that what other people write is their interpretation.  God has
promised to give you light, so ask for it.

> I have another question I would like to ask. I am not yet affiliated
> with any one congregation. Aside from matters of taste, what criteria
> should one use in choosing a church? I don't really know the difference
> between the various Protestant denominations.


Don't wait too long before attaching yourself to church.  Just remember to
always compare what they teach you with scripture like the Bereans did.

Darius

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20834
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: When are two people married

LISTOWNER: I have sent this to Mr Anderson privately. Post it only
if you think it of general interest.

Here is a copy of something I wrote for another list. You may
find it relevant.

A listmember asks:

 > What makes common-law marriages wrong?

A common-law marriage is not necessarily wrong in itself. There is
nothing in the Bible (Old or New Testament) about getting married by
a preacher, or by a priest (Jewish or Christian). And in fact Jewish
priests have never had any connection with weddings.

There is a common notion that the marriage is performed by the
clergyman. In fact, the traditional Christian view (at least in the
West) is that the bride and groom are the ministers of the marriage,
and that the clergyman is there only as a witness.

HOWEVER!

The essential ingredient of a marriage is mutual commitment. Two
persons are considered to be married if and only if they have bound
themselves by mutual promises to live together as husband and wife,
forsaking all others, till death do them part.

      The reason why those who have reason to be concerned about who
is married to whom have always insisted on some kind of public
ceremony is in order that society, and the couple themselves, may be
clear about whether a commitment has been made.

Suppose that we do away with the public ceremony, the standard vows,
etc. Instead, we have a man and a woman settling down to live
together.
      After a year or so, the man says to the woman: Hey, honey, it
was great while it lasted, but I think it's time to move on.
      She says: What are you talking about?
      He says: I am leaving you and looking for someone prettier and
younger.
      She says: But you can't. We are married!
      He says: What are you talking about? We never got married.
      She says: I remember distinctly what you said to me the night
we first made love. You said: "My love for you is as deep as the
ocean, as eternal as the stars. As long as I live, I am yours,
utterly and completely. When I lie on my deathbed, my last feeble
breath will utter your name. My..."
      He says: Oh that! That was just rhetoric. Just poetry. When a
man is in a romantic mood, he is bound to say all kinds of silly
things like that. You mustn't take them literally.

And that is why you have an insistence on a formal ceremony that is
a matter of public record.
      The Church insists on it, because it is her duty (among other
things) to give moral advice, and you cannot give a man moral advice
about his relations with a woman if you have no idea who is married
to whom, if anybody, and vice versa.
      The State insists on it, since the state has a concern with
property rights, with child care and support, and therefore needs to
know who has made what commitments to whom.
      Prospective fathers-in-law insist on it, because they don't
want their daughters seduced and abandoned.
      Prospective spouses insist on it, because they want to make
sure they know whether what they are hearing is a real commitment,
or just "poetry."
      And persons making vows themselves insist on making them
formally and publicly, in order that they may be clear in their own
minds about what it is that they are doing, and may know themselves
that this is not just rhetoric. This is the real thing.

      Hence the insistence on a formal public explicit avowal of the
marriage commitment.  The Church goes further and insists that, when
Christians marry, a clergyman shall be present at the wedding and
record the vows on behalf of the Church, not because it is
impossible to have a valid wedding without a clergyman, but in order
to make sure that the couple understand what the Christian teaching
about marriage is, and that they are in fact promising to be married
in a Christian sense. The Church also prefers a standard marriage
vow, and is wary of letting couples Write their own vows, for much
the same reason that lawyers prefer standard terminology when they
draw up a will or a contract. Certain language has been repeatedly
used in wills, and one can be sure how the courts will interpret it.
Try to say the same thing in your own words, and you may find that
the probate judge's interpretation of them is not at all what you
intended.  Similarly, the Church prefers to avoid endless debates
about whether "You are my main squeeze" and "I am here for the long
haul" do in fact cover the same territory as "forsaking all others"
and "till death do us part."

      This topic has come up on the list before. (Is there any topic
that hasn't?) One listmember was asking, "If a couple love each
other and are living together, isn't that marriage in the eyes of
God?" Eventually someone asked, "In that case, what is their status
if they break up? Is that the moral equivalent of getting a divorce?
Are they in a relationship that God forbids either of them to walk
out on? " The original questioner said: "Good grief, I never thought
of that!" In fact, there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that
someone who says, "We don't need a piece of paper or a ceremony in
front of a judge or a preacher in order to show that we love each
other," is trying to have it both ways -- to have the advantages of
marriage plus the option of changing his mind with a minimum of
bother.

At this point someone may say, "None of this applies to me and my
mate. We are quite clear on the fact that we have assumed a lifelong
commitment, 'for better or worse, forsaking all others, till death
us do part.' So in our case, no ceremony is needed."
     To this my reply would be: The reason for requiring a driver's
license is to keep dangerous drivers off the road.  What is wrong in
itself is not the existence of unlicensed drivers, but the existence
of dangerous drivers. However, testing and licensing drivers is an
obvious and reasonable means of pursuing the goal of reducing the
number of dangerous drivers on the road. Therefore the State rightly
makes and enforces such laws, and you the citizen have a positive
moral obligation to refrain from driving without a license no matter
how much of a hotshot behind the wheel you think you are.

Back to the original question. We have a listmember who knows a
couple who have been living together for around 20 years. He asks:
At what point did they stop fornicating and start being married? I
answer: at the point, if any, where they both definitely and
explicitly accepted an obligation to be faithful to each other, for
better or worse, as long as they both lived. If they have accepted
such an obligation, what are their reasons for not being willing to
declare it in front of, say, a justice of the peace?

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20835
From: rbutera@owlnet.rice.edu (Robert John Butera)
Subject: Book Review Wanted

I'm interested if anyone out here can point me towards a review of the
following book in any scholarly Christian journal, whether it be
conservative or liberal, Protestant or Catholic.

_The_Lost_Years_of_Jesus_ (documentary evidence for Jesus' 17 year
journey to the East), by Elizabeth Clare Prophet.  Supposedly this
is a theory that was refuted in the past, and she has re-examined it.

I thought this was just another novel book, but I saw it listed as
a text for a class in religious studies here.  Also, the endorsements seem
to come from some credible sources, so I'm wondering if scholars have
reviewed it (or anyone on the net, for that matter).

-- 
Rob Butera        |
ECE Grad Student  |     "Only sick music makes money today" 
Rice University   |
Houston, TX 77054 |               - Nietzsche, 1888

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20836
From: oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE?

Frank, I got your mailing on early historical references to Christianity.
I'd like to respond, but I lost your address.  Please mail me.

-Scott Oser

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20837
From: halsall@murray.fordham.edu (Paul Halsall)
Subject: Bible Unsuitable for New Christians


	A "new Christian" wrote that he was new to the faith and 
learning about it "by reading the Bible, of course". I am not
at all sure this is the best path to follow.
	While the Bible is, for Christians, the word of God, the 
revelation of God is Jesus Christ and the chief legacy of this
revalation is the Church. I am not recommending any one
denommination, but I do recommend finding a comfortable christian
congregation in which to develop your faith, rather than just
reading the Bible.
	This does not mean that the Bible should not be read, although
I would stick to the Gospels, epistles, and Psalms and avoid the
Book of Revelation altogether [until you are with friends you are
comfortable with]. I am sure that mistakenly fervent  projects to
read the entire Bible have frequently bogged down with a remarkable
lack of fervour somewhere in the middle of Leviticus, or for the really
sturdy, somewhere in Chronicles.
	The point is that the Bible is their to illustrate the Faith
of Christians, but does not provide the totality of that faith. Vital
beliefs of virtually all Christians are simply not mentioned -
the Trinity, the duality of natures in Christ, types of Church
organization. All these beliefs and practices have developed from the
lived experience of the Christian people, an experience lived one
hopes in the Spirit. As such the Bible, I think, is better studies
in the context of a congregation, and the context of other reading.
	Following up on a suggestion of an old confessor of mine, I 
would even suggest that a good novel is a good way to reflect on the
christian life. [Most novels of any profundity are actually discussing
the nature of good and evil in the human heart]. My own induction into
the christian faith was brought about [after grace] through reading
Graham Greene: _The Power and the Glory_ and the poetry of Gerard
Manley Hopkins. I would also recommend Graham Greene's _Monsignor
Quixote_ and any novel by Iris Murdoch. The last is not even a Christian,
but such is her insistence on the need for the good life, that, frankly,
I often am more uplifted and God directed after reading her than after
reading many parts of the Bible. And that after all is what being
a Christian is all about: letting your soul and your life be, in
some way, directed towards the infinite, represented to us by
the person of Jesus Christ.

Paul Halsall
Halsall@murray.fordham.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20838
From: aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker)
Subject: Re: Nature of God (Re: Environmentalism and paganism)

In a previous article, mcovingt@aisun2.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) says:

>In article <Apr.13.00.08.44.1993.28424@athos.rutgers.edu> heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:
>That is not necessarily unorthodox.  When Christians call God 'Father', 
>we are using a metaphor.  The Bible in one place refers to God as being
>like a mother.  God is neither a father nor a mother in the literal
>sense; God has some of the attributes of both; the father metaphor is
>usually used because (for most people at most times) it is the less
>misleading of the two possibilities.

I don't know which passage you are refering to, but the passage I have
often seen cited as an example of a mother image of God is Isaiah 49:15
"Can a woman forget her sucking child / that she should have no 
compassion / on the son of her womb? / Even these may forget, / 
yet I will not forget you." 
 
This passage is *not* a mother image of God at all. The mother here
is the image of the best human constancy can show, and it is 
contrasted with the constancy of God. The mother figure here represents
mankind, not God.
-- 
==============================================================================
Mark Baker                  | "The task ... is not to cut down jungles, but 
aa888@Freenet.carleton.ca   | to irrigate deserts." -- C. S. Lewis
==============================================================================

[Luke 13:34   O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those
who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together
as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20839
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: Re: SSPX schism ?

Larry L. Overacker writes, responding to Simon:

   I may be interesting to see some brief selections posted to the
   net.  My understanding is that SSPX does not consider ITSELF in
   schism or legitimately excommunicated.  But that's really beside
   the point.  What does the Roman Catholic church say?
   Excommunication can be real apart from formal excommunication, as
   provided for in canon law.

Here's some of the theology involved for the interested.

There is confusion over this issue of the SSPX's "schism"; often the
basic problem is lack of an ability to distinguish between:

- true obedience
- false obedience
- disobedience
- schism

Take the various classifications of obedience first.  There are 2
important elements involved here for my purposes:

1) a command
2) the response made to the command

As far as the command goes, commands can be LEGITIMATE, such as the
Pope ordering Catholics to not eat meat on Fridays.  Or they can be
ILLEGITIMATE, such as the Pope ordering Catholics to worship the god
Dagon when every other full moon comes around.

As far as the response to a command goes, it can be to REFUSE to do
what is commanded, or to COMPLY.

Making a table, there are thus 4 possibilites:

command         response            name
-----------------------------------------------------
LEGITIMATE      COMPLY              true obedience
ILLEGITIMATE    REFUSE              true obedience
LEGITIMATE      REFUSE              disobedience
ILLEGITIMATE    COMPLY              false obedience

So now you see where my 3 classifications of obedience come from.

Obedience is not solely a matter of compliance/refusal.  The nature of
the commands must also be taken into account; it is not enough to
consider someone's compliance or refusal and then say whether they are
"obedient" or "disobedient".  You also have to take into consideration
whether the commands are good or bad.

In my example, if the Pope commands all Catholics to worship the god
Dagon, and they all refuse, they aren't being disobedient at all!

As far as the Society of Saint Pius X goes, they are certainly
refusing to comply with certain things the Pope desires.  But that
alone is insufficient to allow one to label them "disobedient".  You
also have to consider the nature of the Papal desires.

And there's the rub: SSPX says the Popes since Vatican II have been
commanding certain very bad things for the Church.  The Popes have of
course disagreed.

So where are we?  Are we in another Arian heresy, complete with weak
Popes?  Or are the SSPX priests modern Martin Luthers?  Well, the only
way to answer that is to examine who is saying what, and what the
traditional teaching of the Church is.

The problem here is that very few Catholics have much of an idea of
what is really going on, and what the issues are.  The religion of
American Catholics is especially defective in intellectual depth.  You
will never read about the issues being discussed in the Catholic press
in this country.  (On the other hand, one Italian Catholic magazine I
get -- 30 Days -- has had interviews with the Superior General of the
Society of Saint Pius X.)

Many Catholics will decide to side with the Pope.  There is some
soundness in this, because the Papacy is infallible, so eventually
some Pope *will* straighten all this out.  But, on the other hand,
there is also unsoundness in this, in that, in the short term, the
Popes may indeed be wrong, and such Catholics are doing nothing to
help the situation by obeying them where they're wrong.  In fact, if
the situation is grave enough, they sin in obeying him.  At the very
least, they're wasting a great opportunity, because they are failing
to love Christ in a heroic way at the very time that He needs this
badly.

Schism... let's move on to schism.  What is it?

Schism is a superset of disobedience (refusal to obey a legitimate
command).  All schismatics are disobedient.  But it's a superset, so
it doesn't work the other way around: not all disobeyers are
schismatics.  The mere fact that the SSPX priests don't comply with
the Holy Father's desires doesn't make them schismatics.

So what is it that must be added to disobedience to constitute a
schism?  Maybe this something else makes the SSPX priests schismatics.

You must add this: the rejection of the right to command.  Look in any
decent reference on Catholic theology, and that's what you'll find:
the distinguishing criterion of schism is rejection of the right to
command.

Here's what the Catholic Encyclopedia says, for example:

    ... not every disobedience is a schism; in order to possess this
    character it must include besides the trangression of the commands
    of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command.
    (from the CE article "Schism")

Is the Society of Saint Pius X then schismatic?  The answer is a clear
no: they say that the Pope is their boss.  They pray for him every
day.  And that's all that matters as far as schism goes.

What all this boils down to is this: if we leave aside the
consideration of the exact nature of their objections, their position
is a legitimate one, as far as the Catholic theology of obedience and
schism goes.  They are resisting certain Papal policies because they
think that they are clearly contrary to the traditional teaching of
the Papacy, and the best interests of the Church.  (In fact, someone
who finds himself in this situation has a *duty* to resist.)

Now, what is the stance of Rome on all this?  Well, if you read the
Holy Father's motu proprio "Ecclesia Dei", you can find out.  It's the
definitive document on the subject.  A motu proprio is a specifically
Papal act.  It's not the product of a Roman congregation, a letter
that the Pope has possibly never even read.  It's from the Pope
himself.  His boss is God... there's no one else to complain to.

In this document, the Holy Father says, among other things:

1) The episcopal consecrations performed by Archbishop Lefebvre
constituted a schismatic act.

2) Archbishop Lefebvre's problem was a misunderstanding of the nature
of Tradtion.

Both are confusing: I fail to see the logic of the Pope's points.

As far as the episcopal consecrations go, I read an interesting
article in a translation of the Italian magazine "Si Si No No".  It
all gets back to the question of jurisdiction.  If episcopal
consecrations imply rejection of the Pope's jurisdiction, then they
would truly constitute a schismatic act, justifying excommunication
under the current code of canon law.  But my problem with this is
this: according to the traditional theology of Holy Orders, episcopal
consecration does not confer jurisdiction.  It only confers the power
of Order: the ability to confect the Sacraments.  Jurisdiction must be
conferred by someone else with the power to confer it (such as the
Pope).  The Society bishops, knowing the traditional theology quite
well, take great pains to avoid any pretence of jurisdiction over
anyone.  They simply confer those Sacraments that require a bishop.

The "Si Si No No" article was interesting in that it posited that the
reason that the Pope said what he did is that he has a novel,
post-Vatican II idea of Holy Orders.  According to this idea,
episcopal consecration *does* confer jurisdiction.  I lent the article
to a friend, unfortunately, so can't tell you more.  I believe they
quoted the new code of canon law in support of this idea.

The Pope's thinking on this point remains a great puzzle to me.
There's no way there is a schism, according to traditional Catholic
theology.  So why does the Pope think this?

As far as the points regarding the nature of Tradition goes, here's
the passage in question:

    The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete
    and contradictory notion of Tradtion.  Incomplete, because it does
    not take sufficiently into the account the living character of
    Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught,

        comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the
        help of the Holy Spirit.  There is a growth in insight into
        the realities and words that are being passed on.  This comes
        about in various ways.  It comes through the contemplation and
        study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts.
        It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which
        they experience.  And it comes from the preaching of those who
        have received, along with their right of succession in the
        espiscopate, the sure charism of truth.

    But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which
    opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the
    Bishop of Rome and the body of bishops.  It is impossible to
    remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond
    with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ
    himself entrusted the ministry of unity in His Church.

    (Papal motu proprio "Ecclesia Dei", 2 July 1988)

It seems to me that the Holy Father is making two points here that can
be simplified to the following:

- Vatican Council II has happened.
- I am the Pope.

The argument being that either case is sufficient to prove that
Archbishop Lefebvre must be wrong, because he disagrees with them.
This is weak, to say the least!

It would have helped clarify things more if the Pope had addressed
Archbishop Lefebvre's concerns in detail.  What is John Paul II's
stand on the social Kingship of Christ, as taught by Gregory XVI, Pius
IX, Leo XIII, Pius XI and Pius XII, for example?  Are we supposed to
ignore what all these Popes said on the subject?

I don't know what the future will hold, but the powers that be in the
SSPX are still talking with Rome and trying to straighten things out.

--------------------------------------------------------------

[Many people would prefer to call a justified refusal to obey
"justified disobedience" or even "obeying God rather than man".
Calling a refusal to obey obedience puts us into a sort of Alice in
Wonderland world where words mean whatever we want them to mean.

Similarly, schism indicates a formal break in the church.  If the Pope
says that a schism exists, it seems to me that by definition it
exists.  It may be that the Pope is on the wrong side of the break,
that there is no good reason for the break to exist, and that it will
shortly be healed.  But how can one deny that it does in fact exist?

It seems to me that you are in grave danger of destroying the thing
you are trying to reform: the power of the papacy.  What good will it
do you if you become reconciled to the the Pope in the future, but in
the process, you have destroyed his ability to use the tools of church
discipline?  It's one thing to hold that the Pope has misused his
powers, and excommunicated someone wrongly.  It's something else to
say that his excommunication did not take effect, and the schism is
all in his imagination.  That means that acts of church discipline are
not legal tools, but acts whose validity is open to debate.  Generally
it has been liberal Catholics who have had problems with the Pope.
While they have often objected to church sanctions, generally they
have admitted that the sanctions exist.  You are now opening the door
to people simply ignoring papal decisions, claiming to be truly
obeying by disobeying, and to be in communion while excommunicated.
This would seem to be precisely the denial of Divine right to command
that you say defines schism.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20840
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: Re: quality of Catholic liturgy

Tim Rolfe writes:

   without active participation.  If you know the Latin, one really
   beautiful way to hear the Passion is it's being chanted by three
   deacons:  the Narrator chants in the middle baritone range, Jesus chants
   in the bass, and others directly quoted are handled by a high tenor.

I heard the Gregorian chant of the Passion on Good Friday.  In this
liturgy, our Lord is definitely *very* sad.  It's as if He has
resigned Himself to die for these poor pitiful creatures who are
killing Him.

The chant is *quite* beautiful.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20841
From: news@cbnewsk.att.com
Subject: Re: anger

>Paul Conditt writes:
>>In case you couldn't tell, I get *extremely* angry and upset when
>>I see things like this.  Instead of rationalizing our own fears and
>>phobias, we need to be reaching out to people with AIDS and other
>>socially unacceptable diseases.  Whether they got the disease through
>>their own actions or not is irrelevant.  They still need Jesus...

Aaron Bryce Cardenas) writes:
>The first issue you bring up is your anger.  It is "obvious"ly wrong to
>be angry (Gal 5:19-20) for any reason, especially *extremely* angry
>which is on par with hatred.  Jesus has every reason to be angry at us
>for putting him on the cross with our sin, yet his prayer was "forgive
>them Father, they know not what they do."  ...

I don't know why it is so obvious.  We are not speaking of acts of the 
flesh.  We are just speaking of emotions.  Emotions are not of themselves
moral or immoral, good or bad.  Emotions just are.  The first step is
not to label his emotion as good or bad or to numb ourselves so that
we hide our true feelings, it is to accept ourselves as we are, as God
accepts us.  It seems that Paul's anger he has accepted and channeled
it to a plea to all of us to refrain from passing judgement on those
afflicted with a disease and to reach out to others.  Give in?  Calling
his arguments foolish, belittling them to only quarrels, avoiding action
because of fear to give others a bad feeling, he's not forgiving?

Re-think it, Aaron.  Don't be quick to judge.  He has forgiven those with
AIDS, he has dealt with and taken responsibility for his feelings and made
appropriate choices for action on such feelings.  He has not given in to
his anger.

Joe Moore

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20842
From: abigail@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Shawn Abigail)
Subject: Re: ONLINE BIBLE as bible study

In <Apr.15.00.58.10.1993.28876@athos.rutgers.edu> eng10205@nusunix1.nus.sg (LING SIEW WEE) writes:

>Hello, I am about to embark on a bible study on ACTS. I have online
>bible software with me. I would like to know the the background of the
>authors of its various topics articles and about the author of the
>People's New Testament. I need to know how realible is the articles in
>the Online Bible software. Specifically (for your convenience) I want to
>know about the :


>               1. Darby Translation ( I have never heard of this one)

J.N. Darby was one of the founders of the "Plymouth Brethren" and an
early supporter of dispensationalism.  F.F. Bruce highly approved
of his translation.  He also translated the Bible into several other
languages.

>               2. Young's Literal Translation (I have also never heard
>of)

This was from the same fellow who did Young's Concordance, which was
a standard reference work, similar to Strong's concordance.

>               3. The realiability of the Hebrew/Greek Lexicon

I believe that these just follow standard reference works.

>               4. The authors (from which denomination etc) of the
>articles in the TOPICS modules.

Some are by Larry Pierce ("Brethren"), some are by Baptists, and I
think that Thompson (of chain reference fame) was Presbyterian)

>               5. The realiability of the Treasury of Scripture
>Knowlege ( as I have never heard of too) 

Another standard reference work that has been around for decades.
A new version was just released and is available through Christian
Book Distributers.

>               6. Who are the commentators, Scofield and B.W. Johnson
>who wrote the Scofield Reference Bible and the People's New Testament respectively 

C.I. Scofield was the creator of the Scofield Reference Bible.  For many
people (but not me), this is THE STUDY BIBLE.  The notes are strongly
dispensational.

>               7. The realiability of the Strong numbers.

These are probably the most accurate Strong's numbers available.


Shawn Abigail
abigail@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20843
From: cox@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (Sherman Cox)
Subject: Re: SDA Doctrinal Distinctives

healta@saturn.wwc.edu (TAMMY R HEALY) writes:

>In article <Mar.17.02.04.45.1993.23612@athos.rutgers.edu> jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher) writes:

>|There is a book provided by the SDA which is entitled "The Seventh Day
>|Adventist Church believes", or something like that. 

>The book is called "27 basic fundamental beliefs" or something very close to 
>that.  the number *IS* 27, not 30.  I have a copy at home (i'm away at 
>school.)

Actually the book is called "Seventh Day Adventists believe..."  And there
are 27 basica beliefs.  I believe it is printed by the Reveiew and
Herald Publishing Association.

--

"Competition is the law of the jungle.
 Cooperation is the law of civilization." -- Eldridge Cleaver

Sherman Cox, II		scox@uahcs2.cs.uah.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20844
From: stovall@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Steven Stovall)
Subject: Re: Rebuilding the Temple (was Re: Anybody out there?)

tcsteven@iaserv.b1.ingr.com (Todd Stevens) writes:

>Chuck Petch writes:

>>Now it appears that nothing stands in the way of rebuilding and resuming
>>sacrifices, as the Scriptures indicate will happen in the last days.
>>Although the Israeli government will give the permission to start, I think
>>it is the hand of God holding the project until He is ready to let it
>>happen. Brothers and sisters, the time is at hand. Our redemption is
>>drawing near. Look up!

>How is a scriptural Levitical priesthood resumed?  Are there any Jews who 
>can legitimately prove their Levite bloodline?

If I am not mistaken, the Jewish family names Cohen, Kahn, etc.
are considered to be legitimate indicators of descent from Aaron.
The family names Levi, Levene, etc. are considered to be legitimate
indicators of descent from Levi. The main legal issue is the purification
of the priesthood, which is supposed to involve finding the ashes of
of the red heifer last used for this purpose 2000 years ago.
_______________________________________________________________________________

steven stovall
stovall@exeter.cs.ucla.edu
(310) 825-7307

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20845
From: mdbs@ms.uky.edu (no name)
Subject: tuff to be a Christian?

bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:

>	I don't think most people understand what a Christian is.  It 
>is certainly not what I see a lot in churches.  Rather I think it 
>should be a way of life, and a total sacrafice of everything for God's 
>sake.  He loved us enough to die and save us so we should do the 

	Typical statement from an irrational and brainwashed person.
The bible was written by some male chavnist thousands of years ago
(as were all of the "holy" books). Follow the parts that you think are
suitable for modern life. Ignore the others. For heaven's (!) sake don't
take it literally.

>same.  Hey we can't do it, God himself inspires us to turn our lives 
>over to him.  That's tuff and most people don't want to do it, to be a 
				^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>real Christian would be something for the strong to persevere at.  But 

	So you think it is easy to be a Muslim? Or be a Buddhist?
The Buddha's commandments are 500 yrs older than Christ's and in
my opinion tougher to follow. Moreover the Buddha says that we are 
intrinsically good (as against Christ's "we are all sinners").
 Only we allow ourselves to be distracted. By meditating we can awaken 
ourselves (etc etc). Also there is no concept of God in Buddhism. 
(In my opinion you can be an Atheist and a Buddhist).
But to "awaken" yourself is no easy task. Can you stay away from eating meat?
Can you sit still and think of nothing (meditate) for sometime everyday?
Buddhists do (or are supposed to). Can you pray five times a day? 
Can you fast for a month every year (Ramzan). Are you willing
to give 1/6 th of your income as tithe? Muslims do. In fact I think 
Jesus was an ordinary man (just as Buddha and Mohamed) probably with a 
philosopy ahead of the times (where he lived). 
Considering the fact that Christianity is a young religion
(compared to Hindiusm, Judaism, Zorasterism, Buddihsm) it is also very
probable that the Bible is merely a collection of borrowed ideas.
(There was a good deal of trade between the eastern lands and the
middle east at the time of Christ).
And perhaps some more. But leave the crap in it out ("woman was created
after man, to be his helper" etc).
aras

	

>just like weight lifting or guitar playing, drums, whatever it takes 
>time.  We don't rush it in one day, Christianity is your whole life.  
>It is not going to church once a week, or helping poor people once in 
>a while.  We box everything into time units.  Such as work at this 
>time, sports, Tv, social life.  God is above these boxes and should be 

	When ever I turn on my TV there is this Pat Robertson and
other brain washers (Oh boy, what an act they put on!) with an
1-800 number to turn in your pledges.
God it seems is alive and well inside these boxes.

>carried with us into all these boxes that we have created for 
>ourselves.  	  


	Parting Question:
		Would you have become a Christian if you had not
been indoctrinated by your parents? You probably never learned about
any other religion to make a comparative study. And therefore I claim
you are brain washed.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20846
From:  (Phil Bowermaster)
Subject: C. S. Lewis is OK (was Ancient Books)

In article <Apr.14.03.07.58.1993.5438@athos.rutgers.edu>,
mayne@ds3.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne) wrote:

> 
> The last sentence is ironic, since so many readers of
> soc.religion.christian seem to not be embarrassed by apologists such as
> Josh McDowell and C.S. Lewis. The above also expresses a rather odd sense
> of history. What makes you think the masses in Aquinas' day, who were
> mostly illiterate, knew any more about rhetoric and logic than most people
> today? If writings from the period seem elevated consider that only the
> cream of the crop, so to speak, could read and write. If everyone in
> the medieval period "knew the rules" it was a matter of uncritically
> accepting what they were told.
> 
> Bill Mayne
> 
> [This may be unfair to Lewis.  The most prominent fallacy attributed
> to him is the "liar, lunatic, and lord".  As quoted by many
> Christians, this is a logical fallacy.  In its original context, it
> was not.  --clh]


Exactly. 

C. S. Lewis has taken a couple of pretty severe hits in this group lately.
First somebody was accusing him of being self-righteous and unconvincing.
Now we are told that we Christians should be embarrassed by him. (As well
as by Josh McDowell, about whom I have no comment, having never read his
work.)

Anyone who thinks that C. S. Lewis was self-righteous ought to read his
introduction to The Problem of Pain, which is his theodicy. In it, he
explains that he wanted to publish the book anonymously. Why? Although he
believed in the argument he was presenting, he did not want to seem to
presume to tell others how brave they should be in the face of their own
suffering. He did not want people to think that he was presenting himself
as some kind of model of fortitude, or that he was anything other than what
he considered himself to be -- "a great coward." 

OFM has adequately handled the question of whether we ought to be
embarrassed by Lewis' liar/lunatic/lord argument (which, by the way, is
part of a *much* bigger discourse.) I would just like to add that, far from
being embarrassed by Lewis, I am in a state of continual amazement at the
soundness and clarity of the arguments he presents. 

- Phil -

Hey, we're talking about the PHONE COMPANY, here. The Phone Company doesn't
have opinions on this kind of stuff. This is all me.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20847
From: brownli@ohsu.edu@ohsu.edu (Liane Brown)
Subject: DOCTRINE OF GOD

This is being posted as a general outline for your personal study of this 
doctrine:


                        THE DOCTRINE OF GOD


I.   THE PERSONS OF THE GODHEAD
     Of all of the doctrines of Scripture, this is the most
     important.  The Bible is pre-eminently a revelation of God. 
     Therefore, our first objective in studying the Bible should
     be to know God.
     I believe that the Bible teaches that there are Three
     Persons in the Godhead (Trinity):  God, the Father; God the
     Son--the Lord Jesus Christ; and God, the Holy Spirit.  I
     believe that they are individual Persons who are one in
     nature, meaning that They are identical in nature, each
     possessing the same divine attributes.  They are also
     equally worthy of our worship, our trust, and our obedience.
     Cf. Matt.28:19, 2 Cor.13:14; John 14:8,9,16,17.

II.  THE ATTRIBUTES, or CHARACTERISTICS, OF THE GODHEAD.
     A.  God's nature is revealed in the Name He has taken for
         Himself: Jehovah.  He is the living God, eternal, and
         unchanging.  He is without beginning, and without
         ending.  Cf. Isa.42:8.
     B.  God is a spirit.  Cf. John 4:24.
     C.  God is love.  Cf. 1 John 4:8,16.
         As such, He is gracious, merciful, good, faithful,
         patient, and full of lovingkindness.  Cf. Psa 89:1,2;
         Psa 103:8; Nahum 1:7.
     D.  But God is also holy and righteous.  He is absolutely
         without sin in His nature, and so is incapable of
         sinning in though, word, or action.  Cf. Ex. 15:11; Isa.
         6:3.
     E.  God is omnipresent (everywhere present at the same time
         in the completeness of His Person), omniscient (all
         knowing, knowing all things--the end from the beginning,
         infinitely wise), omnipotent (almighty, sovereign, with
         unlimited power over all creation).
         God is infinite in His presence, wisdom, and power.  It
         is my conviction that the work of the Lord in our day
         has become very man-centered, and that the people in our
         churches know very little about God.  I believe that the
         Lord's work needs to be God-centered, and that the
         people of God need to understand that God is sovereign
         in all things:  in the affairs of nations, in the lives
         of all people, and in the carrying out of His purposes
         regarding salvation.

III.     THE WORKS OF THE GODHEAD.
     A.  In creation
          All Three Persons of the Godhead were active in
          creating, and all Three are active in sustaining
          creation, and in ordering the course of human affairs
          (for nations as well as individual people) to the end
          of time.  Cf. Gen. 1:1,2; John 1:1-3; Col. 1:16-17;
          Heb. 1:3.
     B.  In salvation
         In order to understand salvation I believe that it is
         absolutely necessary to begin with God, not with man. 
         All three Persons of the Godhead have been, and are,
         active in salvation.
         1.  God, the Father
             Salvation originated with God.  The Members of the
             Godhead determined in eternity past that there would
             be salvation, the conditions under which people
             could and would be saved, and even who would be
             saved.  Election to salvation is recognized in
             Scripture as the work of  God, the Father.  Cf. Eph
             1:3-4; 2 Thess 2:13-14.
         2.  Christ, the Son of God
             The Lord Jesus Christ, through His birth by the
             virgin Mary, came to the earth to accomplish two
             important works:
             a.   He came as the final and complete revelation of
                  God, the Father.  Cf. Col 1:15; heb 1:1-3.
             b.   He came to provide salvation for all whom the
                  Father had chosen.  He did this by His death on
                  the Cross, by His bodily resurrection, and by
                  His present intercessory work in heaven.  The
                  work of salvation will be completed for us when
                  the Lord returns.  Cf. Rom 5:8-10; 1 Cor 15:3-
                  4; Heb 7:25, 1 John 3:2.
         3.  The Holy Spirit
             As the Author of Scripture, the theme of which is
             Christ and His redemptive work, the Holy Spirit is
             carrying out the redemptive plan of God in the
             following ways:
             a.   He convicts of sin. Cf. John 16:7-11
             b.   He regenerates (known in the Bible as the new
                  birth).  Cf. John 3:5-8.
             c.   He indwells each believer to fulfill the work
                  of sanctification.  Cf. John 14-16-17.
             d.   He seals every believer in Christ, thus making 
                  salvation secure.  Cf. Eph 1:13-14.
             e.   He baptizes every believer into the body of
                  Christ.  Cf. Cor. 12:13
             f.   He teaches every believer the truth of
                  Scripture. Cf. John 14:26.
             g.   He bestows spiritual gifts on the people of 
                  God for ministry.  (Cf. 1 Cor 12
             h.   He restrains sin.  Cf Gal 5:16-26.
             i.   He empowers for living and for service.  
                  Cf. Acts 1:8


----------------------------------
Liane Brown
(Internet) brownli@ohsu.edu
Portland Oregon

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20848
From: coffey@cptc2.neep.wisc.edu (Robert L. Coffey)
Subject: Re: Questions...

>4. Who exactly is "The Lord"?  "God" or Jesus Christ?

John 1:1 says (NKJV - the little green gideon someone forced on me one day)
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was 
God."  The Word refers to Jesus Christ so from this John declares that God
and Jesus are one.  Therefore, "The Lord" refers to both.  Also, David in the
Psalms refers to both God in heaven and the coming messiah as his Lord.  Once
again this refers to God and Jesus.

>5. What is the definition of a "Truly religious" person? Should he/she not 
   swear/curse?  Does it say anything about this in the bible?

Some of the most "truly religious" people I've known have not been Christians
and some of the greatest Christians I've known have been truly irreligious.
However, to answer your question:
The bible speaks of this in many places, A previous post to James is a good
one.  Another is Psalm 15:
"Lord, who may abide in your tabernacle?  Who may dwell in your holy hill?  He
who walks uprightly, and works righteousness, and speaks the truth in his heart
He who does not backbite with his tongue, nor does evil to his neighbor, nor
does he take up a reproach against his friend; I whose eyes a vile person is
despised, but he honors those who fear the Lord; he who swears to his own hurt
and does not change; He who does not put out money at usury, nor does he take
a bribe aginst the innocent.  He who does these things shall never be moved."

------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Coffey                    "Indeed the safest road to 
coffey@cptc1.neep.wisc.edu     Hell is the gradual one- the
(if you send mail to cptc2     gentle slope, soft underfoot,
 I'll never read it)           without sudden turnings, 
                               without milestones, without
                               signposts."  -- Screwtape
------------------------------------------------------------
The day Techwood meets the wrecking ball the world shall rejoice.
But I'll have lost a former home.  

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20849
From: Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca (Desiree Bradley)
Subject: Being right about messiahs

I must have missed the postings about Waco, David Koresh, and the Second
Coming.  How does one tell if a Second Coming is the real thing, unless the
person claiming to be IT is obviously insane?

I'm not saying that David Koresh is the Second Coming of Christ.  How could
somebody who breaks his word be the Second Coming?  Koresh did promise that
he would come out of his compound if only he was allowed to give a radio
broadcast.  He didn't.  Still it seems to me that he did fool some people.

And, from my meagre knowledge of the Bible, it seems that Christians have
been hard on the Jews of Christ's day for being cautious about accepting
somebody that their religious authorities didn't accept as the Messiah.

So I was surprised that nobody had discussed the difficulty of wanting to be
early to recognize the Second Coming while, at the same time, not wanting to
be credulously believing just anybody who claims to be God.

[Mark 13:21   And then if any one says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' 
or 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it. 
Mark 13:22   False Christs and false prophets will arise and show signs and 
wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. 
Mark 13:23   But take heed; I have told you all things beforehand. 
Mark 13:24    "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be 
darkened, and the moon will not give its light, 
Mark 13:25   and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in 
the heavens will be shaken. 
Mark 13:26   And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with 
great power and glory. 

My understanding of Jesus' answer is that, unlike his first coming,
which was veiled, the second coming will be quite unmistakeable.  He's
telling us not to be misled by the other things that have to happen
before his second coming -- the actual second coming will make his
power openly visible.

By the way, from Koresh's public statement it's not so clear to me
that he is claiming to be Christ.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20850
From: jdt@voodoo.ca.boeing.com (Jim Tomlinson (jimt II))
Subject: An agnostic's question

Pardon me if this is the wrong newsgroup.  I would describe myself as
an agnostic, in so far as I'm sure there is no single, universal
supreme being, but if there is one and it is just, we will surely be
judged on whether we lived good lives, striving to achieve that
goodness that is within the power of each of us.  Now, the
complication is that one of my best friends has become very
fundamentalist.  That would normally be a non-issue with me, but he
feels it is his responsibility to proselytize me (which I guess it is,
according to his faith).  This is a great strain to our friendship.  I
would have no problem if the subject didn't come up, but when it does,
the discussion quickly begins to offend both of us: he is offended
because I call into question his bedrock beliefs; I am offended by
what I feel is a subscription to superstition, rationalized by such
circular arguments as 'the Bible is God's word because He tells us in
the Bible that it is so.'  So my question is, how can I convince him
that this is a subject better left undiscussed, so we can preserve
what is (in all areas other than religious beliefs) a great
friendship?  How do I convince him that I am 'beyond saving' so he
won't try?  Thanks for any advice.

-- 
Jim Tomlinson                          206-865-6578  \  "falling snow
BoGART Project              jdt@voodoo.ca.boeing.com  \  excellent snow"
Boeing Computer Services   ...uunet!bcstec!voodoo!jdt  \  - Anderson/Gabriel

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20851
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Subject: Re: phone number of wycliffe translators UK


  I'm concerned about a recent posting about WBT/SIL.  I thought they'd
pretty much been denounced as a right-wing organization involved in
ideological manipulation and cultural interference, including Vietnam
and South America. A commission from Mexican Academia denounced them in
1979 as " a covert political and ideological institution used by the
U.S. govt as an instrument of control, regulation, penetration, espionage and
repression."
  My concern is that this group may be seen as acceptable and even
praiseworthy by readers of soc.religion.christian. It's important that
Christians don't immediately accept every "Christian" organization as
automatically above reproach.

                                                                  mp

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20852
From: ide!twelker@uunet.uu.net (Steve Twelker)
Subject: Esotericism

I'm compiling a bibliography on religious perspectives on esotericism,
hermeticism, gnosticism, mysticism, occultism, alchemy and magic, and
am interested in sources that others have found particularly interesting
and insightful.  I'm especially interested in medieval works, such as
_The Chemical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreutz_ and Arthurian legends.

Please feel free, too, to send personal opinions on any of the above,
pro or con or anywhere in between.  Thanks much.

Stephen Twelker
twelker@ide.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20853
From: kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Re: Certainty and Arrogance

In an earlier article, I explained that what many people find arrogant about
Christians is that some Christians profess absolute certianty about their
beliefs and doctrines.  That is, many Christians insist that they CANNOT have
made any mistakes when discovering their beliefs, which amounts to saying
that they are infallible.

Impicitly claiming to be infallible is pretty arrogant, most of us will
probably agree.

In short, the problem is that no matter how good your sources are, if any
part of your doctrines or beliefs rest on your own thinking and reasoning,
then those doctrines are suspect.  So long as your own brain is involved,
there is a possibility for error.  I summarised the problem by writing "There
is no way out of the loop."


Someone called `REXLEX' has claimed that there IS a way out of the loop, but
he did not bother to explain what it was, preferring instead to paraphrase
Sartre, ramble about Wittgenstein, and say that the conclusion of my argument
leads to relativism.

As I have explained to him before, you cannot reject an argument as false
because you dislike where it leads: the facts do not change just because
you dislike them.  `REXLEX' wrote:

>  I disagree with Dr Nancy's Sweetie's conclusion because if it is
> taken to fruition it leads to relativism which leads to dispair.

However, as any first-year philosophy student can explain, what `REXLEX' has
written does not constitute a refutation.  All he has said is that he does
not like what I wrote -- he has done nothing at all to dispute it.

 *

There were two sentences in `REXLEX's post that seemed relevant to the
point at hand:

>  There is such a thing as true truth and it is real, it can be
> experienced and it is verifiable.

I do not dispute that some truths can be verified through experience.  I
have, for example, direct experience of adding numbers.  I don't claim to
be infallible at it -- in fact I remember doing sums incorrectly -- but I
do claim that I have direct experience of reasoning about numbers.

However, once we go past experiencing things and start reasoning about
them, we are on much shakier ground.  That was the point of the earlier
article.  Human brains are infested with sin, and they can only be trusted
in very limited circumstances.


>  It is only because of God's own revelation that we can be absolute
> about a thing.

But how far does that get you?  Once God's revelation stops, and your own
reasoning begins, possibility for error appears.

For example, let's suppose that our modern Bible translations include a
perfect rendering of Jesus words at the Last Supper, and that Jesus said,
exactly, "This is my body."

We'll presume that what he said was totally without error and absolutely
true.  What can we be certain of?  Not much.

At the moment he stops speaking, and people start interpreting, the
possibility of error appears.  Did he mean that literally or not?  We do
not have any record that he elaborated on the words.  Was he thinking of
Tran- or Con- substatiation?   He didn't say.  We interpret this passage
using our brains; we think and reason and draw conclusions.  But we know
that our brains are not perfect: our thinking often leads us wrong.  (This
is something that most of us have direct experience of.  8-)

Why should anyone believe that his reasoning -- which he knows to be
fallible -- can lead him to perfect conclusions?

So, given the assumptions in this example, what we can be certain of is
that Jesus said "This is my body."  Beyond that, once we start making up
doctrines and using our brains to reason about what Christ revealed, we
get into trouble.

Unless you are infallible, there are very few things you can be certain
of.  To the extent that doctrines rely on fallible human thinking, they
cannot be certain.



That is the problem of seeming arrogant.  The non-Christians around us know
that human beings make mistakes, just as surely as we know it.  They do not
believe we are infallible, any more than we do.

When Christians speak as if they believe their own reasoning can never lead
them astray -- when we implicitly claim that we are infallible -- the non-
Christians around us rarely believe that implicit claim.  Witnessing is
hardly going to work when the person you are talking to believes that you
are either too foolish to recognise your own limits, or intentionally trying
to cover them up.

I think it would be far better to say what things we are certain of and what
things we are only "very confident" of.  For example, we might say that we
know our sin, for recognising sin is something we directly experience.  But
other things, whether based on reasoning from Scripture or extra-Biblical
thinking, should not be labled as infallible: we should say that we are
very confident of them, and be ready to explain our reasoning.

But, so far as I am aware, none of us is infallible -- speaking or acting
as if our thinking is flawless is ridiculous.

 *

`REXLEX' suggested that people read _He is There and He is Not Silent_, by
Francis Schaeffer.  I didn't think very highly of it, but I think that
Mr Schaeffer is grossly overrated by many Evangelical Christians.  Somebody
else might like it, though, so don't let my opinion stop you from reading it.

If someone is interested in my opinion, I'd suggest _On Certainty_, by
Ludwig Wittgenstein.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu
"If any substantial number of  [ talk.religion.misc ]  readers read some
 Wittgenstein, 60% of the postings would disappear.  (If they *understood*
 some Wittgenstein, 98% would disappear. :-))" -- Michael L Siemon

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20854
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5

All of the arguments concerning the Sabbath ought to make the point
pretty clear - anyone outside of the Catholic or Orthodox orAnglican or
Monophysite churches ourght to worship on Saturday if they are really
sola scriptura.  Otherwise, they are following a law put into effect by
the Church, and only the above Chruches really recognize any power of
the Chruch to do so.

Andy Byler

[You will note that nothing in the FAQ said anything about the Church
establishing or changing a law.  The argument against the Sabbath is
that it is part of the ceremonial law, and like the rest of the
ceremonial law is not binding on Christians.  This argument is based
on Paul's letters, Acts, and in a more general sense, Jesus'
teachings.  Further, most people argue that Scripture shows worship
occuring on Sunday, and Paul endorsing it.  I understand that these
points are disputed, and do not want to go around the dispute one more
time.  The point I'm making here is not that these arguments are
right, but that the backing they claim is Scripture.

Accepting the principle of "sola scriptura" does not commit us to
obeying the entire Jewish Law.  Acts 15 and Paul's letters are quite
clear on that.  I think even the SDA's accept it.  The disagreement is
on where the Bible would have us place the line.

By the way, Protestants do give authority to the church, in matters
that are not dictated by God.  That's why churches are free to
determine their own liturgies, church polity, etc.  If you accept that
the Sabbath is not binding on Christians, then the day of worship
falls into the category of items on which individual Christians or
(since worship is by its nature a group activity) churches are free to
decide.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20855
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: Thinking about heaven

James Sledd asks:

 1. What is the nature of eternal life?
 2. How can we as mortals locked into space-time conceive of it?
 2a. If the best we can do is metaphor/analogy, then what is the
 best metaphor?

C S Lewis's essay THE WEIGHT OF GLORY deals with this question. I
recommend it enthusiastically. You might also read the chapter on
"Heaven" in his book THE PROBLEM OF PAIN. He gives a fictional
treatment in his book THE GREAT DIVORCE. I have found all of these
very helpful.

You might also be helped by the treatment in Dante's DIVINE COMEDY.
Heaven occupies the last third of the poem, but I cannot imagine
reading it other than from the beginning. I urge you to use the
translation by Dorothy L Sayers, available from Penguin Paperbacks.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20856
From: jemurray@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John E Murray)
Subject: quality of Catholic liturgy

I appreciated the follow-ups and replies to my earlier query.  One reply, which
I have lost, suggested several parishes in New York that have good Masses, one 
of which was Corpus Christi in downtown Manhattan.  By coincidence, last week's
_America_, the national Jesuit magazine, carried an interview with Fr. Myles 
Bourke, Corpus Christi's pastor emeritus.  Fr. Bourke also directed the NT 
translation in the New American Bible.  He noted "...certain practices have 
been introduced into the Mass in such a manner that an atmosphere of banality, 
and sometimes of hilarity, has trivialized the liturgy."  I note that at my 
parents' parish on Easter, helium filled balloons were distributed at the 
offertory, apparently to aid in understanding the word "risen".  This was not a 
kiddie mass, either, but the well-attended 11:00 Mass.

I wanted to note the generous spirit behind the replies.  This newsgroup as a
whole offers generally moderate (perhaps because it's moderated) conversation
on topics that often lead people to extreme behavior (including myself).
Sometimes people do go over the top, but the remarkable thing is how that is
the exception, I think.  Benefits of the doubt are generally granted.  It seems
so...Christian?

John Murray

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20857
From: ata@hfsi.hfsi.com ( John Ata)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

In article <Apr.21.03.26.43.1993.1373@geneva.rutgers.edu> parkin@Eng.Sun.COM writes:

>desperately wanted the Jewish people to accept him as the Messiah.  If
>the crucification was the will of God how could Jesus pray that this
>cup pass from him.  Was this out of weakness.  NEVER.  Many men and
>women have given their lives for their country or other noble causes.
>Is Jesus less than these.  No he is not.  He knew the crucification
>was NOT the will of GOD.  God's will was that the Jewish people accept
>Jesus as the Messiah and that the kingdom of Heaven be established on
>the earth with Jesus as it's head. (Just like the Jewish people
>expected). If this had happened 2000 years ago can you imagine what
	.
	.
	.

Why do you assume that Jesus's plea to His Father "to let this cup
pass from Him", was merely a plea to escape death?  When I look at
Jesus in the garden, I see a Man-God, who all His life had had the
presense of His Father with Him.  As a result, He knew every
detail about His death long before the Agony in the Garden.  But
as that hour approached, He felt abandoned by His Father, His
presense diminishing with each passing minute.  In addition, it
was brought more and more to Jesus's attention (the betrayal of
Judas was probably a big impact) that His suffering would be to no
avail for many people, especially those who would reject Him, not
only then but in the future.  I truly believe that the majority of
Jesus's suffering was mental and spiritual, while the physical
portion was only the tip of the iceburg.

BTW, we know from John's account that Jesus *shunned* becomming an earthly
king.  From John:

JOH 6:14    After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did, they
            began to say, "Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the
            world."
JOH 6:15    Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by
            force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.

This does not seem like a man who would regret not becoming an
earthly king.  No, Jesus knew His mission was to redeem all (Jew &
Gentile) people and establish His kingdom in the hearts of those
who would believe.  This was utterly mistaken, much to Jesus's
dismay, as an aspiration to some earthly kingdom.  But He knew
what His Father's will was and followed it obediently even in the
darkness of His Passion.

-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20858
From: salaris@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrabbits)
Subject: Re: Hell_2:  Black Sabbath

In article <Apr.22.00.57.03.1993.2118@geneva.rutgers.edu>, jprzybyl@skidmore.edu (jennifer przybylinski) writes:
> Hey...
> 
> I may be wrong, but wasn't Jeff Fenholt part of Black Sabbath?  He's a
> MAJOR brother in Christ now.  He totally changed his life around, and
> he and his wife go on tours singing, witnessing, and spreading the
> gospel for Christ.  I may be wrong about Black Sabbath, but I know he
> was in a similar band if it wasn't that particular group...
> 

Jeff Fenholt claims to have once been a roadie for Black Sabbath.
He was never ever a musician in the band.  He was in St. Louis several
months back.  The poster I saw at the Christian bookstore I frequent
really turned me off.  It was addressed to all "Homosexuals, prostitutes,
drug addicts, alcoholics, and headbangers..." or something like that.

Well, if I showed up with my long hair and black leather jacket I
would have felt a little pre-judged.  As a Orthodox Christian, and
a "headbanger" I was slightly insulted at being lumped together with
drug addicts and alcoholics.  Oh yes, I suppose since I drink a good
German beer now and then that makes me an alcoholic.  NOT!


--
Steven C. Salaris                We're...a lot more dangerous than 2 Live Crew
salaris@carcs1.wustl.edu         and their stupid use of foul language because
				 we have ideas.  We have a philosophy.
					      Geoff Tate -- Queensryche

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20859
From: rayssd!esther@uunet.uu.net (Esther A. Paris)
Subject: harrassed at work, could use some prayers

My news feed is broken and I haven't received any new news in 243 hours
(more than 10 days).  So, if you reply to this, please send private
email to the address esther@demand.ed.ray.com -- I have set the
Reply-To line to have that address but I don't know if it will work.

[It depends upon the software, but generally I wouldn't expect
reply-to to cause an email cc to be sent in addition to a posting.
You'll probably need to do something specific, which will vary
depending upon your news software.  --clh]

At any rate, I need some support.  (Much thanks to Jayne K who is
already supporting me with kind words and prayers!)

I've been working at this company for eight years in various
engineering jobs.  I'm female.  Yesterday I counted and realized that
on seven different occasions I've been sexually harrassed at this
company.  Seven times. Eight years. Yesterday was the most recent one;
someone left an X-rated photo of a nude woman in my desk drawer.

I'm really upset by this.  I suppose it could have been worse -- it
could have been a man having sex with a sheep or something.

There was no note.  I do not know if it was:

	- someone's idea of an innocent joke, that went awry
	- someone's sick idea of flirting
	- an act of emotional terrorism (that worked!)

I dreaded coming back to work today.  What if my boss comes in to ask
me some kind of question, I don't know the answer so I take a military
specification down off from my shelf to look up the answer, and out
falls a picture of a man having sex with a sheep?  I generally have a
Bible on my desk for occasional inspiration; what if I open it up to
Corinthians and find a picture a la the North American Man Boy Love
Association?  I want to throw up just thinking about this stuff.

I can lock up my desk, but I can't lock up every book I have in the
office.  I can't trust that someone won't shove something into my
briefcase or my coat pocket when I'm not looking so that I go home to
find such a picture, or a threat, or a raunchy note about what someone
wants to do to my body.

To make it worse, the entire department went out to lunch yesterday to
treat our marvelous secretary to lunch.  The appointed hour for
leaving was 11:30.  I was working in another building but wanted to go
to the lunch.  So I returned at 11:25, only to find that ever single
person had already left for lunch.  They left at 11:15 or so.  No one
could be bothered to call me at the other building, even though my
number was posted.  So, I came back to a department that looked like a
neutron bomb had gone off and I was the sole survivor.  This, despite
the fact that everyone knew how bad I felt about this naked woman being
left in my desk drawer.

I need some prayers --- I can't stop crying. I am so deeply wounded
that it's ridiculous.

I feel like I'm some kind of sub-human piece of garbage for people to
reduce me and my sisters to simply sex organs and the sex act.  I feel
like I'm a sub-human piece of garbage that's not worthy of a simple
phone call saying "We're leaving for Mary's lunch a little early so
that Bob can get back for a big 1:00 meeting..."

Please pray that my resentments will either go away, or be miraculously
turned into something positive.  Please pray that whoever is torturing
me so will stop, and find some healing for him- or herself. Please pray
for my being healed from this latest wound (which falls on top of a
whole slew of other wounds...).  Please pray that I can find a new job
in a place where the corporate culture does its best to prevent such
harrassment from happening in the first place, and swiftly acts
appropriately when something occurs despite its best precautions. (This
company, in my opinion, has pretty words about how sexual harrassment
isn't tolerated but when you get right down to it, how is it that one
female engineer can be touched inappropriately, left obsene or
threatening notes, left obscene pictures, spoken to lewdly, etc, seven
times in eight years in the same place?  Pretty words from the company
do me no good when I'm terrified or healing from the latest assault.)

And please pray that I don't turn into an automaton because of this.
That's my bad habit: "ignore it and it will go away", "you're not worth
anyone's time so don't go talking to anyone about this", "you're right,
you are a sub-human piece of garbage and deserve to be treated this
way", "you are just an object", "you prostitute your mind to this
company so why can't others expect you to prostitute your body there as
well?", "what makes you think women aren't just possessions, and
nothing more than sex organs and their ability to perform the sex act?"
This is the kind of thinking that can catapault one into a major
depressive episode; please pray that these thoughts don't come into
my head and stay there, triggering depression.

Please pray that this latest trauma doesn't come between me and God.
In a way, a wound like this is an invitation to a deeper connection to
God, and it's also a possible trigger for a spiritual crisis that can
separate one mentally from God.  (I know God doesn't drop me from his
loving hand, but it's awfully easy for me to walk to the edge of the
hand, look down, think I'm falling and forget that God's still holding
on to me.)

Although this probably isn't entirely appropriate for this newsgroup,
I really can use the kind of loving support you all provide.  For this
reason I hope good Mr. Moderator allows me this latest indulgence.  After
all, he's allowed me the thermometer note, and a few other off-the-wall
topics.

Thanks in advance to everyone for your support and prayers.  Peace to you,
Esther

-- 
Esther Paris, Raytheon Equipment Div., Marlboro, MA   esther@demand.ed.ray.com
"In his esteem, nothing that was large enough to please, was too small
for the fingers." -- John Kitto, "The Lost Senses", 1848

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20860
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: Re: SSPX schism ?

In article <Apr.20.03.03.06.1993.3836@geneva.rutgers.edu> shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker) writes:

   You ask where we are.  I would echo that question.  I'm not trying to be
   contentious.  But assuming that the Pope has universal jurisdiction
   and authority, what authority do you rely upon for your decisions?
   What prevents me from choosing ANY doctrine I like and saying that
   Papal disagreement is an error that will be resolved in time?
   This is especially true, since Councils of Bishops have basically
   stood by the Pope.

The ultimate question is the traditional theology of the Church.  This
is the *only* thing that it is possible to resist a Pope for: his
departure from the traditional doctrine of the Church.  If commands
from *any* authority conflict with Tradition, the commands must be
disobeyed.

My own view on this is that this conflict could only happen in a major
way.  God would never allow a hair-splitting situation to develop; it
would be too complex for people to figure out.  I don't view the
present situation in the Church as anything extremely complicated.
Run through a list of what has happened in the last 30 years in the
Catholic Church, and any impartial observer will be aghast.

   It appears that much of what lies at the heart of this matter is
   disagreements over what is tradition and Tradition, and also over
   authority and discipline.  

The problems stem from a general widespread ignorance of the Catholic
Faith, in my opinion.  Most Catholics know about zilch about the
Catholic Faith; this leaves them wide open for destruction by erring
bishops.  It's basically the Reformation part II.

There is not even a question in my mind that in some respects the
shards of the Catholic Church are currently being trampled upon by the
Catholic hierarchy.  I could go on listing shocking things for an
hour, probably.

Take the situation in Campos, Brazil, for example.  I'm reading a book
on what happened there after Vatican Council II.  The bishop, Antonio
de Castro-Mayer, never introduced all the changes that followed in the
wake of Vatican II.  He kept the traditional Mass, the same old
catechisms, etc.  He made sure the people knew their faith, the
Catholic theology of obedience, what Modernism was, etc.  He
innoculated the people against what was coming.

Well, one day the order came from Rome for his retirement.  It came
when the Pope was sick.  Bishop de Castro-Mayer waited until the Pope
recovered, then inquired whether this command was what the Pope really
wanted, or something that some Liberal had commanded in his absence.
The Pope confirmed the decision.  So the good bishop retired.

The injustice that followed was completely incredible.  A new bishop
was installed.  He proceeded to expel most of bishop de Castro-Mayer's
clergy from their churches, because they refused to celebrate the New
Mass.  The new bishop would visit a parish, and celebrate a New Mass.
The people would promptly walk out of the church en masse.  The bishop
was *enraged* by this.  He usually resorted to enlisting the help of
the secular authorities to eject the priest from the church.  The
priests would just start building new churches; the people were
completely behind them.  The old parishes had the New Mass, as the
bishop desired -- and virtually no parishioners.

The prime motivation for all this was completely illegal, according to
canon law.  No priest can be penalized in any way for saying the
traditional Mass, because of legislation enacted by Pope Saint Pius V.
Nor is there any obligation to say the New Mass.

During all this process, the people of Campos, not just private
individuals, but including civil authorities, were constantly sending
petitions and letters to Rome to do something about the new Modernist
bishop.  NOTHING was ever done; no help ever arrived from Rome.
Eventually 37 priests were kicked out, and about 40,000 people.

   My question to the supporters of SSPX is this:

	 Is there ANY way that your positions with respect to church reforms
	 could change and be conformed to those of the Pope? (assuming that
	 the Pope's position does not change and that the leaders of SSPX
	 don't jointly make such  choice.)

   If not, this appears to be claiming infallible teaching authority.
   If I adopt the view that "I'm NOT wrong, I CAN'T be wrong, and
   there's NO WAY I'll change my mind, YOU must change yours", that
   I've either left the Catholic Church or it has left me.

If the Pope defines certain things ex cathedra, that would be the end
of the controversy.  That process is all very well understood in
Catholic theology, and anyone who doesn't go along with it is an
instant non-Catholic.

The problem here is that people do not appreciate what is going on in
the Catholic world.  If they knew the Faith, and what our bishops are
doing, they would be shocked!

   We sould argue from now until the Second Coming about what the "real"
   traditional teaching of the Church is.  If this were a simple matter
   East and West would not have been separated for over 900 years.

This isn't the case in the Catholic Church.  There is a massive body
of traditional teaching.  The Popes of the last 150 years are
especially relevant.  There is no question at all what the traditional
doctrine is.

   I thought that the teaching magisterieum of the church did not allow
   error in teachings regarding faith and morals even in the short term.`
   I may be wrong here, I'm not Roman Catholic. :-)

That's heresy, more or less.  Although they have done a great job
since the Reformation, the last 30 years have seen so many errors
spread that it's pitiful.

Infallibility rests in the Pope, and in the Church as a whole.  In the
short term, a Pope, or large sections of the Church can go astray.  In
fact, that's what usually happens during a major heresy: large
sections of the Church go astray.  (The Pope historically has been
much more reliable.)  Everything will always come back in the long
run.

   What would be the effect of a Pope making an ex cathedra statement
   regarding the SSPX situation?  Would it be honored?  If not, how
   do you get around the formal doctrine of infallibility?
   Again, I'm not trying to be contentions, I'm trying to understand.
   Since I'm Orthodox, I've got no real vested interest in the outcome,
   one way or the other.

Yes, it would be honored.  Infallibility is infallibility.  But what
is he going to define?  That the New Mass is a better expression of
the Catholic Faith than the old?  That sex education in the Catholic
schools is wonderful?  That all religions are wonderful except for
that professed by the Popes prior to Vatican II?

   It does if the command was legitimate.  SSPX does not view the
   Pope's commands as legitimate.  Why?  This is a VERY slippery slope.

Not really; start studying the major Catholic theologians of the last
300 years.  Everything is very well spelled out.  The West excels at
critical thought, remember?  That's what Catholic theologians have
been busy at for centuries.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20861
From: news@cbnewsk.att.com
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?

In article <Apr.16.23.15.03.1993.1820@geneva.rutgers.edu> mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:
>In article <Apr.14.03.07.21.1993.5402@athos.rutgers.edu> randerso@acad1.sahs.uth.tmc.edu (Robert Anderson) writes:
>>I would like to get your opinions on this: when exactly does an engaged
>>couple become "married" in God's eyes? 
>
>Not if they are unwilling to go through a public marriage ceremony,
>nor if they say they are willing but have not actually done so.
>
>Let's distinguish _real_ logistical problems (like being stranded on a
>desert island) from _excuses_ (such as waiting for so-and-so's brother
>to come back from being in the army so he can be in the ceremony)...

I disagree.  People marry each other.  When they commit fully to each
other as life partners, they are married.  The ceremony may assist in
emphasizing the depth of such a commitment, but is of itself nothing.
God knows our hearts.  He knows when two have committed themselves to
be one, he knows the fears and delusions we have that keep us from fully
giving ourselves to another.  The way I see it, you'd have to be living
together in a marriage for somewhere between 10 and 100 years before anyone
knew if a marriage really existed, but God knows.  I don't think God keeps
a scorebook.

Joe Moore

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20862
From: wagner@grace.math.uh.edu (David Wagner)
Subject: Re: Certainty and Arrogance

"Darren" == Dr Nancy's Sweetie <kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu> writes:

Darren> In an earlier article, I explained that what many people find
Darren> arrogant about Christians is that some Christians profess
Darren> absolute certainty about their beliefs and doctrines.

and

Darren> In short, the problem is that no matter how good your sources
Darren> are, if any part of your doctrines or beliefs rest on your own
Darren> thinking and reasoning, then those doctrines are suspect.

The point that Darren raises is a very Lutheran viewpoint.  
While reason is a gift from God, it is also infected by sin.
Yet we do not reject reason entirely--and neither, I think, 
does Darren.  We need reason, as Darren himself has pointed
out, to comprehend God's revelation of himself in the Bible.
But reason alone is not sufficient to comprehend and believe
the Word.  We need, first and foremost, faith.  For "the sinful
mind is hostile to God.  It does not submit to God's law,
*nor can it do so*"  (Romans 8:7).

Luther accepted Scripture as the sole means of revelation
("Sola Scriptura"), but accepted the necessity of the use
of reason (with faith) in comprehending that revelation.
Yet Luther also said, regarding baptism, "But mad reason
rushes forth, and, because Baptism is not dazzling like
the works which we do, regards it as worthless." (Large
Catechism, Fourth part, Baptism).  To make matters more
complicated, Luther was the sort of theologian that many 
people would describe as an `absolutist'.  I've seen him 
described as a `take no prisoners' theologian.

We might conclude, given these observations, that Luther
was inconsistent or mad.  And surely at least some have
come to that conclusion.  But it might be useful to
recall that Jesus was also called mad.  And Peter felt
compelled to defend himself and the apostles against
a charge of drunkenness on Pentecost.  So we as Christians
ought to be careful about rejecting Luther (or others) 
as mad.  Rather, we should imitate the Bereans, who
examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul
said was true (Acts 17:11).

The basis for the confidence with which Luther, Peter, Paul, and many
others preached the gospel was not just reason, but faith and the Holy
Spirit.  This is not faith divorced from reason, but a faith that
guides, informs, and uses reason.  The Spirit enables us to know the
truth and to proclaim it boldly.  God does not want us to preach the
message that "I think that Jesus might have risen from the dead" but
rather "I know that my redeemer lives!"  (Job 19:25).  The Christian
does not side with Pilate in saying "What is truth?" but rather
follows Christ, who said, "In fact, for this reason I was born, and
for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth.  Everyone on
the side of truth listens to me" (John 18:37).

We can know the truth because God has promised us that we can
know the truth.  Jesus said, "If you hold to my teachings,
you are really my disciples.  Then you will know the truth,
and the truth will set you free" (John 8:31,32).  The Proverbs
urge us "Buy the truth, and do not sell it." (Pr 23:23).
The Psalmist prayed "Do not snatch to word of truth from my mouth"
(Ps 119:43).  Evidently he believed that the word of truth
was in fact `in his mouth'.  

Yet we do indeed appear arrogant if our claim to the truth
is motivated by self-glorification.  But if we present the
truth as the teachings of Scripture, revealed by the 
Spirit, and not our own invention, and if we stand ready
to be proved wrong on the basis of Scripture, as Luther
did, then we are not arrogant, but humble.  We should humbly
trust in God's promise of truth, just as we trust in his
promise of forgiveness.

REXLEX> It is only because of God's own revelation that we can be 
REXLEX> absolute about a thing.

Darren> But how far does that get you?  Once God's revelation stops,
Darren> and your own reasoning begins, possibility for error appears.

I agree that we must make a distinction between the clear teachings
of Scripture, and the products of our own reason--even when such
reasoning is based on Scripture.  However I think I would draw
the line of distinction more `reasonably'  :-)  and less `academically'
than you would.

Darren> For example, let's suppose that our modern Bible translations
Darren> include a perfect rendering of Jesus words at the Last Supper,
Darren> and that Jesus said, exactly, "This is my body."

Darren> We'll presume that what he said was totally without error and
Darren> absolutely true.  What can we be certain of?  Not much.

Darren> At the moment he stops speaking, and people start
Darren> interpreting, the possibility of error appears.  Did he mean
Darren> that literally or not?  We do not have any record that he
Darren> elaborated on the words.  Was he thinking of Tran- or Con-
Darren> substantiation?  He didn't say. 

Darren is almost at the point of making a very Lutheran statement
about the Lord's supper.  The Lutheran approach is to say
that if Jesus said, "This is my body," then that is what we
should believe.  Other interpretations are rejected simply because
they are not taught in Scripture.

Recall that Jesus' words do not stand alone on this subject.  We also
have Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34,--in which he passed on to
us, what he received from the Lord.  In particular he said, "For
whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the
Lord's death until he comes."  By these words we should believe that
the bread that we eat in the Lord's Supper really is bread (as well as
the Lord's body)--as our senses in fact tell us.  Does this *prove*
that tran-substantiation is false?  I suppose someone could say that
Paul spoke metaphorically of the Lord's body as bread, simply because
that is the way the body appears when we eat it.  But this thought is
found nowhere in Scripture.  So we reject it.  Thus the primary
reason for rejecting tran-substantiation is not that we can
prove it false, but that it is simply not found in Scripture.

[side remark]
I've been told that the Lutheran doctrine on real presence is
con-substantiation.  But it has been non-Lutherans who have told
me this.  We tend not to use the word.  I almost think that this
is used more by professors of comparative religion, who need labels
to compare Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed teachings on the Lord's
Supper.  But almost every church wants to call their own teaching
"real presence" because that was the traditional teaching of 
the church.
[end side remark]

Darren> When Christians speak as if they believe their own reasoning
Darren> can never lead them astray -- when we implicitly claim that we
Darren> are infallible -- the non- Christians around us rarely believe
Darren> that implicit claim.  Witnessing is hardly going to work when
Darren> the person you are talking to believes that you are either too
Darren> foolish to recognise your own limits, or intentionally trying
Darren> to cover them up.

This is precisely why Christians should not rely on rationalizations
in their witnessing.  It is far better to take the approach,
"I'd like to show you what Scripture says.  You decide for 
yourself whether to believe it or not."

Darren> `REXLEX' suggested that people read _He is There and He is Not
Darren> Silent_, by Francis Schaeffer.  I didn't think very highly of
Darren> it, but I think that Mr Schaeffer is grossly overrated by many
Darren> Evangelical Christians.  Somebody else might like it, though,
Darren> so don't let my opinion stop you from reading it.

Darren> If someone is interested in my opinion, I'd suggest _On
Darren> Certainty_, by Ludwig Wittgenstein.

As long as we're trading references, I'd like to suggest Dr. Siegbert
Becker's paperback, "The Foolishness of God: The place of reason
in Lutheran theology," published by Northwestern Publishing House.
This book was based on Becker's doctoral thesis at the University
of Chicago.

David Wagner			"Not by might, nor by power,
a confessional Lutheran		    but by my Spirit,"
					says the LORD Almighty.
				Zechariah 4:6.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20863
From: drt@athena.mit.edu (David R Tucker)
Subject: Re: Question: Jesus alone, Oneness

In article <Apr.21.03.26.22.1993.1355@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
Bjorn.B.Larsen@delab.sintef.no (A 369) writes:
|> Can anybody tell me the basic reasons for holding a belief that there
|> is only Jesus? And vice versa: The foundations for the Trinity?
|> 
|> Bjorn

I'd love to know how "Jesus only" proponents would answer questions like:

-Who is this "Father" Jesus keeps referring to? Why does He call Himself "the
Son"?

-Why does He pray to the Father, and not to himself?

-Why does He emphasize that he does his Father's will, and not his own?  If He
 was doing his own will, what kind of example is that?  Should we follow it?

-When He says he has to return to the Father, who is He going to?

-When He says he does this in order that the Comforter, the Holy Spirit might
 come, who might that be?

-If He claims that the coming of the Holy Spirit is such a blessing that it's
 worth His leaving us and returning to the Father, what can that mean if there
 is no Holy Spirit?

-Why doesn't the best known Christian prayer begin "Our Saviour, who art in
 heaven," rather than "Our Father?"

Do they have answers to these questions that are even plausible?

(Further entertaining queries are left as an exercise to the reader.)

-drt

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|David R. Tucker		KG2S		     drt@athena.mit.edu|
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[There may be some misunderstanding over terms here.  I believe "Jesus
only" originally was in the context of baptism.  These are folks who
believe that baptism should be done with a formula mentioning only
Jesus, rather than Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  This may have
doctrinal implications, but as far as I know it does not mean that
these folks deny the existence or divinity of the Father.  I'm not the
right one to describe this theology, and in fact I think there may be
several, including what would classically be called monophysite or
Arian (two rather different views), as well as some who have beliefs
that are probably consistent with Trinitarian standards, but who won't
use Trinitarian language because they misunderstand it or simply
because it is not Biblical.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20864
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse

For the Lord Himself will descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice
of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will
rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together
to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20865
From: mchamberland@violet.uwaterloo.ca (Marc Chamberland)
Subject: Re: God-shaped hole (was Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")

In article <Apr.20.03.03.15.1993.3845@geneva.rutgers.edu>, fraseraj@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Andrew J Fraser) writes:
> [Several people were involved in trying to figure out who first used
> the phrase "God-shaped hole".  --clh]
> 
> "There is a God shaped vacuum in all of us" (or something to that effect) is
> generally attributed to Blaise Pascal.

I believe this is a just another of way of expressing the basic truth
"All things were created by him and FOR him." (emphasis mine) 
Col. 1:16 , Rev. 4:11. If you and I have been created for God, naturally
there will be a vacuum if God is not our all and all. In fact,
the first chapter of Collosians brings out this status of Christ, that
He should have the preeminence. When you life is alligned with Him,
and you do His will, then the vacuum is filled.

Marc Chamberland
mchamberland@violet.uwaterloo.ca

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20866
From: MNHCC@cunyvm.bitnet (Marty Helgesen)
Subject: RADIO FREE THULCANDRA  (was Dungeons & Dragons: An author's view

There was a recent discussion of Dungeons and Dragons and other role
playing games.  Since there is a lot of crossover between gamers and
science fiction and fantasy fans, I will mention that I am the editor
and publisher of RADIO FREE THULCANRA, a Christian-oriented science
fiction fanzine.  It is not a Christian magazine with a special
interest in science fiction.  It is a science fiction fanzine with a
special interest in Christianity.  Gaming is not a major topic of
discussion but it has come up in some letters.  (No, there are no
arguments about whether D&D is satanic.  People who think it is are
not likely to be reading RFT.)  Anyway, I am now working on the April
issue.  I will send a sample copy to any reader of
soc.religion.christian who requests it.  It is printed on paper, so
requests should include a snail-mail address.
-------
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm   Internet: mnhcc@cunyvm.cuny.edu

"What if there were no such thing as a hypothetical situation?"

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20867
From: sfp@lemur.cit.cornell.edu (Sheila Patterson)
Subject: Re: Being right about messiahs

Jesus isn't God ? When Jesus returns some people may miss Him ?  What version of
the Bible do you read Mike ?

Jesus is God incarnate (in flesh) . Jesus said, 'I and the Father are one.' 
Jesus was taken up to heaven after His 40 day post-resurrection stint and the
angels who were there assured the apostles that Jesus would return the same way
and that everyone will see the coming. That's why Jesus warned that many would
come claiming to be Him but that we would know when Jesus actually returns. 

These are two very large parts of my faith and you definitely hit a nerve :-)

-Sheila Patterson, CIT CR-Technical Support 
 Cornell University
 Ithaca, NY

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20868
From: littlejs@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Jeffrey S Little)
Subject: Re: Revelations - BABYLON?

In article <Apr.21.03.25.41.1993.1322@geneva.rutgers.edu>  
JBUDDENBERG@vax.cns.muskingum.edu (Jimmy Buddenberg) writes:
> 
> Hello all.  We are doing a bible study (at my college) on Revelations.  We
> have been doing pretty good as far as getting some sort of reasonable
> interpretation.  We are now on chapters 17 and 18 which talk about the
> woman on the beast and the fall of Babylon.  I believe the beast is the
> Antichrist (some may differ but it seems obvious) and the woman represents
> Babylon which stands for Rome or the Roman Catholic Church.  What are some
> views on this interpretation?  Is the falling Babylon in chapter 18 the same
> Babylon in as in chapter 17?  The Catholic church?
> Hate to step on toes.
> thanks

An interesting interpretation of Revelation 17 and 18 has been given by  
evangelist David Wilkerson.  I am not saying that I totally agree with his  
interpretation, but it is certainly believable and good food for thought.  He  
interprets the Babylon of Revelation 17-18 as being none other than the good  
old U. S. of A.  That's right, America.  He supports his claim in several ways.   
The Babylon of Revelation is THE world leader in trade and commerce, and the  
WHOLE WORLD wept when Babylon fell.  The American dollar, despite the Japanese  
success of the 20th century, is STILL the most sought after currency in the  
world.  If the U.S. were destroyed, wouldn't the whole world mourn?  The bible  
also talks about Babylon being a home of harlots, sin, and adultery (I am  
paraphrasing, of course).  Babylon's sin affected, or should I say, infected,  
the whole world.  It doesn't take much looking to see that the U.S. is in a  
state of moral decay.  Hasn't the American culture and Hollywood spread the "do  
it if it feels good" mentality all over the world.  I think, though, that what  
Mr. Wilkerson uses as his strongest argument is the fact that Revelation calls  
Babylon "Babylon the Great" and portrays it as the most powerful nation on  
earth.  No matter how dissatisfied you are with the state of our country, I  
don't think you would have too much trouble agreeing that the U.S. is STILL the  
most powerful nation on earth.

Again, this interpretation is not NECESSARILY my own, but I do find it worthy  
of consideration.

Jeffrey Little

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20869
From: jsledd@ssdc.sas.upenn.edu (James Sledd)
Subject: Afterlife

Here is another way of looking at it.

When we die we are released from the arc of time, and able
to comprehend our lives in toto.  To visit each moment in
time sequentially or all at once, but not able to alter the
actions thoughts or feelings we had/have/will have in this 
life.

From that perspective, I posit that all will have direct knowledge
of God, and be able to recognize at each moment of time wether
we were doing what we ought.  That the experience of having
lived a life far from God will be an eternal torment.  That 
having lived a life of grace, will be an eternal joy.  That the 
resurrection of the body comes not from any physical reconstitution
of our present forms, but knowledge of our present forms by our
fully cognizant souls.

As an Aside:  If we were to be restricted for all time to
our present form, would you opt for immortality?

James Sledd

think in n dimensions & listen for the voice of God

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20870
From: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Subject: HELPHELP Part2

Hello, I'm back..

I would first like to thank each and every person who sent me a response (be
it a positive or negative one). I read EVERY letter and thought about 
each one!! 

I got all sorts of responses, from "marry her" to "have nothing ever to 
do with her again"

Through reading the Bible and through a lot of prayer, here is what I have
decided to do.

I sent her a letter today. First, i told her that if she was really serious
about moving away from home to another state that "I would do anything to 
get you here in NC." I told her that I tried to find out if there were 
any new stores planning to be built---but they wouldn't tell me.

About her marraige comment (I'm not gonna call it a proposal, cause
I still don't know if it was a total joke or not) I more or less said
that "Marry me?? Well, get transferred to NC first and then we'll talk :) :)"

Hopefully, what i said could be interpreted either way.

Needless to say, there has been a lot of praying over this...I 
have done a lot of reading about marraige from the Bible. If
she was dead serious about getting married---I wouldn't do it
yet simply b/c she is not (as far as I know to this point) a Christian.
It just wouldn't work w/o God in the marraige as well. I figure
that if God wanrs this to go through--he's kept us in touch for 10 
years now---he can handle one more. If God wants it to happen, it
will happen!

She will be in NC in June meetinf some relatives so I'll get to 
see her...and I'll get a letter from her befoe then so I know
more of what to look forward to.

I guess all I can do now is wait and pray. I have decided not to tell
my folks until I'm totally sure what is going on.

I do ask that everyone that wrote me to please keep this situation
in your prayers..

Finally, I would like to thank EVERYONE who wrote in...

If you have anything else for me...I will be at this email address
for one week. Please tell me anyhting you want...I'm curious
how folks think about what i did.


Thanx

Chris

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20871
From: news@cbnewsk.att.com
Subject: Re: An agnostic's question

In article <Apr.17.01.11.16.1993.2265@geneva.rutgers.edu> jdt@voodoo.ca.boeing.com (Jim Tomlinson (jimt II)) writes:
>Pardon me if this is the wrong newsgroup.  I would describe myself as
>an agnostic, in so far as I'm sure there is no single, universal
>supreme being, but if there is one and it is just, we will surely be
>judged on whether we lived good lives, striving to achieve that
>goodness that is within the power of each of us.  Now, the
>complication is that one of my best friends has become very
>fundamentalist.  That would normally be a non-issue with me, but he
>feels it is his responsibility to proselytize me (which I guess it is,
>according to his faith).  This is a great strain to our friendship...

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm afraid your friendship is in danger.  
Perhaps you should examine in yourself why as such a good friend, you 
are unwilling to accept this imortant part of your friends life?  Why 
do you call into question his faith?  Your friend has changed, he has 
found something that fills a need in his life.  You need to decide if 
you are still his friend, whether you can accommodate his new life.  
It sounds as if you are criticizing him for a fundamental belief in 
the Bible, yet you are quick to reveal that your fundamental belief 
that it is superstition.  Perhaps if he knew you at least took him 
seriously, that you at least took an interest in the light he has found, 
that you at least tried to understand what has become a special part of 
his life, you could together decide to become fundamentalists, respect 
each others differences and remain friends, or part ways.  Maybe even if 
you stuck it out with him, you could help him to un-convert.  Of course, 
if you go in with that attitude he will surely see through your intentions 
and begin to resent you.

I happen to be a person very tolerant of fundamentalists, because I know
that the idea of a simple black and white approach to life is appealing.
I don't happen to share the beliefs of fundamentalists, but I am not
offended by their prosyletizing.  I had a few good conversations with
some Witnesses who came to my door.  I didn't switch my beliefs, but for
those at home who maybe need a friendly face to invite them somewhere,
the Witnesses provide a wonderful service.  You may have been conditioned
to believe that religion is unimportant and witnessing is obnoxious, but
why?  Are you afraid you might be converted and become one of them, that
you will be swept up in fundamentalism, that you will become a weirdo.
Friendship's a two-way street.  You must respect your friend, ALL of him,
including his beliefs, if you want the friendship to continue.

Joe Moore

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20872
From: news@cbnewsk.att.com
Subject: Re: Bible Unsuitable for New Christians

True.

Also read 2 Peter 3:16

Peter warns that the scriptures are often hard to understand by those who
are not learned on the subject.

Joe Moore

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20873
From: HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com
Subject: Re: Need a book

In article <Apr.14.03.08.18.1993.5458@athos.rutgers.edu>
bassili@cs.arizona.edu (Amgad Z. Bassili) writes:
 
>
>I appreciate if anyone can point out some good books about the dead sea
>scrolls of Qumran. Thanks in advance.
>
>Please reply by e-mail at <bassili@cs.arizona.edu>
 
Ok boys & girls, hang on; here we go!
 
   Christ's Eternal Gospel               Robinson & Robinson
   The Dead Sea Scrolls & the NT         WS LaSor
   James the Just in Habakkuk Pesher     RH Eisenman
   Maccabees ... Quamran                 RH Eisenman
   Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered            Eisenman & Wise
   Dead Sea Scrolls Deception            Baigent & Leigh
   Jesus & Riddle of Dead Sea Scrolls    B Thiering
   Jesus Scroll                          D Joyce
 
Happy Reading & welcome aboard
 
 
A poor Wayfaring Stranger [some say, a Strange One] in a strange land,
 
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Disclaimer: Not my employer's opinion; probably                     |
 |             not your's either; and                                  |
 |             only mine, when authorized!                             |
 |                                                                     |
 |                                   Try: Roger_Holfeltz@stortek.com   |
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
 
[Note that this list covers quite a variety of views.  As such it's
probably a good one.  But if you want to read just one book, beware
that a couple of the books on that list represent views that are,
shall we say, unusual.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20874
From: simon@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au
Subject: Saint Story St. Aloysius Gonzaga

Heres a story of a Saint that people might like to read. I got it from
a The Morning Star, and am posting it with the permission of the
editor.


    Saint Aloysius Gonzaga

    The Patron of Youth


    The marquis Gonzaga had high aspirations for his son, the  Prince
    Gonzage.  He  wanted  him  to become a famous, brave and honoured
    soldier. After all, he must carry on the  great  family  name  of
    Gonzaga.  Of  course, he was to become far more famous, brave and
    honoured than his father could ever have imagined; though not  in
    the manner expected.

    Saint Aloysius' mother was a woman who received immense joy  from
    praying  to  God  and  meditating on the divine mysteries and the
    life of Our Lord. She had little time for the pleasures  of  this
    life.  As  Saint  Aloysius	grew, he began to resemble his mother
    more than his father.

    Saint Aloysius had learned numerous expressions from his father's
    soldiers,  but the moment he discovered that they were vulgar, he
    fainted from shock. This shows his immense hatred of sin (What an
    example for us of the contempt we must have for sin).

    About the time of his First Holy  Communion  (which  he  received
    from  the  Archbishop  of  Milan,  Charles Borromeo, whom himself
    became a great Saint), he con-secrated  his  purity  to  God  and
    asked the Blessed Virgin to protect his innocence for life.

    He wanted to share Our Lord's suffering to	show  his  reciprocal
    love.  He  started by denying his passions; he avoided eating the
    finest foods, wearing the best clothes, and would put  pieces  of
    wood  in his bed in order to mortify himself for the love of God.
    While he was in his early teens his  father  sent  him  (and  his
    younger  brother)  to  the court of the Spanish King, Phillip 11.
    Obediently, he set out to make the best of it. He mixed  in  well
    with  the people of the royal court, for he was handsome, polite,
    intelligent and always had something interesting to say.


    Not long before this time, the great soldier-saint,  Saint	Igna-
    tius  of  Loyola,  had founded the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits)
    towards which Saint Aloysius


				  -12-







    began to have a yearning. When he finally told  his  father,  the
    marquis flew into a rage and forbade his son to become a priest.

    After a short time, his father sent him to the  great  cities  in
    order that he be tempted away from the priesthood, but even

    through these trials, Saint Aloysius grew in his desire  for  the
    religious life and was strengthened in the virtue of purity.

    The Marquis' plans were obviously failing, so he con-fronted  his
    son:  "Will  you or will you not obey me and forget this foolish-
    ness?" "I will not, father," was the  in-evitable  reply.	"Then
    leave from my sight and don't return until you change your mind!"
    With tears clouding his eyes, the Saint left the  room  to	pray:
    "Tell  me Lord, what am I to do? Tell me! Tell me!" He knelt down
    to flagellate himself as he had done several  times  before,  but
    this  time	he was seen. The onlooker rushed to the marquis. This
    at last brought the proud man to his senses. "The Lord wants him,
    the Lord can have him." He gave his consent for his son to become
    a Jesuit.

    After some years (at the end of the sixteenth century), a  terri-
    ble  epidemic  broke out in Rome. All the hospitals were full and
    could house no more, so the Jesuits opened their own. Saint Aloy-
    sius  did  all he could in the hospitals, particularly to prepare
    the dying for a holy death.

    Saint Aloysius himself contracted the plague  from	carrying  and
    nursing  the  sick.  For three months he lay with a burning fever
    and finally, on June 21st, 1591, he gave his  soul	to  the  Lord
    while gazing at a crucifix.

    Let us invoke Saint Aloysius as our patron and imitate him in his
    humility, purity and confidence in prayer.

    Saint Aloysius Gonzaga, pray for us.

    - Brendan Arthur






    Prayer is as necessary to a person consecrated to the service  of
    others as a sword is to a soldier

God Bless

From Simon
Lines:  106
-- 
/----------------------------------------------------------------|-------\
|  Simon P. Shields Programmer           Viva Cristo Rey !!  ----|----   |
|  MONASH UNIVERSITY COLLEGE GIPPSLAND Ph:+61 51 226 357       .JHS.     |
|  Switchback Rd. Churchill.          Fax:+61 51 226 300       |\|/|     |

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20875
From: rjs2@po.cwru.edu (Richard J. Szanto)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?

In a previous article, randerso@acad1.sahs.uth.tmc.edu (Robert Anderson) says:

>I would like to get your opinions on this: when exactly does an engaged
>couple become "married" in God's eyes?  Some say that if the two have
>publically announced their plans to marry, have made their vows to God, and
>are unswervingly committed to one another (I realize this is a subjective
>qualifier) they are married/joined in God's sight.

I have discussed this with my girlfriend often.  I consider myself married,
though legally I am not.  Neither of us have been with other people sexually,
although we have been with each other.  We did not have sexual relations
until we decided to marry eventually.  For financial and distance reasons,
we will not be legally married for another year and a half.  Until then,
I consider myself married for life in God's eyes.  I have faith that we
have a strong relationship, and have had for over 4 years, and will be
full of joy when we marry in a church.  First, however, we must find a
church( we will be living in a new area when we marry, and will need to
find a new church community).

Anyway, I feel that if two people commit to marriage before God, they are
married and are bound by that commitment.

-- 
						-Rick Szanto
-Polk Speakers Rock				-Computer Engineer
-Mac's Suck (Nothing Personal)			-Case Western
-Zeta Psi Rules					-Reserve University

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20876
From: Rick_Granberry@pts.mot.com (Rick Granberry)
Subject: Pastoral Authority

There is some controversy in my denomination as to what authority is vested 
in the pastor.  I am still forming my opinion.  I am solicing opinions, and 
references for what that is, how much, and how it should be used.

   As a general reference, I would not exclude responses from different 
denominations based on Biblical teachings, but you have to understand our 
church is independent, protestant and likely to be much different from those 
that follow ecclesiastical authority in the church.  We may need to discuss 
the roles of deacons and elders.

Thanks for your replies.



| "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." |
| "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."  |
| (proverbs 26:4&5)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20877
From: tbrent@ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent)
Subject: Am I going to Hell?

I have stated before that I do not consider myself an atheist, but 
definitely do not believe in the christian god.  The recent discussion
about atheists and hell, combined with a post to another group (to the
effect of 'you will all go to hell') has me interested in the consensus 
as to how a god might judge men.  As a catholic, I was told that a jew,
buddhist, etc. might go to heaven, but obviously some people do not
believe this.  Even more see atheists and pagans (I assume I would be 
lumped into this category) to be hellbound.  I know you believe only
god can judge, and I do not ask you to, just for your opinions.

Thanks,
-Tim

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20878
From: kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu
Subject: Re: Certainty and Arrogance

My last article included this quote:

 "If any substantial number of  [ talk.religion.misc ]  readers read some
  Wittgenstein, 60% of the postings would disappear.  (If they *understood*
  some Wittgenstein, 98% would disappear. :-))" -- Michael L Siemon

Someone called `boundary' wrote:
 
> This quote seems a little arrogant, don't you think?

There is a convention called a `smiley', which looks like this:   :-)  .
It is supposed to look like a sideways smiley-face, and indicates that the
preceding comment is supposed to be funny.


And, I'll note that I have participated on talk.religion.misc for over
five years -- I'd say Mr Siemon was not too far off.  8^)

 *

In the meat of his reply, Mr Boundary serves up an excellent example of what
I meant by "There is no way out of the loop".  I wrote that human brains "are
infested with sin", and can be trusted only in limited circumstances.

In reply, Mr Boundary wrote:

> I would beg to differ with you here.  The properly-formed conscience
> can be trusted virtually ALL the time.

Which just moves the problem back one level: how do you tell if your
conscience is properly formed?

The only way to tell is to presuppose that you are capable of judging the
formed-ness of your own conscience.  In other words, you can only be sure
that your conscience is `properly formed' if you assume that your evaluation
can be trusted.  Assuming your conclusions saves you a lot of time, I'll
grant, but it's not a valid way of reasoning.

Unless you are infallible, your judgements about your own thinking cannot be
certain.  Therefore, it is not possible to be certain your conscience is
`properly formed'.  (Whatever that is supposed to mean.)


Mr Boundary then gives another paradigm example of the problem:

> Now you have hit on the purpose of the Church.  It is by necessity the
> infallible interpreter of divine revelation.  Without the Church,          
> Christianity would be nothing more than a bunch of little divisive sects.

The Church is `by necessity' the infallible interpreter of divine revelation?
How do you know?  Presumably, you believe this because of some argument or
another -- how do you know that the argument contains no mistakes?

You write:

> Therefore, although our minds are finite and susceptible to error, our
> competence in arriving at inductive insights gives confidence in our
> ability to distinguish what is true from what is not true, even in areas
> not subject to the experimental method. 

But there is a huge difference between `confidence in our ability to
distinguish what is true from what is not true' and `infallible'.  I am
confident about a lot of things, but absolute certainty is a very long way
from `confident'.

This discussion is about the arrogance of claiming to be absolutely certain
(really, go check the subject line).  Saying you are absolutely certain is
significantly different than saying you are confident.  When you say that
you are confident, that invites people to ask why.

Except in very limited circumstances, when you say that you are absolutely
certain, it invites people to dismiss you as someone who does not have any
idea of his own fallibility.


I have yet to meet anyone who believed in a knowably-infallible source of
truth who would admit the possibility of errors in his reasoning.  All of
them -- every last one -- has claimed that he was himself infallible.
The result has been to convince me that they had no idea what was going on.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu

[This particular discussion may not be entirely relevant to the
original criticism.  I get the feeling that the original poster
regarded as arrogant the very idea that there are right and wrong
answers in religion, and that the difference can have eternal
consequences.  When I say that I think there is a hell and that he is
at least in significant danger of ending up there, I will admit that
-- as you say -- the reasoning processes I used to reach this are
fallible.  Thus at least in principle I could be wrong.  But these
basic facts are clearly enough taught in the Bible that I think it's
unlikely that I'm misinterpreting it.  (In order to get this level of
confidence, I've tried to frame my statement sufficiently carefully as
to sidestep a number of the more controversial issues.  I haven't, for
example said that all non-Christians will definitely end up in hell,
and I haven't attempted to describe hell in any detail.)  I have a
feeling that my view is going to be regarded as arrogant and
intolerant even though I acknowledge that I'm fallible and so there's
some chance I'm wrong.

Don't get me wrong -- I think there are a lot of genuinely arrogant
Christians, and often criticism of us is justified.  But in at least
some cases I think the criticisms constitute blaming the messenger.
If the universe is set up so that there are eternal consequences for
certain decisions, it's not my fault -- I'm just telling it the way I
think it is.  You may think God is immoral for setting things up that
way.  It's one of the critiques of Christianity that I find it most
difficult to respond to.  But it's not arrogance for me to tell what
I think is the truth.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20879
From: stephen@mont.cs.missouri.edu (Stephen Montgomery-Smith)
Subject: Re: Latest on Branch Davidians

In <Apr.22.00.55.06.1993.2048@geneva.rutgers.edu> aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron) writes:

>In article <Apr.20.03.02.42.1993.3815@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
>conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt) wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think it's really sad that so many people put their faith in a mere
>> man, even if he did claim to be the son of God, and/or a prophet.

>I'll pose a question here that's got me thinking:  what distinguishes
>"true" religion from cults (I'm speaking generally here, not specifially
>about Christianity)?  Jerry Falwell was on Good Morning America on 
>Tuesday ostensibly to answer this question.  Basically, he said that
>true religion follows a message whereas a cult follows a person.
>But, then, Christianity is a cult because the message of Christianity
>IS the person of Jesus.  So what distinguishes, for example, the
>Branch Davidian "cult" from the Presbyterian "church"?  Doctrinal
>differences don't answer the question, IMHO, so don't use them as
>an answer.


As far as I can see, one of the big differences between Davidians and
Christians is in who they follow.  I have sometimes tried to put myself
in the feet of one of Jesus's disciples.  Basically, they gave up a
lot --- career, possibly family, and well, a whole bunch, to follow
Jesus.

So what is the difference?  It is quite plain.  Jesus was good and
David Koresh was not.

The problem is, I think, is that we try to legislate what is good
and what is bad in terms of principles.  For instance, there are thousands of 
laws in the U.S. governing what is legal and what is not.  Often, it is hard
to bring people to justice, because it is not possible to find
a legal way to do it.  If only we could trust judges to be just,
then we could tell them to administer justice fairly, and justice
would be followed.  But since judges don't always get it right,
we have a complicated system involving precedent and bunches
of other stuff which attempt to make the imperfect (the justice
of man) into something perfect.  But what I hear about the justice
system in the U.S. tells me that quite the opposite is true.

There is also a problem that we tend to judge the presentation
more than the material being presented.  So we might consider 
a ranting Christian to be bad, but an eloquent person from another
religion to be good.  This goes along with the American desire
to protect the Constitution at all costs, even if it allows
people to do bad things. 

I think that it is the message that is important.  If a man is
presenting a false message, even if he is ever ever so mild mannered,
then that man is performing a tremendous disservice.

I know that I am rambling here.  I guess that what I am trying to
say is that we shouldn't be looking for principles that tell us
why the Davidians got it wrong.  It is not wrong to follow and
worship a person.  But it is important to choose the right person.
It is simple.  Choose Jesus, and you got it right.  Choose
anyone else, and you got it wrong.  Why?  Because Jesus is the
begotten son of God, and nobody else is.  Jesus was without sin, and
nobody else was.

Stephen

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20880
From: jsledd@ssdc.sas.upenn.edu (James Sledd)
Subject: Serbian genocide Work of God?

Are the Serbs doing the work of God?  Hmm...

I've been wondering if anyone would ever ask the question,

Are the governments of the United States and Europe not moving
to end the ethnic cleansing by the Serbs because the targets are
muslims?

Can/Does God use those who are not following him to accomplish
tasks for him?  Esp those tasks that are punative?

James Sledd
no cute sig....  but I'm working on it.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20881
From: conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt)
Subject: Goodbye, but not forever

Praise God!  I'm writing everyone to inform you that I have been
accepted to the Doctor of Psychology program at Fuller Theological
Seminary in Pasadena, CA.  I've been working long and hard to try to
get in there and have said many hours of prayer.  I'm very excited for
this opportunity, but also very nervous about it.

I'd appreciate the prayers of the readers of this group for my preparation
for school this summer and for my career as a graduate student.  I'd also
appreciate any information any of the readers of this group might have 
about Fuller, Pasadena, or California in general, like good places to
have fun, good churches to check out, or anything else that might be
good for me to know.  Also, if anyone knows of any foundations that 
might have funding or scholarship money available, please let me know!
Of course, if you wish to make a personal contribution.....:)

The contract for my current job is over at the end of April.  I'll be
taking a couple classes at UT this summer and then I'll be moving to
Pasadena.  Hopefully, I'll be able to get net.access next fall, although
Fuller doesn't have it itself.

I've enjoyed the interesting discussions and I commend everyone for their
earnest search to please God.  Thanks to our moderator for providing
such a wonderful service and in doing a great job of running this news
group.

May God bless you all.  Vaya con Dios, mi amigas y amigos.

Paul


===============================================================================
Paul Conditt		Internet: conditt@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu
Applied Research	Phone:	  (512) 835-3422   FAX: (512) 835-3416/3259
  Laboratories		Fedex:	  10000 Burnet Road, Austin, Texas 78758-4423
University of Texas	Postal:	  P.O. Box 8029, Austin, Texas 78713-8029
Austin, Texas <----- the most wonderful place in Texas to live


  TTTTTTTTTTTTTTT              
  TTT   TTT   TTT                 
        TTT                    
   TTTTTTTTTTTTT                  Texas Tech Lady Raiders
   TT   TTT   TT                   1992-93 SWC Champions
        TTT                    1992-93 NCAA National Champions
        TTT
      TTTTTTT

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20882
From: reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

In article <Apr.21.03.24.13.1993.1268@geneva.rutgers.edu>, gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (boundary) writes:
>[Anecedotal material which ultimately shows that...]

> but from my experience,
> the modern Jew is not known for his proselytism.

A Rabbi once told me that theres is a talmudic tradition that someone who
wanted to convert to Judaism was to be turned away three times. If they
continue then they were accepted.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20883
From: jcj@tellabs.com (jcj)
Subject: Re: Losing your temper is not a Christian trait

Sheila Patterson writes:
>         
>I always suspected that I was human too :-)  It is the desire to be like
>Christ that often causes christians to be very critical of themselves and
>other christians. ...

I'd like to remind people of the withering of the fig tree and Jesus
driving the money changers et. al. out of the temple.  I think those
were two instances of Christ showing anger (as part of His human side).

Jeff Johnson
jcj@tellabs.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20884
From: revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille)
Subject: Re: Maybe?????

: [I have some qualms about postings like this.  You might want to
: engage in a bit more conversation with Joel before deluging 
: someone who doesn't expect it with cards.  --clh]

I'd suggest that more than _some_ qualms are in order.  Without knowing
anything about the situation, it is impossible to evaluate the
appropriateness of writing.  Some folks will check, others with more
zeal than time may not.

IMHO, requests of this nature should be made only for oneself or for someone
who knows and approves of the idea.  Otherwise, it is intrusive and
disrespectful of the individual.

revdak@netcom.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20885
From: jerryb@eskimo.com (Jerry Kaufman)
Subject: Re: prayers and advice requested on family problem

Cloak yourself in God's sustaining and abiding love. Pray, pray, pray.
Pray for your brother, that he will assume the Godly role that is his.
Pray for your sister-in-law, the what ever is driving her to separate
your brother and herself from the the rest of the family will be healed.
Pray for God to give you the peace in the knowledge that you may not be
able to 'fix' it. From your description it would appear that it will
require devine intervention, and the realization by your brother as to
what his responsibilities are. Seek Godly counsel from your pastor, or
other spiritually mature believer. Know always that He is akways there
as a conforter, and will give you wisdon and direction as you call on
Him.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20886
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Help

In a prior article, lmvec@westminster.ac.uk (William Hargreaves) writes:
>
> Now I am of the opinion that you a saved through faith alone (not what you do)
> as taught in Romans, but how can I square up in my mind the teachings of James
> in conjunction with the lukewarm Christian being 'spat-out'

If you agree that good works have a role somewhere, you will 
generally find yourself in one of two camps: 

   (1) Faith + Works --> Salvation
or (2) Faith --> Salvation + Works

Either (1) works are required for salvation, or (2) faith will 
inevitably result in good works. 

I am also of the opinion that salvation is by faith alone, based on
Ephesians 2 and Romans 3:21-31.  I also conclude that James 2, when 
read in context, is teaching bullet (2) above. When James speaks of 
justification, I would claim that he is not speaking of God declaring
the believing sinner innocent in His sight (Paul's use of the word). 
Instead he is speaking of the sinner's profession of faith being 
"justified" or "proven" by the display of good works. Also according 
to James 2, the abscence of such works is evidence for a "dead" or 
"useless" faith which fails to save.

James 2 is not a problem for the doctrine of salvation by faith if it
is teaching (2).  Works would have their place, not as merit toward 
salvation, but as evidence of true faith. 

Regards,

---
Dave Weaver               | "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to
weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com|  gain what he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot (1949)

[There are of course a number of other possibilities.  The Reformers
believed

  salvation --> faith --> works

Some of us suspect that the three things are tied up together in such a way
that no diagram of this form can do it justice.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20887
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's e

|In article <Apr.14.03.07.21.1993.5402@athos.rutgers.edu> >randerso@acad1.sahs.uth.tmc.edu (Robert Anderson) writes:
|>I would like to get your opinions on this: when exactly does an engaged
|>couple become "married" in God's eyes? 

|Not if they are unwilling to go through a public marriage ceremony,
|nor if they say they are willing but have not actually done so.

  How do you know this?

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20888
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

>If I don't think my belief is right and everyone else's belief is wrong,
>then I don't have a belief. This is simply what belief means.

Unfortunatly, this seems to be how Christians are taught to think when
it comes to their religion. Some take it to the extreme and say that
their religion is the ONLY one and if you don't accept their teachings
then you won't be "saved". It takes quite a bit of arrogance to claim
to know what God thinks/wants. Especially when it's based upon your
interpretation of a book. The logic in the above statement is faulty
in that it assumes two people with differing beliefs can't both be
correct. It's all about perception. No two people are exactly alike.
No two people perceive everything in the same way. I believe that
there is one truth. Call it God's truth, a universal truth, or call it
what you will. I don't believe God presents this truth. I think it is
just there and it's up to you to look for and see it, through prayer,
meditation, inspir- ation, dreams or whatever. Just because people may
perceive this truth differently, it doesn't mean one is wrong and the
other is right. As an example, take the question, "Is the glass half
empty or half full"? You can have two different answers which are
contradictory and yet both are correct. So, for your belief to be
true, does not require everyone else's belief to be wrong.

[If a person has what they believe is convincing evidence that God
will save only Christians, it's hard to see how you can criticize them
for arrogance for saying so.  It could be that they're wrong.  But I
hardly see that it's arrogance.  Let's look at this a bit closer.
Suppose we had some combination of prophets and messiahs that taught
us things, but didn't say anything about exclusivity.  If we believe
them, and then add "and anybody who believes anything else is damned",
then you could well criticize us for arrogance.  But in this case the
exclusivity is in the message as it comes from the prophets, etc.  So
we could be wrong in believing it, but I don't see how we can be
called arrogant.  Maybe the world isn't a soft place.  Maybe certain
choices actually do have eternal consequences.  I can see calling the
Christian message arrogant, in a certain sense (though only in the
same sense as calling the law of gravitation arrogant because it
doesn't give us any option over whether we fall if we jump off a
building).  But not Christians for passing it on, given that they
believe it.  The complaints I can see making are (1) that Christians
are wrong, or (2) that God is arrogant.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20889
From: mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Subject: Re: proof of resurection

In article <Apr.21.03.26.18.1993.1352@geneva.rutgers.edu> reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu writes:
>following Christ.  From Captialist who have polluted the enviorment in strict
>obedience to the Gensis command to subdue the earth, to Nazi's who have
>"justly" punished the Jews for the killing Christ

It is funny how this one little quote from Genesis is treated
by certain anti-Christians as if Christians have been given a
firm command to destroy the earth. You could prove almost
anything by taking little quotes out of context from the Bible
- it's a big book, you know. I doubt you could find a single
case of a anti-ecological action taking place specifically
because teh perpetrator was motivated by a Christian belief.

As for the Nazis, they were motivated by German Nationalism,
not by Christianity. In fact they despised Christianity as a
weak pacifist religion, and were much more keen on pagan
glorification of strength and warfare. They killed the Jews
because they were not Germans, not because they were
"Christ-killers" - they were just as keen on killing the other
non-German ethnic minority, the Romanies or Gypsies.

Matthew Huntbach

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20890
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: Re: SSPX schism ?

Bob Van Cleef writes:

   If the Papacy is infallible, and this is a matter of faith, then the 
   Pope cannot "be wrong!"  If, on the other hand, this is not a matter 
   of faith, but a matter of Church law, then we should still obey as the
   Pope is the legal head of the church.

   In other words, given the doctrine of infallibility, we have no choice
   but to obey.

This is a primary problem in the Church today.  What you are saying is
more or less heresy.  You might call it "infallibilism".  It's the
idea that the Pope is always right in everything he says or does.
This is virtually all over the place, especially in this country.

The Pope is only infallible under certain very specific and
well-defined conditions.  When these conditions are not met, he can
make mistakes.  He can make *big* mistakes.

A couple historical examples come to mind.

Bishop Robert Grosseteste was perhaps the greatest product of the
English Catholic Church.  At one point during his career, the reigning
Pope decided to install one of his nephews in an English see.  Bishop
Grosseteste said that this would happen over his dead body (though
maybe not in so many words; you have to treat Popes with respect, even
when they are wrong).  The problem was that this nephew would just
collect the income of the see, and probably never set foot there.
This would deprive the people of the see of a shepherd.  Bishop
Grosseteste was quite right in what he did!

Another example is that of Pope John XXII, a Pope of the Middle Ages.
He decided that souls that were saved did not enjoy the Beatific
Vision until the Last Judgement.  He decided that this should be a
defined doctrine of the Church.  Though he didn't quite get around to
defining it.  Now there's no way this is compatible with Catholic
doctrine.  The Pope's doctrine was criticised by many in the Church.
He went so far as to put a number of his opponents in jail, even.  In
the end, he had to admit his mistake.  Shortly before he died, he
recanted.  His successor made the exact *opposite* idea a dogma of the
Church.

If you consult any of the great Catholic theologians who treat of such
subjects, such as St. Robert Bellarmine (a Doctor of the Church), you
will find detailed discussions of whether the Pope can personally fall
into heresy or schism.

The teaching of all such theologians is that the commands of a Pope
must be resisted if they are to the detriment of the Catholic Faith.
A Pope's authority is given for the purpose of building up the
Catholic Church.  Commands in conflict with this purpose have no
legal *or* moral force.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20891
From: vbv@lor.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article <Apr.22.00.56.15.1993.2073@geneva.rutgers.edu> hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes) writes:

>A similar analogy might be a medical doctor who believes that a blood 
>transfusion is necessary to save the life of a child whose parents are 
>Jehovah's Witnesses and so have conscientious objections to blood 
>transfusion. The doctor's efforts to persuade them to agree to a blood 
>transfusion could be perceived to be arrogant in precisely the same way as 
>Christians could be perceived to be arrogant.

>The truth or otherwise of the belief that a blood transfusion is necessary 
>to save the life of the child is irrelevant here. What matters is that the 
>doctor BELIEVES it to be true, and could be seen to be trying to foce his 
>beliefs on the parents, and this could well be perceived as arrogance.

Let me carry that a step further.  Most doctors would not claim to be 
infallible.  Indeed, they would generally admit that they could conceivably
be wrong, e.g. that in this case, a blood tranfusion might not turn out to 
be necessary after all.  However, the doctors would have enough confidence
and conviction to claim, out of genuine concern, that is IS necessary.  As
fallible human beings, they must acknowledge the possibility that they are
wrong.  However, they would also say that such doubts are not reasonable,
and stand by their convictions.

-- 
Virgilio "Dean" Velasco Jr, Department of Electrical Eng'g and Applied Physics 
	 CWRU graduate student, roboticist-in-training and Q wannabee
    "Bullwinkle, that man's intimidating a referee!"   |    My boss is a 
   "Not very well.  He doesn't look like one at all!"  |  Jewish carpenter.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20892
From: Rick_Granberry@pts.mot.com (Rick Granberry)
Subject: Re: Help

In article <Apr.21.03.26.51.1993.1379@geneva.rutgers.edu>, 
lmvec@westminster.ac.uk (William Hargreaves) writes:
> Hi everyone, 
> 	   I'm a commited Christian that is battling with a problem.  I 
> know that romans talks about how we are saved by our faith not our 
> deeds, yet hebrews and james say that faith without deeds is useless, 
> saying' You fools, do you still think that just believing is enough?' 
> 
> Now if someone is fully believing but there life is totally lead by 
> themselves and not by God, according to Romans that person is still 
> saved by there faith.

my $.02 - Yes and No.  I do not believe the above scenario is not possible.  
Either they are believing and living (in at least some part) led by God, else 
they are not.  Believing (intellectually, but waiting(?)) is not enough.
   Especially important to remember is that no one can judge whether you are 
so committed, nor can you judge someone else.  I guess the closest we can 
come to know someone's situation is listening to their own statements.  This 
can be fallible, as is our sense of communion one with another.

> But then there is the bit which says that God 
> preferes someone who is cold to him (i.e. doesn't know him - condemned) 
> so a lukewarm Christian someone who knows and believes in God but doesn'
> t make any attempt to live by the bible. 

Regarding this passage, we need to remember that this is a letter to a church 
(at Laodicea), people who are Of the Body of Christ. (Rev.3:14-16)  He talks 
about their works.  A translation could say that he says their lack of 
concern makes him sick (to the point of throwing up).

> Now I am of the opinion that you a saved through faith alone (not what 
> you do) as taught in Romans, but how can I square up in my mind the 
> teachings of James in conjunction with the lukewarm Christian being '
> spat-out'
   Right, saving is by faith alone, except that faith does not come alone, if 
you catch the two meanings.
   I can offer the explanation that Jesus would that we were either "on fire 
for Him" or so cold we knew we were not in His will and thus could be made 
aware of our separation.  This is admonishment for His children, not eternal 
damnation.



| "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." |
| "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."  |
| (proverbs 26:4&5)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20893
From: reid@cs.uiuc.edu (Jon Reid)
Subject: Re: Cell Church discussion group

jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher) writes:

>Please, define cell church.  I missed it somewhere in the past when this
>was brought up before.

In a cell church, the fundamental building block is the "cell group" -- a
small group of no more than 15 believers.  The small groups are responsible
for the ministry of the church: evangelism and discipleship.  The emphasis
is on relationships, not on programs, and both the evangelism and the
discipling are relationship-based.

This will probably raise more questions than it answered, but that's it in
a nutshell.
-- 
******************************************************************
*     Jon Reid     * He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep *
* reid@cs.uiuc.edu * to gain what he cannot lose.   - Jim Elliot *
******************************************************************

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20894
From: andrew@srsune.shlrc.mq.edu.au (Andrew McVeigh)
Subject: Re: proof of resurection

In article <Apr.21.03.26.18.1993.1352@geneva.rutgers.edu> reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu writes:

>  We also cannot fail to note the intense suffering a devastation which has been
>  wrecked on our world because of Christians -- who were certain they were
>  following Christ.  From Captialist who have polluted the enviorment in strict
>  obedience to the Gensis command to subdue the earth, to Nazi's who have
>  "justly"
>  punished the Jews for the killing Christ (as well as the other progroms), the
>  innocent women who were burned alive in accordance with "you shall not allow a
>  witch to live", the Moslems who were killed in the Crusades, the god-fearing
>  men destroyed by the inquistion.  The religious wars in Spain, France, England,
>  etc.  Christianity has undoubtedly caused the most suffering and needless loss
>  of life by individuals whose certainity that they were following the
>  instructions therein, was unquestionable.  There is much to grieve.
>
>  randy


Very interesting, but I also believe that you have presented a
misleading argument.  Christianity is not the cause of the massacres
and horrific injustices that you relate, rather they are the fault
of people who misunderstand Jesus Christ's message, and modify
it to suit their own beliefs and aims, rather than alter their
ambitions to be more in line with those presented as desirable in
the New Testament.  With every truthful and good message that
carries authority or implied authority, comes the inevitable
fact that some (many?) people will understand it in a distorted
way, with inevitable consequences.

The Bible's message is that we are to love all people, and
that all people are redeemable.  It preaches a message of
repentance, and of giving.  Unfortunately, all people have
deceitful hearts, and are capable of turning this message
around and contorting it in sometimes unbelievable ways.
This is also a fundamental Christian doctrine.

One of the problems is that you look at the world through
the eyes of Western history.  I think that you will find
many, many cases of massacres that were instigated by
people who never claimed they were Christian.  I am not saying
this to justify the massacres that were, but I am merely
pointing you to a tendency which is present in humans already.

Consider the world without Christianity.  I doubt that we
would have the same freedoms in the countries in which we
live, if it wasn't for the peaceful doctrines of Jesus Christ.
Perhaps we would even be confronted by a very harsh religion
(I won't name any here, though one comes to mind) which
would not even allow us the freedom of speech to debate such
subjects.

Point the blame at inherent human tendencies of thirst for
power, greed and hatred.  Please don't point the blame at
a message which preaches fundamental giving and denial, in
love for others.

Yours in Christ,

Andrew McVeigh


p.s. I believe that a line of questioning like you presented
is, strangely enough, compatible with becoming a Christian.
Certainly Christianity encourages one to question the behaviour
of the world, and especially Christians.  I praise God for
Jesus Christ, and the fact that we can doubt our beliefs
and still come back to God and be forgiven, time and time
again.

--
*****


Andrew McVeigh

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20895
From: lmh@juliet.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.)
Subject: Re: catholic church poland

In article <Apr.20.03.01.44.1993.3772@geneva.rutgers.edu>, s0612596@let.rug.nl (M.M. Zwart) writes...
>I'm writing a paper on the role of the catholic church in Poland after 1989. 
>church concerning the abortion-law, religious education at schools,

 There was an article on clari.news.religion in the last few days about a
Polish tribunal decision. It said that crucifixes and religious classes in
public schools were okay; and that children who did not want to take religion
class could not be forced to take an ethics class as a substitute.

 larry henling  lmh@shakes.caltech.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20896
From: ata@hfsi.hfsi.com ( John Ata)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

In article <Apr.21.03.26.15.1993.1349@geneva.rutgers.edu> reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu writes:

>The basic problem with your argument is your total and complete reliance on
>the biblical text.  Luke's account is highly suspect (I would refer you to
>the hermeneia commentary on Acts).  Moreover Luke's account is written at
>least 90 years after the fact.  In the meantime everyone he mentions has died
>and attempts to find actual written sources behind the text have come up
>with only the we section of the later portion of acts as firmly established.
>Moreover, Pauls account of some of the events in Acts (as recorded in 
>Galatians) fail to establish the acts accounts. 

Even if there was no independent proof that Luke's account was
valid, I find it strange that you would take the negation of it as
truth without any direct historical evidence (at least that you've
mentioned) to back it up.  The assertion was made, unequivocally
that no Christian ever sufferred for their faith by believing in
the Resurrection.  Luke's account suggests otherwise, and in the
absence of direct eyewitnesses who can claim that Luke is mistaken,
then I suggest that this unequivocal assertion is suspect.

>randy


-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729

[I think the original claim may have been somewhat more limited than
this.  It was an answer to the claim that the witnesses couldn't
be lying because they were willign to suffer for their beliefs.
Thus it's not necessary to show that no Christian ever suffered
for believing in the Resurrection.  Rather the issue is whether
those who witnessed it did.

I do agree that the posting you're responding to shows that there
can be liberal as well as conservative dogmatism.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20897
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5

I have been following this thread on talk.religion,
soc.religion.christian.bible-study and here with interest.  I am amazed at
the different non-biblical argument those who oppose the Sabbath present. 

One question comes to mind, especially since my last one was not answered
from Scripture.  Maybe clh may wish to provide the first response.

There is a lot of talk about the Sabbath of the TC being ceremonial. 
Answer this:

Since the TC commandments is one law with ten parts on what biblical
basis have you decided that only the Sabbath portion is ceremonial?
OR You say that the seventh-day is the Sabbath but not applicable to
Gentile Christians.  Does that mean the Sabbath commandment has been
annulled?  References please.

If God did not intend His requirements on the Jews to be applicable to
Gentile Christians why did He make it plain that the Gentiles were now
grafted into the commonwealth of Israel?

Darius

[Acts 15, Rom 14:5, Col 2:16, Gal 4:10.  I believe we've gotten into
a loop at this point.  This is one of those classic situations where
both sides think they have clear Scriptural support, and there's no
obvious argument that is going to change anybody's mind.  I don't think
we're going anything but repeating ourselves.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20898
From: dohertyl@dcs.gla.ac.uk (dohertyl)
Subject: (none)

I AM Satan!


Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20899
From: Gene.Gross@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Gene Gross)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

In article <Apr.15.00.58.18.1993.28885@athos.rutgers.edu> oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser) writes:
>
>And the two simplest refutations are these:
>
>(1)  What impact?  The only record of impact comes from the New Testament.
>I have no guarantee that its books are in the least accurate, and that
>the recorded "impact" actually happened.  I find it interesting that no other
>contemporary source records an eclipse, an earthquake, a temple curtain
>being torn, etc.  The earliest written claim we have of Jesus' resurrection
>is from the Pauline epistles, none of which were written sooner than 20 years
>after the supposed event.

First, off I'd say that the impact if right before your eyes! 8-) That we are
even discussing this is a major impact in and of itself. Further, the early
church bears testimony to the impact.

>(2)  It seems probable that no one displayed the body of Jesus because no
>one knew where it was.  I personally believe that the most likely
>explanation was that the body was stolen (by disciples, or by graverobbers).
>Don't bother with the point about the guards ... it only appears in one
>gospel, and seems like exactly the sort of thing early Christians might make
>up in order to counter the grave-robbing charge.  The New Testament does
>record that Jews believed the body had been stolen.  If there were really
>guards, they could not have effectively made this claim, as they did.

Of course they knew where it was. Don't forget that Jesus was seen by both
the Jews and the Romans as a troublemaker. Pilate was no fool and didn't 
need the additional headaches of some fishermen stealing Jesus' body to 
make it appear He had arisen. Since Jesus was buried in the grave of a 
man well know to the Sanhedrin, to say that they didn't know where He was
buried begs the question.

Now, you say that you think that the disciples stole the body. But think on
this a moment. Would you die to maintain something you KNEW to be a 
deliberate lie!? If not, then why do you think the disciples would!? Now, I'm
not talking about dying for something you firmly believe to be the truth, 
but unbeknown to you, it is a lie. Many have done this. No, I'm talking about
dying, by beheading, stoning, crucifixion, etc., for something you know to
be a lie! Thus, you position with regards to the disciples stealing the 
body seems rather lightweight to me.

As for graverobbers, why risk the severe penalties for grave robbing over 
the body of Jesus? He wasn't buried with great riches. So, again, this is
an argument that can be discounted.

That leaves you back on square one. What happened to the body!?

IHL, Gene

--
   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:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

[Again, let me comment that the most plausible non-Christian scenario,
and the one typically suggested by sceptics who are knowledgeable
about the NT, is that the resurrection was a subjective event, and the
empty tomb stories are a result of accounts growing in the telling.
--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20900
From: ata@hfsi.hfsi.com ( John Ata)
Subject: Re: -= Hell =-

In article <Apr.12.03.44.24.1993.18836@athos.rutgers.edu> dmn@kepler.unh.edu (There's a seeker born every minute.) writes:

>    That would depend on what Heaven is like. If God is a King, and 
>an eternity in heaven consists of giving thanks and praise to the King,
>I might opt for Hell. I read a lovely account of a missionary trying to

But then, on the other hand, if you really loved that King more
than you did yourself, and He loved you to the point of assuring
you that the eternal time spent with him would be eternal ecstasy,
would you really opt for that choice?

>    Dana


-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20901
From: ata@hfsi.hfsi.com ( John Ata)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

In article <Apr.12.03.44.39.1993.18842@athos.rutgers.edu> reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu writes:
>In article <Apr.10.05.31.46.1993.14368@athos.rutgers.edu>, luomat@alleg.edu (Timothy J. Luoma) writes:
>> In article <Apr.9.01.11.16.1993.16937@athos.rutgers.edu>  
>> 
>> "Suppose you were part of the `Christian consipracy' which was going to  
>> tell people that Christ had risen.  Never mind the stoning, the being  
>> burned alive, the possible crucifixion ... let's just talk about a  
>> scourging.  The whip that would be used would have broken pottery, metal,  

>No one was ever flogged, beaten, burned, fed to the lions, or killed in any
>other way because of a belief in the resurrection - sorry to disappoint you.

I think you are vastly oversimplifying things. We know that early Christians
suffered totures because of their witness to Christ.  For example:

ACT 5:40    His speech persuaded them. They called the apostles in and had
            them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of
            Jesus, and let them go.

ACT 5:41    The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been
            counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name.

It appears that the Jewish rulers of that time had a particular aversion
to even hearing Jesus's name.
ACT 5:28    "We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said.
            "Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are
            determined to make us guilty of this man's blood."

Finally, the first apostle's death, James of Zebedee was certainly
not by Rome's hand any more than the first martyr Stephen. 


>The idea of resurrection is one which can be found in a host of different
>forms in the religions of antiquity.  The problem was not the resurrection
>which was a mediorce issue for a tiny fragment of the Jewish population 

The problem was that if one believed in the Resurrection, then one
must believe in Jesus as truly being the Son of God and what He
stood for and preached during His ministry on Earth.  That would
have been extremely difficult for some people, especially those
that had plotted to kill Him. 

>randy

-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20902
From: aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In a previous article, phs431d@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au () says:

>In article <Apr.13.00.08.07.1993.28379@athos.rutgers.edu>, aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker) writes:
>> To demand scintific or rational proof of God's existence, is to deny
>> God's existence, since neither science, nor reason, can, in their very
>> nature, prove anything.
>
>Are you asking us to believe blindly?  You are trying to deny that part of
>us that makes us ask the question "Does God exist?" i.e. self-awareness and
>reason.  If we do not use our ability to reason we become as ignorant
>as the other animals on this earth.  Does God want us to be like that?
>
I am asking you to believe in things not visible. I don't know if this is
believeing blindly or not. I'm not sure how blindness comes into it. I do
not deny reason, indeed I insist upon it, but reason only draws conclusions
from evidence. If you decide in advance that your reason will act only on
the evidence of the five physical senses, then you cut reason off from any
possibility of reaching a conclusion outside the physical sphere (beyond the
rather provocative, if inconclusive, conclusion that the physical sphere
is not self explanatory). 

Christians claim that they have received a different kind of evidence, 
which they call faith, and which is a gift of God. That is, this evidence
is the evidence of a thing which chooses to reveal or hide itself. The 
evidence of the senses cannot tell you is such a ting exists. Reasoning
on the evidence of the senses won't help either. But Christians do reason
of the evidence of faith, and do claim that this evidence is wholly
consistent with the evidence of the other senses, and indeed, that the
evidence of these other senses is part of God's revelation of himself
to us.

It is not necessarilly the case however that knowledge of a God must come
through this route. There may be other senses than the physical ones
providing evidence of non-physical realities. (There may, of course, be
physical realities of a type for which we have no corresponding senses, for
all we know.) These senses, if they exist, may provide valid evidence for
reason to work on. And, as with all senses, these senses may be impaired
in some people, that is, they may be spiritually blind. In this sense,
belief in God becomes an act of sight, and it is disbelief which is blind.

>You are right that science and reason cannot PROVE anything.  However, if
>we do not use them we can only then believe on FAITH alone.  And since
>we can only use faith, why is one picture of "God" (e.g. Hinduism) any less
>valid than another (e.g. Christianity)?
>
Faith, as I have said, is not opposed to reason, it is simply a new source 
of evidence on which reason may operate. It is clear that human beings
have many systems for explaining the evidence of the physical senses, and
similarly there are many systems for explaining the evidence provided by
faith. Religious believers in general, and Christians in particular, use
reason to help sift through the evidence to come to a clearer understanding
of the evidence provided by faith. Science claims, with good reason, to be
the most valid system for explaining the physical universe, and Christianity
claims, also with good reason, to be the most valid system, possessed of the
best evidence, for explaining Gods revelations of himself to man.

If you doubt that Christians use reason, read this newsgroup for a while
and you will see rational debate aplenty.
-- 
==============================================================================
Mark Baker                  | "The task ... is not to cut down jungles, but 
aa888@Freenet.carleton.ca   | to irrigate deserts." -- C. S. Lewis
==============================================================================

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20903
From: wjhovi01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: tuff to be a Christian?

Someone writing anonymously asks:

> Would you have become a Christian if you had not
> been indoctrinated by your parents? You probably never learned about
> any other religion to make a comparative study. And therefore I claim
> you are brain washed.

I *did* become a Christian without having been indoctrinated by my parents, and
having studied Buddhism fairly carefully and other religions to a lesser
degree.  I made a decision to accept the truth-claims of Christianity after
having given it a lot of thought.  (I have to point out that the process was not
purely a cold, rational one: there was a powerful experiential element as well.
Also, my Calvinist should rest assured that I don't lay any of the
responsibility for the outcome [my conversion] on anyone but God.)

It took me years and years for this all to happen, because I had many of the
objections that this poster puts forward.  I grew up in the shadow of [generic
authoritarian conservative denomination], and I *knew* that that wasn't a way
of life that I could adopt.  But I gradually learned not to tar all of
Christianity with the same brush, and realized quite suddenly one cold winter
night that I accepted what I had heretofore rejected.  I am quite certain that
I was not "brain-washed".

bill hovingh

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20904
From: wjhovi01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Hebrew grammar texts--choose English or German?

Phil Sells writes:

> Probably a tired old horse, but...  maybe with a slightly different
> twist.  I wanted to know if there are any good English-language texts
> for learning ancient Hebrew, and how these compare with German
> educational texts qualitywise, if anybody has an idea.  I can't figure
> out if I should buy one here for later study or wait until I get back to
> the U.S.

My impression is that *for advanced work* you will be much better off with
German reference works (lexicons, concordances especially).  For a first-time
encounter, my *personal* preference would be to deal with a textbook written in
my native language.  But if you know German and are in Germany, pick up all the
reference books you think you can handle.  (I only know these works by
reputation, since my German is most rusty, but I'd look at the following books:
Koehler's lexicon, Mandeldern's concordance, the Jenni & Westermann theological
dictionary of the OT.)

> What's it like at divinity schools or seminaries in the States?  Is
> there a lot of language instruction done?  I really don't have a basis
> for comparison.

The amount of language instruction available at US seminaries varies widely,
mostly depending on the denominational heritage of the school.  Presbyterian
and Reformed seminaries probably place a lot more emphasis on the biblical
languages than others.  (Of course, any divinity school that has a doctoral
program in biblical studies is going to have extensive language resources!  But
there are quite a few masters-degree-granting seminaries here at which the
attitude seems to be more, "Well, if you're *really* interested we'll give you
a semester-long course, but we don't understand why . . .")

The pattern here at the Louisville Presbyterian Seminary is for first-year
students to take intensive five-week introductory language courses in each
language, followed by semester-long exegesis courses.  (That is: Hebrew in
August, OT exegesis in the fall; Greek in January, NT exegesis in the spring.) 
These courses are required for graduation, a third or a half of the students,
I'd say, take advanced biblical work that requires language work.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20905
From: wquinnan@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Malcusco)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?

In article <Apr.16.23.18.04.1993.1876@geneva.rutgers.edu> rob@ll.mit.edu writes:
>I think it was Lewis who said that in a wedding, it's the principals  
>that marry each other; the church and the state are present merely as  
>witnesses.
>
>[This is not just Lewis -- it's a summary of standard Catholic
>theology.  However this doesn't mean that the presence of those
>witnesses is optional, except in odd situations like the standard
>desert island.  --clh]

	I originally wrote to the person who asked this question
personally, but decided to post the information I had on the topic.

	I spoke to the pastor of my parish (Catholic) recently, 
by coincidence, on this subject.  His explaination was that 
while it is possible for a couple to marry without the presence
of a priest, it is important to have it recognized by the 
Church as soon as it is possible.  Because the Church 
recoginizes itself as a community of believers, members
of the church, to some degree, are to be held accountable
to each other.  To be less hypothetical than that mythical
couple on the desert island, there are many places in the
world that do not have priests availible for marriages
on a regular basis.  Therefore, couples get married without
the priest being present, but get the priest to testify to
their marriage when one comes through the area.  

	I remember a religion teacher in high school saying
that the marriage ceremony is not for the benefit of the couple
as much as it is for the benefit of the community.  Thus,
married couples have some responsibility to the community
to stay married, as divorce sets a bad example for the
community.  Also, the couple has vowed to become one with
one another--the community should be able to rely on that 
couple to be as one.

	While couples may marry without witnesses, they 
may NOT get anulments without a priest present.  An 
anulment is simply an admission of the church that what
they had declared a marriage was not, in fact, a marriage
at all, for whatever reason.  So don't start getting married
in the back seat of a station wagon and giving yourselves
anulments a half-hour later!!

	I tend to agree with the response back there that
said couples become married as soon as they consumate their
marriage, but I would add that couples should consider their
marriage consumated if they have sex, whether or not they
intended to be married, assuming they were both willing
partners to the sexual act.  The couple must be prepared
to raise any children they may have as a result of that
sexual act with the benefit of both parents.  Sex IS a
commitment, I believe, in God's eyes.

	But I'm digressing....

			God be with you,
					
				Malcusco

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20906
From: shredder@telerama.pgh.pa.us (Ed Sayre)
Subject: Orthodox List

I recently had to move and forgot to update my address to the Orthodox
mailing list. Can anyone e-mail me the address for changes and what
exactly I have to put in caps, etc? (please send the original
subscription address also). Thanks ahead of time! -Ed.
-- 
Ed "Shredder" Sayre              internet: shredder@telerama.pgh.pa.us
Unemployment Studies major

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20907
From: mauaf@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr P D Simmons)
Subject: Why religion and which religion?


        My family has never been particularly religious - singing Christmas
carols is about the limit for them. Thus I've never really believed in God and
heaven, although I don't actually believe that they don't exist either -
I'm sort of undecided, probably like a lot of people I guess.
        Lately I've been thinking about it all a lot more, and I wondered how
religious people can be so convinced that there is a God. I feel as though
I want to believe, but I'm not used to believing things without proof -
just as I can't believe that there definitely isn't a God, so I can't
definitely believe that there is. I wondered if most of you were brought up by
religious families and never believed any different. Can anyone help me to
understand how your belief and faith in God can be so strong.

        Another question that frequently crosses my mind is which religion is
correct?? How do you choose a religion, and how do you know that the Christian
God exists and the Gods of other religions don't?? How do you feel about
people who follow other religions?? How about atheists?? And people like me -
agnostics I suppose. Do you respect their religion, and accept their
beliefs as just as valid as your own?? Isn't there contradiction between
the religions?? How can your religion be more valid than any others?? Do
you have less respect for someone if they're not religious, or if they follow
a different religion than you would if they were Christian??

        Also, how much of the scriptures are correct?? Are all events in
the bible really supposed to have happened, or are they just supposed to be
stories with morals showing a true Christian how to behave??

        I generally follow most of the Christian ideas, which I suppose are
fairly universal throughout all religions - not killing, stealing, etc, and
'Loving my neighbour' for want of a better expression. The only part I find
hard is the actual belief in God.

        Finally, what is God's attitude to people like me, who don't quite
believe in Him, but are generally fairly 'good' people. Surely not
believing doesn't make me a worse person?? If not, I find myself wondering why
I so strongly want to really believe, and to find a religion.

        Sorry if I waffled on a bit - I was just writing ideas as they came
into my head. I'm sure I probably repeated myself a bit too.

                        Thanks for the help,
                                Paul Simmons

[There's been enough discussion about evidence for Christianity
recently that you may prefer to respond to this via email rather than
as a posting.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20908
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5

I wrote in response to dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe):

>[It's not clear how much more needs to be said other than the FAQ.  I
>think Paul's comments on esteeming one day over another (Rom 14) is
>probably all that needs to be said.

Was Paul a God too? Is an interpretation of the words of Paul of higher
priority than the direct word of Jesus in Matt5:14-19? Paul begins
Romans 14 with "If someone is weak in the faith ..." Do you count
yourself as one who is weak in the faith?

>I accept that Darius is doing
>what he does in honor of the Lord.  I just wish he might equally
>accept that those who "esteem all days alike" are similarly doing
>their best to honor the Lord.

Yes, but what does the Bible have to say? What did Jesus say? Paul
closes Romans 14 with, "On the other hand, the person with doubts about
something who eats it anyway is guilty, because he isn't acting on his
faith, and any failure to act on faith is a sin." Gaus, ISBN:0-933999-99-2
Have you read the Ten Commandments which are a portion of the Law? Have
you read Jesus' word in Matt5:14-19? Is there any doubt in your mind
about what is right and what is sin (Greek hamartia = missing the mark)?

>However I'd like to be clear that I do not think there's unambiguous
>proof that regular Christian worship was on the first day.  As I
>indicated, there are responses on both of the passages cited.

Whereas, the Ten Commandments and Jesus' words in Matt5:14-19 are fairly
clear, are they not?

>The difficulty with both of these passages is that they are actually
>about something else.  They both look like they are talking about
>nnregular Christian meetings, but neither explicitly says "and they
>gathered every Sunday for worship".  We get various pieces of
>information, but nothing aimed at answering this question.  

Matt5:14-19 doesn't answer your question?

>what day Christians met in their houses.  Acts 20:7, despite Darius'
>confusion, is described by Acts as occuring on Sunday.  ... It doesn't
>say they gathered to
>see Paul off, but that when they were gathered for breaking bread,

Breaking bread - roughly synonymous with eating.

>So I think the most obvious reading of this is that "on the first day
>of every week" simply means every time they gather for worship.  

How do you unite this concept of yours with the Ten Commandments and
Jesus's word in Matt5:14-19?

>I think the reason we have only implications and not clear statements
>is that the NT authors assumed that their readers knew when Christian
>worship was.
>--clh]

Or, they assumed that the Ten Commandments and Jesus' word in
Matt5:14-19 actually stood for something? Perhaps they were "strong in
the faith?"

---------------------------

[No, I don't believe that Paul can overrule God.  However Paul was
writing for a largely Gentile audience.  The Law was regarded by Jews
at the time (and now) as binding on Jews, but not on Gentiles.  There
are rules that were binding on all human beings (the so-called Noachic
laws), but they are quite minimal.  The issue that the Church had to
face after Jesus' death was what to do about Gentiles who wanted to
follow Christ.  The decision not to impose the Law on them didn't say
that the Law was abolished.  It simply acknowledged that fact that it
didn't apply to Gentiles.  Thus there is no contradiction with Mat 5.
As far as I can tell, both Paul and other Jewish Christians did
continue to participate in Jewish worship on the Sabbath.  Thus they
continued to obey the Law.  The issue was (and is) with Gentile
Christians, who are not covered by the Law (or at least not by the
ceremonial aspects of it).

Jesus dealt mostly with Jews.  I think we can reasonably assume that
Mat 5 was directed to a Jewish audience.  He did interact with
Gentiles a few times (e.g. the centurion whose slave was healed and a
couple of others).  The terms used to describe the centurion (see Luke
7) suggest that he was a "God-fearer", i.e. a Gentile who followed
God, but had not adopted the whole Jewish Law.  He was commended by
Jewish elders as a worthy person, and Jesus accepted him as such.
This seems to me to indicate that Jesus accepted the prevailing view
that Gentiles need not accept the Law.

However there's more involved if you want to compare Jesus and Paul on
the Law.  In order to get a full picture of the role of the Law, we
have to come to grips with Paul's apparent rejection of the Law, and
how that relates to Jesus' commendation of the Law.  At least as I
read Paul, he says that the Law serves a purpose that has been in a
certain sense superceded.  Again, this issue isn't one of the
abolition of the Law.  In the middle of his discussion, Paul notes
that he might be understood this way, and assures us that that's not
what he intends to say.  Rather, he sees the Law as primarily being
present to convict people of their sinfulness.  But ultimately it's an
impossible standard, and one that has been superceded by Christ.
Paul's comments are not the world's clearest here, and not everyone
agrees with my reading.  But the interesting thing to notice is that
even this radical position does not entail an abolition of the Law.
It still remains as an uncompromising standard, from which not an iota
or dot may be removed.  For its purpose of convicting of sin, it's
important that it not be relaxed.  However for Christians, it's not
the end -- ultimately we live in faith, not Law.

While the theoretical categories they use are rather different, in the
end I think Jesus and Paul come to a rather similar conclusion.  The
quoted passage from Mat 5 should be taken in the context of the rest
of the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus shows us how he interprets the
Law.  The "not an iota or dot" would suggest a rather literal reading,
but in fact that's not Jesus' approach.  Jesus' interpretations
emphasize the intent of the Law, and stay away from the ceremonial
details.  Indeed he is well known for taking a rather free attitude
towards the Sabbath and kosher laws.  Some scholars claim that Mat
5:17-20 needs to be taken in the context of 1st Cent. Jewish
discussions.  Jesus accuses his opponents of caring about giving a
tenth of even the most minor herbs, but neglecting the things that
really matter: justice, mercy and faith, and caring about how cups and
plates are cleaned, but not about the fact that inside the people who
use them are full of extortion and rapacity.  (Mat 23:23-25) This, and
the discussion later in Mat 5, suggest that Jesus has a very specific
view of the Law in mind, and that when he talks about maintaining the
Law in its full strength, he is thinking of these aspects of it.
Paul's conclusion is similar.  While he talks about the Law being
superceded, all of the specific examples he gives involve the
"ceremonial law", such as circumcision and the Sabbath.  He is quite
concerned about maintaining moral standards.

The net result of this is that when Paul talks about the Law being
superceded, and Jesus talks about the Law being maintained, I believe
they are talking about different aspects of the Law.  Paul is
embroiled in arguments about circumcision.  As is natural in letters
responding to specific situations, he's looking at the aspect of the
Law that is currently causing trouble: the Law as specifically Jewish
ceremonies.  He certainly does not intend to abolish divine standards
of conduct.  On the other hand, when Jesus commends the Law, he seems
to be talking the Law in its broadest implications for morals and
human relationships, and deemphasizing those aspects that were later
to give Paul so much trouble.

It's unfortunate that people use the same terms in different ways, but
we should be familiar with that from current conflicts.  Look at the
way terms like "family values" take on special meaning from the
current context.  Imagine some poor historian of the future trying to
figure out why "family values" should be used as a code word for
opposition to homosexuality in one specific period in the U.S.  I
think Law had taken on a similar role in the arguments Paul was
involved in.  Paul was clearly not rejecting all of the Jewish values
that go along with the term "Law", any more than people who concerned
about the "family values" movement are really opposed to family
values.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20909
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?

In article <Apr.16.23.15.27.1993.1836@geneva.rutgers.edu> cs89mcd@brunel.ac.uk (Michael C Davis) writes:

[it has to do with honoring the laws of the state, and]
>also to do with how people will perceive us; i.e. it is culturally insensitive
>to declare yourself married without going through a civil ceremony.)

I would go further: if a couple are unwilling to have their commitment
publicly witnessed and recorded, that's prima facie evidence that the
commitment isn't really there.



-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20910
From: armstrng@cs.dal.ca (Stan Armstrong)
Subject: Immaterial afterlife (was Is Hell Real)

In article <C4zAyM.M9u@spss.com> goer@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>I thought everyone who died simply went to Sheol.  The notion of going to
>heaven is a Christianization based on those parts of the NT that speak of
>an immaterial afterlife.
>
>   -Richard L. Goerwitz              goer%midway@uchicago.bitnet
>   goer@midway.uchicago.edu          rutgers!oddjob!ellis!goer
>
Where in the Bible is there *any* teaching about an immaterial afterlife?
I was always taught that both the O.T. Jews and the N.T. Christians would
have found the notion incomprehensible--as do I.

Don't we christians believe in the resurrection of the body?

Or do you mean by material simply the stuff made of the 100+ elements
that we know and love too much?

-- 
Stan Armstrong. Religious Studies Dept, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, N.S.
Armstrong@husky1.stmarys.ca | att!clyde!watmath!water!dalcs!armstrng

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20911
From: revc@garg.campbell.ca.us (Bob Van Cleef)
Subject: Re: SSPX schism ?

>From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)


>Many Catholics will decide to side with the Pope.  There is some
>soundness in this, because the Papacy is infallible, so eventually
>some Pope *will* straighten all this out.  But, on the other hand,
>there is also unsoundness in this, in that, in the short term, the
>Popes may indeed be wrong, and such Catholics are doing nothing to
>help the situation by obeying them where they're wrong.  In fact, if
>the situation is grave enough, they sin in obeying him.  At the very
>least, they're wasting a great opportunity, because they are failing
>to love Christ in a heroic way at the very time that He needs this
>badly.

Joe;

Your logic excapes me. 

If the Papacy is infallible, and this is a matter of faith, then the 
Pope cannot "be wrong!"  If, on the other hand, this is not a matter 
of faith, but a matter of Church law, then we should still obey as the
Pope is the legal head of the church.

In other words, given the doctrine of infallibility, we have no choice
but to obey.

Bob

-- 
><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>     \|/     <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><
Bob Van Cleef              Peace -0- be      revc@garg.Campbell.CA.US
The Land of Garg BBS        unto /|\ you           BBS (408) 378-5108
><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>      |      <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><


[You might want to look at the FAQ on infallibility.  The doctrine on
infallibility does not say that the pope is always right.  All
Catholic theologians acknowledge that there have been a number of
occasions when the pope was wrong.  There appear to be two aspects to
infallibility.  One is a general concept that in the long run the
Church is protected from serious error.  However this does not mean
that it's impossible for it to take wrong turns at one time or
another.  The more specific concept of papal infallibility is that in
very specific circumstances a papal statement can be known to be
infallible.  However a relatively small fraction of statements meet
those criteria.  This does not absolve Catholics from the duty to obey
even "ordinary" teachings of the pope.  However only a few teachings
are made in a way that is explicitly infallible.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20912
From: lmh@juliet.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.)
Subject: Christian's need for Christianity (was ...)

In article <Apr.16.23.17.40.1993.1861@geneva.rutgers.edu<, mussack@austin.ibm.com writes...
<< < For example: why does the universe exist at all?  

<Whether there is a "why" or not we have to find it. This is Pascal's(?) wager.
<If there is no why and we spend our lives searching, then we have merely
<wasted our lives, which were meaningless anyway. If there is a why and we
..
<Suppose the universe is 5 billion years old, and suppose it lasts another
<5 billion years. Suppose I live to be 100. That is nothing, that is so small
<that it is scary. So by searching for the "why" along with my friends here
<on earth if nothing else we aren't so scared.

 I find this view of Christianity to be quite disheartening and sad.
The idea that life only has meaning or importance if there is a Creator
does not seem like much of a basis for belief.

 And the logic is also appalling: "God must exist because I want Him to."

 I have heard this line of "reasoning" before and wonder how prevalent
it is. Certainly in modern society many people are convinced life is
hopeless (or so the pollsters and newscasts state), but I don't see
where this is a good reason to become religious. If you want 'meaning'
why not just join a cult, such as in Waco? The leaders will give you
the security blanket you desire.

larry henling   lmh@shakes.caltech.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20913
From: uad1126@tdc.dircon.co.uk (Robert Palmer)
Subject: Christian Parenting

Hi I am a Sociology student and I am currently researching into 
young offenders.  I am looking at the way various groups of 
children are raised at home.  At the moment I am formlulating 
information on discipline within the Christian home.

Please, if you are a parent in this catagory can you email me 
your response to the following questionaire.  All responses 
will be treated confidentially and will only be used to prepare 
stats.

1.  Ages & sexes of children

2.  Do you spank your kids?

3.  If so how often?

4.  Do you use an implement to spank with? 


5. If you do not spank, what method of discipline do you use?

6.  Your age?

7.  Your location

8.  While under the age of 16 did you ever commit a criminal 
offence?

9.  How ere you disciplined as a kid


Thank you in advance for any reply you can make.  Please e-mail 
your replies rather than post them on the newsgroup

[I hope it is obvious that responses to this question are likely to
have serious problems when used for research purposes.  Our readers
are not likely to be a random sample of Christians, and this form does
not contain enough information to act as a stratified sample.  Perhaps
someone who is familiar with research methods might want to correspond
with him.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20914
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: anger

In article <Apr.17.01.10.44.1993.2232@geneva.rutgers.edu> news@cbnewsk.att.com writes:
>>Paul Conditt writes:
[insert deletion of Paul's and Aaron's discourse on anger, ref Galatians
5:19-20]
>
>I don't know why it is so obvious.  We are not speaking of acts of the 
>flesh.  We are just speaking of emotions.  Emotions are not of themselves
>moral or immoral, good or bad.  Emotions just are.  The first step is
>not to label his emotion as good or bad or to numb ourselves so that
>we hide our true feelings, it is to accept ourselves as we are, as God
>accepts us.  

Oh, but they definitely can be.  Please look at Colossians 3:5-10 and
Ephesians 4:25-27.  Emotions can be controlled and God puts very strong
emphasis on self-control, otherwise, why would he have Paul write to
Timothy so much about making sure to teach self-control? 

[insert deletion of remainder of paragraph]

>
>Re-think it, Aaron.  Don't be quick to judge.  He has forgiven those with
>AIDS, he has dealt with and taken responsibility for his feelings and made
>appropriate choices for action on such feelings.  He has not given in to
>his anger.

Please, re-think and re-read for yourself, Joe.  Again, the issue is
self-control especially over feelings and actions, for our actions stem
from our feelings in many instances.  As for God giving in to his anger,
that comes very soon.

>
>Joe Moore

Joe Fisher

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20915
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: tuff to be a Christian?

In article <Apr.17.01.10.58.1993.2246@geneva.rutgers.edu> mdbs@ms.uky.edu (no name) writes:
>bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:
>
>>	I don't think most people understand what a Christian is.  It 
>>is certainly not what I see a lot in churches.  Rather I think it 
>>should be a way of life, and a total sacrafice of everything for God's 
>>sake.  He loved us enough to die and save us so we should do the 
>
>	Typical statement from an irrational and brainwashed person.
>The bible was written by some male chavnist thousands of years ago
>(as were all of the "holy" books). Follow the parts that you think are
>suitable for modern life. Ignore the others. For heaven's (!) sake don't
>take it literally.

Please, leave heaven out of it.  For his own sake, I pray that Dan does
take it literally because that's how God intended it to be taken.  Dan,
your view of many groups appears correct from my point of view.
However, I have found a group which is truly meeting requirements laid
down by the Bible on what it means to be a disciple of Jesus.  I have no
clue where wwc is, but please mail me.  I'd really like to get you in
touch with them.

>
>>same.  Hey we can't do it, God himself inspires us to turn our lives 
>>over to him.  That's tuff and most people don't want to do it, to be a 
>				^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>real Christian would be something for the strong to persevere at.  But 
>
[insert deletion of ranting about other religions which obviously has
gone off-center of Dan's original context]

Dan, I'm familiar with this one.  You've got a point, though.  There are
some who don't want to turn over everything and be a disciple, some have
no clue about it because they've not been taught, some have done exactly
that and turned over everything to follow Jesus, some are blocked by
difficult doctrine taught by uncaring Pharisees and teachers of the law.
However, Jesus pointed out what it takes to follow him and to be his
disciple in Luke 9:23-26 and Luke 14:25-33.  My question is:  why do
people ignore the command and treat it as optional?  I certainly don't
have an answer to this.

[insert deletion]

>	Parting Question:
>		Would you have become a Christian if you had not
>been indoctrinated by your parents? You probably never learned about
>any other religion to make a comparative study. And therefore I claim
>you are brain washed.

My parents had nothing to do with it.  God had and has everything to do
with it.  As for these attacking responses, I must say that I disagree
with your tone and what appears to be some very judgmental statements
(possibly to the point of slander) when talking about people, not what
they do.  Please, if you have a response, state it instead of flying off
the handle on some discourse which may have nothing truly to do with
what is being discussed.  I'm sure both Dan and I would have a much
happier time with your responses.

Joe

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20916
From: chips@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Charlie Mathew)
Subject: Interdisc. Bible Research Inst.


 
Hi!

	Anyone know anything about the Interdisciplinary Bible Research
Institute, operating out of Hatfield, Pa?

	I'm really interested in their theories on old-earth
(as opposed to young earth) and what they believe about evolution.

	Thanks,
		In the Master,

		Charley.


--
       Seek God and you will find, among other things,
                          piercing pleasure.
       
       Seek pleasure and you will find boredom, disillusionment        
                      and enslavement.
       
                               John White (Eros Defiled).	

[Note that I do not accept discussions of evolution here, as there
is a dedicated group for that, talk.origins.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20917
From: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Subject: HELPHLPHELPHELP

*******
*******  This is somewhat long, but pleas read it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*******



Boy am i glad you decided to read this. I've got a problem that 
I need as many people's help from as possible.

Before I go in to the details of this, let me go ahead and tell
you that (though it may sound it) this is not one of those boy
meets girl problem...at least not totally like that to me....Anyway...

OK, I am a 19 year old Sophmore at NCSU. About 10 years ago, my family
and I were vacationing at the coast in a cottage we rented. Across the
street, was ths girl who would whistle at me whenever she saw me...
her name in Erin. Well, we became friends that week at the beach and have
been writing each other for about 10 years....there was a period of about
2 years we lost contact..but that was a while ago. 

By the way...Erin lives in Kansas and me in NC.

OK, last year in one of her letters, she says that she is coming
back to NC to see some of her family who are gonna be there. So I
drove about 4 hours to see her. This is where it begins....I spent
the whole day with Erin....one of the best days of my life. Even though
we had been writing each other, we still had to get used to being
in person....she has got to be the most incredible woman I ever met.
(She's one year older than me BTW). I mean, no person in the world could
ask for a better person. Not only was she incredibly beautiful (not to 
mention WAY out of my league...although I'm  not unattractive mind you), but
she had a great personality and a great sence of humor. Her family
is one of those families who goes to church but that is about the
extent of their Christianity...you know the kind of people. But she
knows I am a Christian. 

Well, you get the idea of what I think of her. If there is ever such
a thing as love at first sight....I found it. That was last year...I kid
you not when I say that I have thought about her EVERY day since then.

In out letters, Erin and I always kid each other about not finding
dates..(which is true for me, but I know it can't be for her).
She has had some problems at home, her folks split up and she ended
up leaving school....Now we are at the present...

Let me give you part of the letter I got from her last week....


"Okay, now I'm going to try to explain my life to you. I'm not
going to KU anymore because something just isn't right. College
just wasn't clicking with me here. Greek life is really big here and
that just isn't my way. I wasn't taking any classes that truly interested
me & i really have no idea of what i want to do with my life. I was
interested in something medical (Physical Therpy) & I love working with 
kids, but 'it' just didn't work for me at this university. And my parents
could tell.

"So I'm working full time at the Bass Store [Bass shoes that is] and now
I have a part-time job at a local daycare. I work in the infant room
M-W-F. I've really enjoyed it so far. It spices up my week a little bit and 
it's great experience.

"As of now, I'm not planning on going back to school in the very
near future. The main reason being my indecision on what I want to
study. But I definatley plan on going back within the next couple of
years. Where? I have no idea--except for one thing, it won't be
to Kansas.

"Right noew I'm discussing a promotion with my boss and district 
manager. It looks like I'll train at the store I work at now for
about 4-6 months as Assistant Manager and when that's done, I'll 
basically be given a list of stores (newly or soon to be built) to 
chose where i would like to manage. I've pretty much decided on either
one of the Carolinas (hopeully close to the beach) Wouldn't it
be fun to actually see each other more than once every few years??
What do you think abou that? I would like to know your opinion.

"This job would pretty much be temporary. But it is VERY GOOD pay
and any thye of management experience would look good on an application
or resume. The company is solid and treats it employees very well. Good
benefits, bonuses & medical plans. Plus- after 1 year of full-time
service, they will reimburse tuition. I do have school money waitng
for me, but this will help, especially since I will probably end up 
paying out of state tuition wherever I go.

"Chris, i really would like to know what you think of my decision. I 
respect your opinion. I've been completely lost for what to do for 
soooo long that when the opportunity came along it sounded really 
good. I do like my job although I'm about 99.9% sure that i want
to do more with my life than reatil management..but it IS something.
I don't think earning about $20,000 a year for a 20 year old female
is too bad. 

"Anyway, onto your career decisions. I'll solve your problem right now,
MARRY ME...

"You can do your pilot thing-- I like to be by myself sometimes! Seriously
(or not as seriously)- do what will make you the happiest, worry about the
home life later."

***********

OK, well I'm sure you see what has got me so uptight. What do you
think she meant about the marraige thing?? 

I dream at night about marrying her, and then she mentions it in her
letter!!! I don't know what to think??

Since she wants to move to the Carolina's should i search out a 
Bass store near here and aske her to come to Carolina???

I always pick on those people who graduate from high school and
get married....but what does she mean??? 

I've had a lot of stress lately with exams and also the fact that 
I don't date beacause 1) No time  2) Not that much $$ 3) that
most college women are wrapped up in the social scene with  the
Greeks whic as a Christian I can't support-----and here
she says she doesn't like the Greek thing either!!

Maybe I'm so stunned because there is actually a girl that I am
so attracted to paying some real attention to me.

I mean, what if she did move to NC...what would I do??? I'm
only 19 and she 20....I'm only a Sophmore struggling through
classes..

I have prayed about this over the past year from time to time..
saying, "God if she is the right one, let the situation open up.."

Could this be my sign???

I would do ANYTHING to get her to NC...here is some moree that makes 
it worse..

Should I call her?? I'm terrible over the phone. I don't even like
to talk to my friends here for longer than 3 minutes.

I mean, what would a girl as perfect as her want with a very
average guy like me??

I'm really confused....I would really appreciate any help i can get.

Thanx 

Chris

[I have a feeling that it might be more appropriate to talk with
Chris directly via email.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20918
From: jkellett@netcom.com (Joe Kellett)
Subject: Re: sex education

In article <Apr.8.00.57.31.1993.28227@athos.rutgers.edu> jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:
>It seems I spend a significant amount of my time correcting errors about
>the reliability tests for condoms and abstinence.  A few years ago I saw
>that famous study that showed a "10% failure rate" for condoms.  The
>same study showed a 20% failure rate for abstinence!!  That is, adult
>couples who relied on abstinence to prevent pregnancy got pregnant in
>alarming numbers--they didn't have the willpower to abstain.  And we're
>thinking that this will work with high school kids?!?

I am told that Planned Parenthood/SIECUS-style "values-free" methods, that
teach contraceptive technology and advise kids how to make "choices",
actually _increase_ pregnancy rates. I posted a long article on this a while
back and will be happy to email a copy to any who are interested.  The
article included sources to contact for information on research verifying
these statements, and an outstanding source for info on acquiring
abstinence-related curricula even in single-copy quantities for home use.

The same research produced the results that abstinence-related curricula
were found to _decrease_ pregnancy rates in teens.  I assume that it is
reasonable to assume that the AIDS rate will fluctuate with the pregnancy
rate.

The difference is not in "contraceptive technology" but in the values taught
to the children.  The PP/SIECUS curricula taught the kids that they have
legitimate choices, while the abstinence related curricula taught them that
they did _not_ have _legitimate_ choices other than abstinence.  It is the
values system that is the strongest determinent of the behavior behavior of
these kids.

Despite the better track record of abstinence-related curricula, they are
suppressed in favor of curricula that produce an effect contrary to that
desired.  

Question for further discussion (as they say in the textbooks):  Why don't
we teach "safe drug use" to kids, instead of drug abstinence?  Isn't it
because we know that a class in "how to use drugs safely if you _choose_ to
use drugs" would increase drug use?  Why isn't "drug abstinence education"
barred from schools because it teaches "religion"?  Aren't we abandoning
those children who will use drugs anyway, and need instruction in their safe
use?


-- 
Joe Kellett
jkellett@netcom.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20919
From: seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."

In article <Apr.14.03.07.38.1993.5420@athos.rutgers.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
>In article 28388@athos.rutgers.edu, jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas) writes:
>
>> Drugs are a replacement for Christ.
>>Those who have an empty spot in the God-shaped hole in their hearts must 
>>do something to ease the pain.
>
>I have heard this claim quite a few times. Does anybody here know
>who first came up with the "God-shaped hole" business?
>
>>  This is why the most effective 
>>substance-abuse recovery programs involve meeting peoples' spiritual 
>>needs.
>
>You might want to provide some evidence next time you make a claim
>like this.
>
In 12-step programs (like Alcoholics Anonymous), one of the steps
involves acknowleding a "higher power".  AA and other 12-step abuse-
recovery programs are acknowledged as being among the most effective.

Unfortunately, as evidence for God, this can be dismissed by stating
that the same defect of personality makes substance abusers as makes 
people 'religious', and the debunker could perhaps acknowledge that
being religious is a better crutch than being a drug addict, but
still maintain that both are escapism.  (And I suspect that there
are some atheists who would find the substance abuse preferable to
Christianity.)

I think that an essential problem with communication between Christ-
ians and atheists is that as Christians we necessarily see ourselves
as incomplete, and needing God (the 'God-shaped hole'), while atheists
necessarily see themselves as self-sufficient.  If the atheists are
right, Christians are guilty of being morally weak, and too cowardly
to stand up for themselves; if the Christians are right, the atheists
are guilty of considerable arrogance.  (I use the term atheist to
refer to a person who has a definite conviction that there is no God,
as opposed to one who does not know and/or does not care about God.)
==
Seanna Watson   Bell-Northern Research,       | Pray that at the end of living,
(seanna@bnr.ca) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada       | Of philosophies and creeds,
                                              | God will find his people busy
Opinion, what opinions? Oh *these* opinions.  | Planting trees and sowing seeds.
No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.          |
I knew I'd left them somewhere.               |  --Fred Kaan

(let's see...I spelled 'sowing' right; I got the author's name right--maybe
my 3rd iteration .sig will be a keeper.)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20920
From: armstrng@cs.dal.ca (Stan Armstrong)
Subject: Re: So far so good

In article <C4z5u3.Jxo@spss.com> luomat@alleg.edu writes:
>
>This may be a really dumb one, but I'll ask it anyways:
>	Christians know that they can never live up to the requirements of  
>God, right? (I may be wrong, but that is my understanding)  But they still  
>try to do it.  Doesn't it seem like we are spending all of our lives  
>trying to reach a goal we can never achieve?  I know that we are saved by  
>faith and not by works, but does that mean that once we are saved we don't  
>have to do anything?  I think James tells us that Faith without works is  
>dead (paraphrase).  How does this work?
>
So long as we think that good things are what we *have* to do rather than
what we come to *want* to do, we miss the point. The more we love God; the
more we come to love what and whom He loves.

When I find that what I am doing is not good, it is not a sign to try
even harder (Romans 7:14-8:2); it is a sign to seek God. When I am aware 
of Jesus' presence, I usually want what He wants. It is His strenth, His love 
that empowers my weakness.
-- 
Stan Armstrong. Religious Studies Dept, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, N.S.
Armstrong@husky1.stmarys.ca | att!clyde!watmath!water!dalcs!armstrng

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20921
From: alastair@farli.otago.ac.nz (Alastair Thomson)
Subject: Does 'Just/justifiable War' exist?

Hi there netters,
I have a question I would very much like to see some discussion on:
Is there such a thing as a 'justifible' war? 

What I would love to see it some basis from scripture for either: "All war  
is wrong", or "Some war is justifiable". 

To get things started I would like to outline why I am asking the  
question. In my high school days I had been quite involved in the the New  
Zealand Cadet Forces (This is a bit like ROTC from what I understand of  
it, but with a lot more emphasis on fun than military career training).  
Through this I became extremely enamoured of flying, have become involved  
in the sport of gliding, and have a great interest in military aviation  
hardware as the very best a 'real' flyer could ask for. My favourite  
computer games are the accurate simulations of military aircraft, both  
past and present. 

I became a Christian about 10 years ago, and at the time rejected all  
military activity as immoral. For me, all war was in complete opposition  
to God's commandments to love one another, especially one's enemies.

During the war in Iraq, I found myself with great excitement listening to  
the reports of the effectiveness of the the attacks using the aviation  
technology I so admire - The F117A 'Stealh' bomber, the F14, F15 and F16  
strike aircraft, etc. After the war concluded I began to really enjoy  
simulations based around this conflict - Great to go and bomb Saddam's  
bio-weapons plants in an F117A on my computer, or shoot down some of his  
Mig's in an F16. The simulation of the death of people was a wonderful  
game. I imagine the real pilots view the real thing in much the same way.  
One only has to look at the language used to see that the personal impact  
of war is ignored: A building containing people, or an aircraft flown by a  
pilot is simply a 'target'. Dead civilians are 'collateral damage'. These  
euphanisms are a way of removing the reality of war from the people whose  
support are necessary for the continued waging of war - One only has to  
look at Vietnam to see how important public opinion is.

Now we see troops sponsored by the United Nations entering Somalia, and  
the prospect of military intervention in the Muslim/Croat/Serb conflict in  
the former Yugoslavia. My revulsion in particular to the siege of  
Sarajevo, and in the last few days of (sorry 'bout spelling) Sebrenitsa,  
has caused me to rethink where I stand on 'justifiable' war.

I will list several wars in the last 50 years I can look at each, and say  
- Yes this may have been justifible, this may not. These are simply my gut  
reactions to each - In many cases with the benefit of the impartiality  
history brings. Let me go through a few and state some of my reasons for  
my reaction - I am not a historian, so excuse any historical blunders, I  
am working from popular history as it is known in New Zealand.

1. The Second World War
	- Murder of Jews - Hitler had to be stopped.
	- Massive civilian casualties on both sides 
		- Dresden, Hiroshima/Nagasaki
	- Probably justifiable.

2. Korean war
	- Political expansionism by North Korea, basically
	  communism vs. capitalism.
	- Probably not justifiable.

3. Vietnam
	- As above, worsened by US involvement.

4. Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia.
	- Genocide by Khmer Rouge.
	- Probably justifiable.

5. Iraq (Desert Storm)
	- Political expansionism, threat to world oil supply
	- Other factors such as genocide.
	- Not sure, but probably justifiable

6. A future involvement in Bosnia
	- Genocide - so called 'Ethnic Cleansing'
	- Emotive - much TV coverage of atrocities and civilian casualties.
	- Probably justifiable

7. Possible future use of nuclear weapons - tactical or strategic,  
somewhere in the world by the US in response to someone else - e.g. Libya  
or Israel.
	- My feelings in this are simple
	- Nuclear war/weapons are abhorrent
	- I love the New Zealand government's stand on banning all nuclear
	  armed or powered warships from NZ port.
	- Never justifiable.

These are my own views, I have looked at scripture, and I am confused. I  
would appreciate others view, particularly those based on scripture. I  
*don't* want a - Naaahh, yer wrong - I think answers 8-).

Thanks for your help.

==========================================================================
                                    |
Alastair Thomson,                   | Phone +64-3-479-8347
Chief Programmer,                   | Fax   +64-3-479-8529
The Black Albatross Porject,        |
University of Otago,                |
Department of Computer Science,     | e-mail alastair@farli.otago.ac.nz
P.O. Box 56                         |        athomson@otago.ac.nz
Dunedin                             | NeXTmail Welcome
New Zealand                         |
 
   "God loved the world so much, that he gave us His Son, to die in 
    our place, so that we may have eternal life" John 3:16, paraphrase

==========================================================================

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20922
From: asket@acad2.alaska.edu
Subject: When is a couple married...


     I used to be a marriage commissioner for the Alaska Court
System (sort of a justice of the peace).  I had great difficulty
with that duty.  I used to pray earnestly in the courthouse
bathroom before the ceremonies, mostly asking that the couples
would come to appreciate and fulfill the true holiness and
divine purpose in marriage--couples who obviously didn't realize
that marriage is God's institution, not the state's.  Gradually,
however, I came to conclude that because I was acting in a
strictly secular, public capacity, established as such by both
the state and the expectations of the couples involved, I was
really conducting a purely secular, legal civil event, with no
greater moral or religious implications than if I had been
conducting a civil trial (the couple who told me, mid-ceremony,
to "please hurry it up" may have helped me to this conclusion). 

     I thought I had neatly rationalized a clear and sharp
distinction between marriage before God, and "marriage" before
the state, until I had to deal with my own divorce.  Keeping
Matthew 19:6 in mind, I felt that the state had no business
dissolving my marriage established before God, but of course it
assumed jurisdiction nonetheless.  

      I would ask those of you proposing answers to this
question to consider this issue's logical extension: If
intercourse, or the mental intent of the parties, or the
ceremony of the church, or any combination thereof, establishes
marriage, then at what moment is it dissolved?  

                                   Karl Thoennes III
                                   University of Alaska

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20923
From: rolfe@junior.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe)
Subject: Divine providence vs. Murphy's Law

Romans 8:28 (RSV)   We know that in everything God works for good with those 
who love him, who are called according to his purpose. 

Murphy's Law:  If anything can go wrong, it will.

We are all quite familiar with the amplifications and commentary on
Murphy's Law.  But how do we harmonize that with Romans 8:28?  For that
matter, how appropriate is humor contradicted by Scripture?
--
                                                    --- Tim Rolfe
                                                 rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu
                                                 rolfe@junior.dsu.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20924
From: mwhaefne@infonode.ingr.com (Mark W. Haefner)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jesus in your heart..."

>
>> Religion (especially Christianity) is nothing more than a DRUG.
>> Some people use drugs as an escape from reality.  Christians inject
>> themselves with jeezus and live with that high. 


Why would you say "especially Christianity"?


Mark

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20925
From: jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas)
Subject: What's in a name?: the sequel

I've been thinking about the idea that was raised (by Michael Covington, 
I think) that words mean what we think they mean, regardless of 
etymology.  I've been reflecting on what certain words meant in my 
childhood and tracing how this shaped some of my attitudes. 

I grew up in a home where Christ was a bad word.  People who were very 
angry said it.  The word Christian meant someone who was not a Jew.  It 
carried connotations of otherness, of threat, of enemy.  It took some 
time to figure out that there was a connection between `Christ' and 
`Christian'.  When I accepted Jesus, I expected to be disowned.  To 
become a Christian meant to join the enemy.  I knew others would 
consider me a traitor.  At some level, I agreed, but was still prepared 
to pay this price.  Like Esau, I sold my birthright.  However, I made a 
better bargain.  He only got some stew, but I got the incomparable 
riches of knowing Christ.

As it turned out, my parents did not disown me.  I found out later that 
they were hoping it was a phase that I would grow out of.  By the time 
they had decided it wasn't a phase, they were sort of used to it.  They 
didn't disown me but they didn't completely accept the situation either.  
For example, they didn't come to my wedding because it was in a church.   
When I visited my grandmother in the hospital a few days before her 
death, she said to me, "As far as I'm concerned, you still are a Jew." 
What she meant was that she loved me and forgave me.  But I am not a 
Jew.  I am a Christian.  (I'll concede, one that likes chicken soup with 
matzoh balls.:-)) 

I do not keep kosher.  I do not celebrate the Sabbath on Saturday.  My 
sons are not circumcised.  But these things are true of some people who 
do consider themselves Jews.  It is not these rules that make people 
Jews; it is the heritage from the past.  I gave up the past.

This is why I find it hard to relate to Messianic Jews.  Their 
experience is unlike mine.  They still consider themselves Jews while 
following Jesus.  Some would even say that I *must* do so, too.  

I am at a stage of my life now where I would like to have a heritage.  
It was not something I valued very much when I gave it.  But I did have 
a sense that I was giving it for God.  It may have been a small 
sacrifice.  It may have been an unnecessary sacrifice.  But I gave it 
and do not want to ask for it back.

And while I don't have the heritage I was born with, I do have another.  
I am an outcast from the house of Israel, but I am a member of the 
Church.  One of the things I like about being a Catholic Christian is 
that it is rich in tradition.  It gives me a feeling of, once again, 
being rooted in the past. 

This is probably one of the reasons why I don't like it when people mess 
around with Christian traditions (for example, changing the name of 
Easter).  These traditions fill an important emotional need of mine.

I suppose the point of all this is that people shouldn't assume that all 
believers of Jewish background are the same.  For some `Jewish 
Christian' is a good name, for others it is an oxymoron. 

Jayne Kulikauskas/jayen@mmalt.guild.org

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20926
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: tuff to be a Christian?

In article <Apr.17.01.10.58.1993.2246@geneva.rutgers.edu> mdbs@ms.uky.edu (no name) writes:
>bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:

>>same.  Hey we can't do it, God himself inspires us to turn our lives 
>>over to him.  That's tuff and most people don't want to do it, to be a 
>				^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>real Christian would be something for the strong to persevere at.  But 
>
>	So you think it is easy to be a Muslim? Or be a Buddhist?
[good points on buddhism, etc. deleted]

just because one says christianity -- true christianity -- is hard to
follow faithfully does NOT mean that one discounts the validity and
difficulty of other religions.  i admire those of any religion who are
willing to make the kind of sacrifices and dedicate themselves
spiritually in the way you are talking about. 

[more deleted]
>And perhaps some more. But leave the crap in it out ("woman was created
>after man, to be his helper" etc).

do you think this is what christianity is all about?  not all
christians believe in this particular story literally.  it sounds
above like you are supporting a policy of "to each his own" -- here is
another example of that.  if it helps someone's faith to take every
word of the bible literally, i support and respect that, too.

>>time.  We don't rush it in one day, Christianity is your whole life.  
>>It is not going to church once a week, or helping poor people once in 
>>a while.  We box everything into time units.  Such as work at this 
>>time, sports, Tv, social life.  God is above these boxes and should be 
>
>	When ever I turn on my TV there is this Pat Robertson and
>other brain washers (Oh boy, what an act they put on!) with an
>1-800 number to turn in your pledges.
>God it seems is alive and well inside these boxes.

please don't judge all of christianity by one man.  the only man one
can truly judge all of christianity by is jesus (makes sense, right?).

i think his point about how we put our lives into little boxes is very
true -- what does your comment about robertson have to do with that?

>>carried with us into all these boxes that we have created for 
>>ourselves.  	  

>	Parting Question:
>		Would you have become a Christian if you had not
>been indoctrinated by your parents? You probably never learned about
>any other religion to make a comparative study. And therefore I claim
>you are brain washed.

i was raised agnostic -- my father was never baptised and was raised
atheist.  he is not an atheist because he found a close-mindedness
present in the viewpoint of his parents equal to the close-mindedness
he found in the viewpoint of the christians he came in contact with.
thus i was _free_ to choose how to live my life, and he supported the
decision i made to join the episcopal church, although he emphasized
to me that his respect for my beliefs should result in my not
intruding on his beliefs, ie, i should not try to convert him, as that
is his decision.  (please, no flames or advice on how to convert him!)
one of my good friends is hindi and i greatly respect her
beliefs and the culture surrounding her religion.  my best friend is
jewish and i have always held a profound resepct for the jewish
religion (chaim potok and isaac bashevis singer are two of my favorite
authors).  i really do not think you can make that kind of
generalization about how christians choose -- and i do mean CHOOSE--
their faith.  if they have not consciously accepted the faith in their
adult lives (which is what confirmation represents), THEN you can talk
about their being brainwashed.

vera
"if you choose not to decide,
you still have made a choice!"
	- rush, "freewill"

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20927
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: An agnostic's question

perhaps you can tell your friend that you feel pressured by his
continual discussions of this topic -- surely he doesn't feel you
should be _pressured_ into something you feel uncomfortable about
(since christianity should be a choice one should make on one's own).
please also realize that he is doing this out of friendship -- he
probably feels you are missing out on something great, and wants to
tell you about it.  but since you know where you can learn about
christianity, you can tell him that it is now up to you to make that
choice, and if the choice is no, you should be respected for that.
personally i believe that a christian's mission is just to be
christ-like, showing his/her own faith and happiness in that faith,
and make sure people know they are welcome to talk to you about it.  i
do not believe in imposing your beliefs upon others -- but then again
everyone's definitions of "imposing" may differ.  

i hope i have made myself clear....  if not, please correct me!
:) vera
*******************************************************************************
I am your CLOCK!     |  I bind unto myself today    | Vera Noyes
I am your religion!  |  the strong name of the	    | noye@midway.uchicago.edu
I own you!	     |  Trinity....		    | no disclaimer -- what
	- Lard	     |	- St. Patrick's Breastplate | is there to disclaim?
*******************************************************************************

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20928
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: Re: SSPX schism ?

Here is some material by Michael Davies on the subject of schism in
general and Archishop Lefebvre in particular.  He wrote it around
1990.  The first part of the two-part article was on the scandalous
activities of Archbishop Weakland (in this country), but I cut all
that.  And I pared down the rest to what was relevant.

Joe Buehler

...

Schism and Disobedience

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, schism consists primarily in a
refusal of submission to the Pope or communion with the members of the
Church united to him. On first sight it would appear that, whatever
the subjective motivation of the Archbishop, as discussed above, he
must be in a state of objective schism as he has refused to submit to
the Pope on a very grave matter involving his supreme power of
jurisdiction. However, standard Catholic textbooks of theology make it
clear that while all schisms involve disobedience not all acts of
disobedience are schismatic. If this were so, as was noted at the
beginning of this article, it would mean that the number of American
bishops who are not schismatic would not reach double figures.

The distinction between disobedience and schism is made very clear in
the article on schism in the very authoritative Dictionnaire de
Theologie Catholique. The article is by Father Yves Congar who is
certainly no friend of Archbishop Lefebvre.  He explains that schism
and disobedience are so similar that they are often confused. Father
Congar writes that schism involves a refusal to accept the existence
of legitimate authority in the Church, for example, Luther's rejection
of the papacy. Father Congar explains that the refusal to accept a
decision of legitimate authority in a particular instance does not
constitute schism but disobedience.  The Catholic Encyclopedia
explains that for a Catholic to be truly schismatic he would have to
intend "to sever himself from the Church as far as in him lies."  It
adds that "not every disobedience is schism; in order to possess this
character it must include besides the transgression of the command of
the superiors, a denial of their divine right to command."Not only
does Mgr. Lefebvre not deny the divine right of the Pope to command,
but he affirms repeatedly his recognition of the Pope's authority and
his intention of never breaking away from Rome. The Archbishop made
his attitude clear in the July/August 1989 issue of 30 Days: "We pray
for the Pope every day. Nothing has changed with the consecrations
last June 30. We are not sedevacantists. We recognize in John Paul II
the legitimate Pope of the Catholic Church. We don't even say that he
is a heretical Pope. We only say that his Modernist actions favor
heresy."

...

Intrinsically Schismatic?

The principal argument used by those claiming that Mgr. Lefebvre is in
schism is that the consecration of a bishop without a papal mandate is
an intrinsically schismatic act. A bishop who carries out such a
consecration, it is claimed, becomes ipso facto a schismatic. This is
not true. If such a consecration is an intrinsically schismatic act it
would always have involved the penalty of excommunication. In the 1917
Code of Canon Law the offence was punished only by suspension (see
Canon 2370 of the 1917 Code). Pope Pius XII had raised the penalty to
excommunication as a response to the establishment of a schismatic
church in China. The consecration of these illicit Chinese bishops
differed radically from the consecrations carried out by Mgr. Lefebvre
as the professed intention was to repudiate the authority of the Pope,
that is, to deny that he has the right to govern the Church, and the
illicitly consecrated Chinese bishops were given a mandate to exercise
an apostolic mission. Neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor any of the
bishops he has consecrated claim that they have powers of
jurisdiction. They have been consecrated solely for the purpose of
ensuring the survival of the Society by carrying out ordinations and
also to perform confirmations. I do not wish to minimize in any way
the gravity of the step take by Mgr. Lefebvre. The consecration of
bishops without a papal mandate is far more serious matter than the
ordination of priests as it involves a refusal in practice of the
primacy or jurisdiction belonging by divine right to the Roman
Pontiff. But the Archbishop could argue that the crisis afflicting the
Church could not be more grave, and that grave measures were needed in
response.

It appears to be taken for granted by most of the Archbishop's critics
that he was excommunicated for the offense of schism, and the Vatican
has certainly been guilty of fostering this impression.  There is not
so much as a modicum of truth in this allegation. The New Code of
Canon Law includes a section beginning with Canon 1364 entitled
"Penalties for Specific Offenses" (De Poenis in Singula Dicta). The
first part deals with "Offenses against Religion and the Unity of the
Church" (De Delictis contra Religionem et Ecclesiae Unitatem). Canon
1364 deals with the offense of schism which is, evidently, together
with apostasy and heresy, one of the three fundamental offenses
against the unity of the Church.

But the Archbishop was not excommunicated under the terms of this
canon or, indeed, under any canon involving an offense against
religion or the unity of the church. The canon cited in his
excommunication comes from the third section of "Penalties for
Specific Offenses" which is entitled "Usurpation of Ecclesial
Functions and Offenses in their Exercise" (De Munerum Ecclesiasticorum
Usurpatione Degue Delictis iniis Exercendis). The canon in question is
Canon 1382, which reads: "A bishop who consecrates someone bishop and
the person who receives such a consecration from a bishop without a
pontifical mandate incur an automatic (latae sententiae)
excommunication reserved to the Holy See."

The scandalous attempts to smear Archbishop Lefebvre with the offense
of schism are, then, contrary to both truth and charity. A comparable
smear under civil as opposed to ecclesiastical law would certainly
justify legal action for libel involving massive damages. An accurate
parallel would be to state that a man convicted of manslaughter had
been convicted of first degree murder.

I must stress that what I have written here is not the dubious opinion
of laymen unversed in the intricacies of Canon Law. Canon lawyers
without the least shred of sympathy for Mgr. Lefebvre have repudiated
the charge of schism made against him as totally untenable. Father
Patrick Yaldrini, Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law of the Institut
Catholique in Paris noted in the 4 July 1988 issue of Valeurs
actuelles that, as I have just explained, Mgr.  Lefebvre was not
excommunicated for schism but for the usurpation of an ecclesiastical
function. He added that it is not the consecration of a bishop which
constitutes schism but the conferral of an apostolic mission upon the
illicitly consecrated bishop. It is this usurpation of the powers of
the sovereign pontiff which proves the intention of establishing a
parallel Church.

Cardinal Rosalio Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the
Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, commented on the consecrations
in the 10 July 1988 issue of la Repubblica. It would be hard to
imagine a more authoritative opinion. The Cardinal wrote:

    The act of consecrating a bishop (without a papal mandate) is not
    in itself a schismatic act. In fact, the Code that deals with
    offenses is divided into two sections. One deals with offenses
    against religion and the unity of the Church, and these are
    apostasy, schism, and heresy. Consecrating a bishop with a
    pontifical mandate is, on the contrary, an offense against the
    exercise of a specific ministry. For example, in the case of the
    consecrations carried out by the Vietnamese Archbishop Ngo Dinh
    Thuc in 1976 and 1983, although the Archbishop was excommunicated
    he was not considered to have committed a schismatic act because
    there was no intention of a breach with the Church.

....

It is not simply unjust but ludicrous to suggest that in consecrating
bishops without a papal mandate Archbishop Lefebvre had the least
intent of establishing a schismatic church. He is not a schismatic and
will never be a schismatic. The Archbishop considers correctly that
the the Church is undergoing its worst crisis since the Arian heresy,
and that for the good of the Church it was necessary for him to
consecrate the four bishops to ensure the future of his Society. Canon
Law provides for just such a situation, and even if one believes that
the future of the Society could have been guaranteed without these
consecrations, the fact that the Archbishop believed sincerely that it
could not means, as Canon Law states clearly, that he has not incurred
excommunication. Furthermore, while the Vatican allows such prelates
as Archbishop Weakland to undermine the Faith with impunity it cannot
expect Catholics to pay the least attention to its sanctions against a
great and orthodox Archbishop whose entire life has been devoted to
the service of the Church and the salvation of souls.

Dr. Eric M. de Saventhem, President of the International Una Voce
Association, is one of the best informed laymen in the Church, and he
knows the Archbishop intimately. Dr. de Saventhem, like myself, has no
greater desire than to see a reconciliation between Mgr. Lefebvre and
the Holy See during the Archbishop's lifetime. A quotation from a
statement by Dr. de Saventhem which was published in the 15 February
1989 Remnant merits careful study:

    In retrospect, the road leading to the consecrations of 30 June
    appears more paved with grave Roman (and, unfortunately, also
    papal) omissions than with Lefebvrist "obstinancies." And from the
    eyes of an informed public this cannot be hidden by attempting to
    present the Archbishop's act of grave disobedience as an offense
    against the Faith!  It is said--today--that Mgr. Lefebvre has "an
    erroneous concept of Tradition." If this were so, Cardinal
    Ratzinger could not, on behalf of the Pope, have addressed to the
    Archbishop the following words in his letter of 28 July 1987:
    "Your ardent desire to safeguard Tradition by procuring for it
    'the means to live and prosper' testifies to your attachment to
    the Faith of all time... the Holy Father understands your concern
    and shares it."

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20929
From: kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko)
Subject: Re: Atheist's views on Christianity (was: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")

Jason Smith (jasons@atlastele.com) wrote:
 
: [ The discussion begins: why does the universe exist at all?  ]
 
: One of the Laws of Nature, specifying cause and effect seems to dictate 
: (at least to this layman's mind) there must be a causal event.  No
: reasonable alternative exists.

I would argue that causality is actually a property of spacetime; 
causes precede their effects. But if you claim that there must be
an answer to "how" did the universe (our spacetime)  emerge from 
"nothing", science has some good candidates for an answer.

I have always wondered why Christians use the "There are questions
science (or atheism) cannot answer" argument; I hope this is the
appropriate group to ask this question.

The most popular question is the question of origins. Why does the
universe exist, or anything, for that matter?

I think this question should actually be split into two parts, namely

1) Why is there existence? Why anything exists?

and

2) How did the universe emerge from nothing?

It is clear science has nothing to say about the first question. However,
is it a meaningful question, after all?

I would say it isn't. Consider the following:

A die-hard skeptic being (be it human or whatever) attempts to doubt
one's very existence. Since it is so easy to doubt everything else -
I cannot be _sure_ the world exists, it may be my mind fooling me -
can I ever be sure I exist?

However, it is only possible to exist or not to exist. (Someone
insert an appropriate Shakespeare quote here ;-) )

A being that does not exist cannot doubt one's existence.
A being that does exist can doubt one's existence, but this would be
pointless - the being would exist anyway.

Let us return to the original question: why? A being that does not
exist does not need any reasons for its non-existence. This being
is not _sure_ whether anything else exists but his mind, but let
us assume that the world exists independent of the mind (the objectivity
postulate). The question "why anything exists" can be countered by
demanding answer to a question "why there is nothing in nothingness,
or in non-existence". Actually, both questions turn out to be
devoid of meaning. Things that exist do, and things that don't exist
don't exist. Tautology at its best.

I seriously doubt God could have an answer to this question.

Some Christians I have talked to have said that actually, God is
Himself the existence. However, I see several problems with this
answer. First, it inevitably leads to the conclusion that God is
actually _all_ existence, good and evil, devils and angels, us and
them. This is pantheism, not Christianity.

Another answer is that God is the _source_ of all existence.
This sounds much better, but I am tempted to ask: Does God
Himself exist, then? If God is the source of His own existence,
it can only mean that He has, in terms of human time, always
existed. But this is not the same as the source of all existence.
This argument sounds like God does not exist, but meta-exists,
and from His meta-existent perspective, He created existence.
I think this is actually a nonsolution, a mere twist of words.

The best answer I have heard is that human reasoning is incapable
of understanding such questions. Being an atheist myself, I do not
accept such answers, since I do not have any other methods.

The second question: How did the universe emerge from nothing?
belongs to the domain of science, and I, for one, do not doubt the
question can be answered by its methods. Many cosmologists have
suggested that it is entirely possible for universes to emerge
from vacuum (this possibility has been suggested in a recent
Hawking biography; see also Lizhi & Shuxian: Creation of the Universe,
World Scientific, 1989). However, I think the sci groups are more
appropriate for discussions like this.
 
: As far as I can tell, the very laws of nature demand a "why".  That isn't
: true of something outside of nature (i.e., *super*natural).

This is not true. Science is a collection of models telling us "how",
not why, something happens. I cannot see any good reason why the "why"
questions would be bound only to natural things, assuming that the
supernatural domain exists. If supernatural beings exist, it is
as appropriate to ask why they do so as it is to ask why we exist.
 
: I believe the "genetic code" will be entirely deciphered in our lifetimes,
: but we will not see man convert entirely inert material into self sustaining, 
: reproducing life, *ever*.  (I've never been much of a prophet, though. I
: can't even *picture* New York in my mind 8^] ).  I don't believe *any*
: technology would be able to produce that necessary *spark* of life, despite
: having all of the parts available. Just my opinion.

This opinion is also called vitalism; namely, that living systems are
somehow _fundamentally_ different from inanimate systems. Do Christians
in general adopt this position? What would happen when scientists announce
they have created primitive life (say, small bacteria) in a lab?

There is a problem with your prophecy: artificial life has been created,
although not yet in a chemical form. Computer simulations of evolution
contain systems that are as much alive as any bacterium, although
their code is electronic, as well as their metabolism. See a recent book

Steven Levy: Artificial life - The Quest for a New Creation. Jonathan
Cape, London 1992.

Artificial chemical life is just around the corner - after all, no 
spark of life has been found to be necessary; living systems do not
violate any physical laws as we know them. 

: You don't mind if a few of us send up a prayer on your behalf during your
: research, do you?  After all, if we of Christ are deluding ourselves, you
: really have nothing to worry about, eh?

Exactly. This is why I think atheists should _not_ post any evangelical
atheist arguments to soc.religion groups, since people who seek to 
find peace in religions must be allowed to gather together. I would
normally have asked these questions in alt.atheism or talk.religion.misc,
but it seems many Christians do not read these groups. 

Petri

--
 ___. .'*''.*        Petri Pihko    kem-pmp@          Mathematics is the Truth.
!___.'* '.'*' ' .    Pihatie 15 C    finou.oulu.fi    Physics is the Rule of
       ' *' .* '*    SF-90650 OULU  kempmp@           the Game.
          *'  *  .*  FINLAND         phoenix.oulu.fi  -> Chemistry is The Game.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20930
From: atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez)
Subject: Re: A question that has bee bothering me.

wquinnan@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Malcusco) writes:

>	My problem with Science is that often it allows us to
>assume we know what is best for ourselves.  God endowed us
>with the ability to produce life through sexual relations,
>for example, but He did not make that availible to everyone.
>Does that mean that if Science can over-ride God's decision
>through alterations, that God wills for us to have the power
>to decide who should and should not be able to have 
>children?  Should men be allowed to have babies, if that
>is made possible.

  In a word, yes.  I don't believe that physical knowledge has a great deal of
impact on the power of God.  In the past, God gave us the ability to create
life through sexual relations.  Now, he is giving us the ability to create life
through in vitro fertilization.  The difference between the two is merely 
cosmetic, and even if we gain the ability to create universes we won't begin to
approach the glory of God.
  The power we are being given is a test, and I am sure that in many cases we
will use our new abilities unwisely.  But, people have been using sexuality
unwisely for millenia and I haven't heard an outcry to abolish it yet!
  No matter how far we extend our dominion over the physical world, we aren't
impinging on God's power.  It's only when we attempt to gain control of the
spiritual world, those things that can't be approached through science and 
logic, that we begin to interfere with God.

Alan Terlep				    "...and the scorpion says, 'it's 
Oakland University, Rochester, MI		in my nature.'"
atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu	

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20931
From: atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

phs431d@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:

>In article <Apr.13.00.08.07.1993.28379@athos.rutgers.edu>, aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker) writes:

>This is not true.  The athiest's position is that there is no PROOF of the
>existence of God.  As much as some people accept their Church, their priests
>or straight from their own scriptures as the "proof", this does not 
>satisfy atheists.

  You haven't fully explained the atheist position.  Many theists believe that
there is "no proof of the existence of God" but choose to believe in him
anyway.  I haven't yet found an argument for atheism that can't quickly be
broken down to unprovable assumptions.  This isn't a problem with me (everybody
needs to have a faith) but if you believe that you can provide a "purely 
logical" argument for the nonexistence of God, I'd really like to see it.

>Are you asking us to believe blindly?  You are trying to deny that part of
>us that makes us ask the question "Does God exist?" i.e. self-awareness and
>reason.  If we do not use our ability to reason we become as ignorant
>as the other animals on this earth.  Does God want us to be like that?

>You are right that science and reason cannot PROVE anything.  However, if
>we do not use them we can only then believe on FAITH alone.  And since
>we can only use faith, why is one picture of "God" (e.g. Hinduism) any less
>valid than another (e.g. Christianity)?

  Ahh...but when you use science and reason, you have faith in certain beliefs
of the scientific method--for example:

  The physical laws of the universe are stable.
  Our observations of reality are a valid basis for a determination of truth.
  Objective reality exists.
  Logical argument is a valid way to answer all questions.
  
  Can you prove any of these?

Alan Terlep				    "...and the scorpion says, 'it's 
Oakland University, Rochester, MI		in my nature.'"
atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu	

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20932
From: atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez)
Subject: Re: Being right about messiahs

Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca (Desiree Bradley) writes:

>And, from my meagre knowledge of the Bible, it seems that Christians have
>been hard on the Jews of Christ's day for being cautious about accepting
>somebody that their religious authorities didn't accept as the Messiah.

  This is a good point.  Christ was hardly the only person who claimed to be
the Messiah--in fact, a number of "Messiahs" were active in the area from the
time of the Roman conquest to after the fall of Masada.
  Many of the statements made by the apostles--especially their repeated
attempts to give Jesus a sword (give him military power) point to the fact that
they didn't realize the true nature of his reign until after the fact.  Many of
the statements in the Bible can be seen as being oriented toward explaining 
this new definition of "Messiah" to the Jews who were being preached to.

Alan Terlep				    "...and the scorpion says, 'it's 
Oakland University, Rochester, MI		in my nature.'"
atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu	

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20933
From: atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez)
Subject: Atheists and Hell


  Hello,

  I have seen two common threads running through postings by atheists on the 
newsgroup, and I think that they can be used to explain each other.  
Unfortunately I don't have direct quotes handy...

1) Atheists believe that when they die, they die forever.

2) A god who would condemn those who fail to believe in him to eternal death
   is unfair.

  I don't see what the problem is!  To Christians, Hell is, by definition, 
eternal death--exactly what atheists are expecting when they die.  There's no
reason Hell has to be especially awful--to most people, eternal death is bad
enough.
  Literal interpreters of the Bible will have a problem with this view, since
the Bible talks about the fires of Hell and such.  Personally, I don't think
that people in Hell will be thrust into flame any more than I expect to Jesus
with a double-edged sword issuing from his mouth--I treat both these statements
as metaphorical.

Alan Terlep				    "...and the scorpion says, 'it's 
Oakland University, Rochester, MI		in my nature.'"
atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu	
Rushing in where angels fear to tread.				--Jody

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20934
From: norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak)
Subject: Re: tuff to be a Christian?

In article <Apr.17.01.10.58.1993.2246@geneva.rutgers.edu>, mdbs@ms.uky.edu (no name) writes:
|>
|> 	Parting Question:
|> 		Would you have become a Christian if you had not
|> been indoctrinated by your parents? You probably never learned about
|> any other religion to make a comparative study. And therefore I claim
|> you are brain washed.

You write as if no-one ever became a Christian except people from
Christian families.  This is not true, as quite a few people on this
group can attest (including me). 

-- 
Richard Aquinas Chonak, norris@mit.edu, Usenet addict, INTP
Seeking job change: sys-mgr: VAX, SIS, COBOL, DTR; progr: UNIX, C/++, X

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20935
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5

[In response to some of the discussions on the Sabbath, Andrew Byler
commented that if we really followed sola scriptura we would worship
on Saturday -- the change to Sunday was a law made by the Church, and
we don't acknowledge its authority to make laws.  I noted that
Protestants do not consider Sunday worship a law.  --clh]

He was not referring to the FAQ but to the five Sabbath Admissions posted
on the bible study group.  This is what prompted someone to send the FAQ
to me.

>  The argument against the Sabbath is
> that it is part of the ceremonial law, and like the rest of the
n> ceremonial law is not binding on Christians.

You cannot show, from scripture, that the weekly Sabbath is part of the
ceremonial laws.   Before you post a text in reply investigate its context.

> If you accept that
> the Sabbath is not binding on Christians, then the day of worship
> falls into the category of items on which individual Christians or
> (since worship is by its nature a group activity) churches are free to
> decide.
> 
Can the churches also decide what is and is not sin?  Interesting.  Where
there is no divine imperative of course we must establish rules of
operation.  But we cannot be as creative with what God has explicitly
spoken on.

Darius

[Again, in the normal Protestant interpretation, Sunday is not a law,
and worshipping on another day is not a sin.  Churches are free to
decide on the day they will meet, just as they are free to decide on
the hour.  It would not be a sin to worship on some other day, but if
you belong to a church that worships on Sunday and you show up on
Monday, you will probably worship alone...  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20936
From: gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham)
Subject: Poem


          The Sophomore
          (Romans 1:22)

The sophomore says, ``What is truth?''
and turns to bask in the admiration of his peers.

How modern how daring how liberating
How modern how daring how liberating
they chant

The sophomore, being American
Doesn't know
That his ``question''

   modern
       skeptical
           cynical

Was asked before, by a

   modern
       skeptical
           cynical
   urbane cosmopolitan

Politician (appointed not elected)
Who happened to live two thousand years ago.

Like many politicians he cared

    Less about ideals
         than results

    Less about ends
         than means

    Less about anything
         than keeping his job
              (and his head).

We might call him
A bit brutal
Though `firm' would be kinder
(And no doubt Stalin, who let nobody go, laughed at his laxness)
He didn't like his job; perhaps he no longer hoped for better
(Nor feared worse, except regarding his head).

And when these wily Jews
With their heads-I-win, tails-you-lose
     conundrums
Brought forth their madman,
His first impulse was to play the Roman:
``I find nothing wrong with him,
  See to it yourselves.''

But when they mentioned `King' and `Caesar'
His heart froze.

If he killed their madman
    He'd start a riot
         and lose his job
             (and his head)

If he saved the King of the Jews
    He'd piss off Caesar
         and lose his job
             (and his head)

And when his wife told him to have
   Nothing to do with the righteous lout
She didn't tell him anything
   He hadn't already figured out.

So he punted.

``Not my jurisdiction!  Take him to see Herod!''
(who just happened to be in town....)

Herod appreciated the courtesy
But wasn't worried
        And sent the sharp-tongued fool
     (Who suddenly didn't have much to say,
    funny how people lose it under pressure....)
  back
In the attire proper
  to his Royal State.

His ass is covered---if Herod has no problem,
Caesar certainly won't.  The fool can be king
of whatever world he wants
as long as it's not Caesar's.

``I'm letting him go,'' he said with a shout.
(Looks like he'll last this one out....)

The crowd's reaction puzzled him.
  They really wanted him dead.
They didn't want the King of the Jews,
  They wanted Barabbas instead
(And, as Josephus records, they got him)

Oh well, he thought,
They all look the same to me.
And we'll get Barabbas next time.

And if I can get them to say
   ``We have no king but Caesar!''
   By killing a madman,
Hell, I'll kill ten a day.

And then Pilate had his fun
  A little joke
    Short
      To the point
        Trilingual

And all this
Went as it always does
When someone gets caught
In the gears of government

And there's a scientific explanation
     (no doubt)
For the superstitious rumors
     (persisting to this day)
That it didn't all end
With a tomb
and a Roman squadron on guard.

Our sophomore doesn't know about this
He doesn't recognize his kindred spirit
(Or truth either, as he admits).

I guess we haven't learned much
in two thousand years.




--
-Fred Gilham    gilham@csl.sri.com
"Peace is only better than war when it's not hell too.  War being hell
makes sense."
               -Walker Percy, THE SECOND COMING

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20937
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: Assurance of Hell

I dreamed that the great judgment morning had dawned,
     and the trumpet had blown.
I dreamed that the sinners had gathered for judgment
     before the white throne.
Oh what weeping and wailing as the lost were told of their fate.
They cried for the rock and the mountains.
They prayed, but their prayers were too late.
The soul that had put off salvation, 
"Not tonight I'll get saved by and by.
 No time now to think of ....... religion," 
Alas, he had found time to die.
And I saw a Great White Throne.

Now, some have protest by saying that the fear of hell is not good for
motivation, yet Jesus thought it was.  Paul thought it was.  Paul said, 
"Knowing therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men."

Today, too much of our evangelism is nothing but soft soap and some of
it is nothing but evangelical salesmanship.  We don't tell people anymore, that
there's such a thing as sin or that there's such a place as hell.  

As Jayne has said, this doesn't mean we have to come on so strong so as to hit
people over the head with a baseball bat.  Yet the fact remains, there is a
place called hell.  A place so fearful that God died to save us from having to
experience it.  Whatever you or I, as Christians, do, we should do whatever we
can to win people to the Lord, if for no other reason, to keep them from going
to "outer darkness.".  

Jesus, in Mt. 25, tells us that He didn't prepare hell for people.  He prepared
it for the Devil and his angels.  No where in the Bible do I read -anywhere,
that God predestined anybody to go to hell.  D.L. Moody use to say that the
elect are the "whosoever will" and the nonelect are the "whosoever wont's." 
Whether or not that's theologically sound, I couldn't defend, but its
practical.  Jesus said to the people of Israel, "Ye would not."  

Now, some of you may not be students of the Bible, heck -some of you may not be
Christians.  Have you ever said to somebody, "I don't believe in hell.  I
believe in the religion of Jesus."  But did you know that Jesus talked more
about hell than He did about heaven!  "Oh I believe in the religion of the
sermon on the mount."  You find hell taught by Jesus in the sermon on the
mount.  You'll read that Jesus talked about the tree being cast into the fire. 
Several times he talks about hell and about judgment.  In fact, over and over
in the synoptics, Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus talks about hell.  Not Isaiah. 
Not Moses.  Not John the Baptist, though he did, but Jesus, the Son of God. 
The great Beloved One preached about hell because He loved people and didn't
want to see them go there.

Now, if there is no hell then Jesus preached in vain.  It was our Lord Jesus,
not some angry Baptist preacher, that said, "where the worm never dies, and
where the fire never goes out."  Jesus said that.  It was Jesus who called hell
a "furnace of fire."  It was Jesus that used the word, "condemnation."  "And
this is the condemnation, that men love darkness rather than light because
their deeds are evil.  Jesus said that.  

How can we get it across to you that a loving, dying Jesus preached about hell?
 Not only that, but He went through hell.  That's what Calgary was all about. 
When my Lord was on the cross, darkness fell.  He called hell, "outer
darkness."  

Do you have this idea that hell is a place where the gamblers are gambling over
here, the drunks are getting drunk over there, and the prostitutes are
prostituting their bodies over there?  That's not what hell is.  Hell's not a
party.  There's no fellowship there.  He called it "outer darkness."  "Outer"
-away from God.  "Darkness" -God is light.  

No when He was on the cross, He was made sin for you and for me.  God treated
Jesus the way sinners have to be treated.  That's is a sobering thought.  As my
son would say, an "awesome" thought.  

"My God, My God why hast Thou forsaken me?"  Hell is isolation.  There's no
fellowship in hell.  There's no friendship in hell.  There's no loving embrace
in hell.  There's no hand shake in hell.  There's no word of encouragement in
hell.  

"I thirst."  It goes much deeper than physical thirst.  Hell is eternal craving
with no satisfaction.  The man whose life was lived for drugs, will crave it
eternally.  The man whose life was lived for the lust of a woman's body, will
crave it eternally -and not be satisfied.  One theologian has put it this way
and I think it deserves merit.  What is hell?  Hell is just the kind of
environment that matches the internal condition of the lost.  

In a recent post, I was trying to remember the founder of The Word of Life
ministries.  I've remembered his name, Jack Wertzen, and found that the
illustration that I gave wasn't his.  His illustration was that he was talking
to his barber and his barber's wife and daughter had just recently been saved
and he was commenting about it to Jack.  "They sing these songs and read Bible
verses, and their praising this and that -I can't stand it!  Jack, do you think
God would send me to hell?"  Jack answered by saying, "Yes I think he would!" 
Of course the barber said, "What do you mean by that."  "Well if you can't
stand living at home with your wife and daughter who sing hymns and praises to
God now, what would you do in heaven where they'll do it for eternity?  You'd
be miserable.  Because God loves you, He'd put you where it would match what
you really are."   It makes a man think.

The crucifixion of Jesus Christ is a fact that necessitates the eternal
existence of hell because on the cross He performed an eternal act.  Don't ask
me how, I don't know.  But He is God and He is the infinite/eternal and when He
died, He died an infinite/eternal death.  It is by that eternal act that He
purchased eternal life for the "whosoever wills."  He suffered eternal
judgment.  

A lot of people would like to detour around hell by saying "Everybody is going
to be saved eventually."  -universalism.  My Bible says no, He'll separate
them.  The sheep from the goats.  ".After you die there's a probationary period
in which God prepares you for heaven."  No, my Bible says that "It is appointed
unto men once to die and then comes judgment."  Some of the cultist believe in
annihilation.  After you die, sssswish.  Just like a mosquito you're squished
out.  No, in Rev we are told that their is eternal existence in hell just as
there is in heaven.  

I don't enjoy making these kind of statements and maybe you don't enjoy
listening to them, but we have to preach the entire Word of God.  -There is a
place called hell.  If I could give one verse of Scripture that could give any
hope that people aren't going there, I'd give it to you, but I haven't found
it.  That fact that there is a place called hell, the fact that our God is a
God of holiness and must judge sin, the fact that He has made us the kind of
creatures we are and therefore we're responsible, the fact that He has placed
us in a "uni"verse that has purpose and design behind it, the fact that sin is
such an awful thing and the fact that God Himself went through hell to save us
from hell leads us to two applications.

1)  As I've already mentioned.  If you are a Christian, you must worn others. 
Its not good enough to stop and fix their flat tire and not tell them that just
around the bend the bridge is out.  "Knowing therefore the terror of Lord, we
persuade men."

2)  If you haven't accepted Jesus are your Savior, you're taking an awful
chance.  As I say to the Jehovah Witnesses (who no longer frequent my door), if
you are right and I am wrong, then I will have lived a good life and will die
and cease to exist, but if I am right and you are wrong, then you will die and
suffer eternal damnation.  I don't mean to make fun at this point, but its like
Dirty Harry said, "You've got to ask yourself, 'Do I feel lucky?'  Well do
you?"  "A man's got to know his limitations."  Don't be one of the "whosoever
wont's."  

"Because while I was yet a sinner, He died for me."
"There's no greater love than this, that a man lay down his life for another."
--Rex
 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20938
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5

I find it interesting that cls never answered any of the questions posed. 
Then he goes on the make statements which make me shudder.  He has
established a two-tiered God.  One set of rules for the Jews (his people)
and another set for the saved Gentiles (his people).  Why would God
discriminate?  Does the Jew who accepts Jesus now have to live under the
Gentile rules.

God has one set of rules for all his people.  Paul was never against the
law.  In fact he says repeatedly that faith establishes rather that annuls
the law.  Paul's point is germane to both Jews and Greeks.  The Law can
never be used as an instrument of salvation.  And please do not combine
the ceremonial and moral laws in one.

In Matt 5:14-19 Christ plainly says what He came to do and you say He was
only saying that for the Jews's benefit.  Your Christ must be a
politician, speaking from both sides of His mouth.  As Paul said, "I have
not so learned Christ."  Forget all the theology, just do what Jesus says.
 Your excuses will not hold up in a court of law on earth, far less in
God's judgement hall.

Darius

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20939
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5

> [Again, in the normal Protestant interpretation, Sunday is not a law,
> and worshipping on another day is not a sin.  Churches are free to
> decide on the day they will meet, just as they are free to decide on
> the hour.  It would not be a sin to worship on some other day, but if
> you belong to a church that worships on Sunday and you show up on
> Monday, you will probably worship alone...  --clh]

I totally agree with that sentiment.  But why do you have to go further
and advocate violating what God has set up?  That is the question which
you have not answered from Scripture.  You can worship on every day, as
long as you work.  But God says the Sabbath is all mine.

Darius

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20940
From: jkellett@netcom.com (Joe Kellett)
Subject: Re: Hell

In article <Apr.10.05.33.44.1993.14422@athos.rutgers.edu> mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:
>
>In a short poem ("God in His mercy made / the fixed pains of Hell"),
>C. S. Lewis expresses an idea that I'm sure was current among others,
>but I haven't be able to find its source:
>
>that even Hell is an expression of mercy, because God limits the amount
>of separation from Him, and hence the amount of agony, that one can
>achieve.
>

I have also heard it called an expression of mercy, because Heaven would be
far more agonizing for those who had rejected God.

-- 
Joe Kellett
jkellett@netcom.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20941
From: trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre)
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell

atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu  writes:

>   Hello,

>   I have seen two common threads running through postings by atheists on
> the newsgroup, and I think that they can be used to explain each other.  
> Unfortunately I don't have direct quotes handy...

> 1) Atheists believe that when they die, they die forever.

True to a point.  If you were to ask a Buddhist atheist...

> 2) A god who would condemn those who fail to believe in him to eternal death
>    is unfair.

>   I don't see what the problem is!  To Christians, Hell is, by definition, 
> eternal death--exactly what atheists are expecting when they die.  There's no
> reason Hell has to be especially awful--to most people, eternal death is bad
> enough.

Actually, yes and no, Hell is eternal death.  Actually, the way 
     I've had it related to me, it's more of an eternal damnation,
     where sinners will feel the licking flames of Hell.  If I
     supposedly can feel these flames, I would assume I'm still
     alive, but suffering and away from God.

>   Literal interpreters of the Bible will have a problem with this view, since
> the Bible talks about the fires of Hell and such.  Personally, I don't think
> that people in Hell will be thrust into flame any more than I expect to Jesus
> with a double-edged sword issuing from his mouth--I treat both these state-
> ments as metaphorical.

I believe Jehovah's Witnesses have a similar view, where the body
     sleeps for ever...

I don't have a problem with being condemned to Hell either.  The
     way I see it, if God wants to punish me for being honest in
     my skepticism (that is, for saying he doesn't exist), He
     certainly wouldn't be changing His nature.  Besides, I would
     rather spend an eternity in Hell than be beside God in Heaven
     knowing even one man would spend his "eternal life" being
     scorched for his wrongdoings...

Stephen

    _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   _/       _/    * Atheist
   _/        _/    _/   _/ _/ _/ _/     * Libertarian
  _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   _/   _/  _/      * Pro-individuality
       _/  _/     _/  _/       _/       * Pro-responsibility
_/_/_/_/  _/      _/ _/       _/ Jr.    * and all that jazz...

-- 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20942
From: s0612596@let.rug.nl (M.M. Zwart)
Subject: catholic church poland

Hello,

I'm writing a paper on the role of the catholic church in Poland after 1989. 
Can anyone tell me more about this, or fill me in on recent books/articles(
in english, german or french). Most important for me is the role of the 
church concerning the abortion-law, religious education at schools,
birth-control and the relation church-state(government). Thanx,

                                                 Masja,
"M.M.Zwart"<s0612596@let.rug.nl>

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20943
From: jcj@tellabs.com (jcj)
Subject: Re: proof of resurection

In article <Apr.16.23.15.09.1993.1823@geneva.rutgers.edu> smayo@world.std.com (Scott A Mayo) writes:
>...
>I think Christianity goes down in flames if the resurrection is
>ever disproved. ...

Didn't Paul write that if the Resurrection is not true, we are the
biggest fools of all?  However, whether you believe in Christ or not,
His teachings (e.g. love your brotherman as yourself), even if only 
followed at a secular level, could do a great deal to alleviate some of 
the problems we see today in the world.  Even when I was a rabid atheist 
I couldn't deny that.

Jeff Johnson
jcj@tellabs.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20944
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Subject: Daily Verse

Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap
a harvest if we do not give up. 

Galatians 6:9

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20945
From: bruce@liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Subject: Re: sex education

Joe Kellett (jkellett@netcom.com) wrote:
[bits deleted]
> I am told that Planned Parenthood/SIECUS-style "values-free" methods, that
> teach contraceptive technology and advise kids how to make "choices",
> actually _increase_ pregnancy rates. I posted a long article on this a while
> back and will be happy to email a copy to any who are interested. [...] 

> The same research produced the results that abstinence-related curricula
> were found to _decrease_ pregnancy rates in teens.  I assume that it is
> reasonable to assume that the AIDS rate will fluctuate with the pregnancy
> rate.

I'd be fascinated to see such evidence, please send me your article!
On the negative side however, I suspect that any such simplistic link
    abstinence-education => decreased pregnancy,
    contraceptive-education => increased pregnancy
is false.  The US, which I'd guess has one of the largest proportion of 
"non-liberal" sex education in the western world also has one of the highest
teenage pregnancy rates.  (Please correct me if my guess is wrong.)

--
Bruce Stephens     bruce@liverpool.ac.uk

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20946
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Certainty and Arrogance

In article <Apr.17.01.11.29.1993.2278@geneva.rutgers.edu>
kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:

>Someone called `REXLEX' has claimed that there IS a way out of the loop, but
>he did not bother to explain what it was, preferring instead to paraphrase
>Sartre, ramble about Wittgenstein, and say that the conclusion of my argument
>leads to relativism.

I will answer this as I find time.

>
>`REXLEX' suggested that people read _He is There and He is Not Silent_, by
>Francis Schaeffer.  I didn't think very highly of it, but I think that
>Mr Schaeffer is grossly overrated by many Evangelical Christians.  Somebody
>else might like it, though, so don't let my opinion stop you from reading it.
>
>If someone is interested in my opinion, I'd suggest _On Certainty_, by
>Ludwig Wittgenstein.
>
>
>Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu
>"If any substantial number of  [ talk.religion.misc ]  readers read some
> Wittgenstein, 60% of the postings would disappear.  (If they *understood*
> some Wittgenstein, 98% would disappear. :-))" -- Michael L Siemon
>

Notice what I said about this book.  I called it "Easy reading."  The reason I
dropped philosphy as my major was because I ran into too many pharisaical
Simon's.  I don't know how many walking encyclopedia's I ran across in
philosphy classes.  The problem isn't in knowing sooooo much more than your
average lay person, the problem comes when you become puffed up about it. 
Schaeffer is just fine for the average lay person.  That was who he was
writting to.  I suppose that you would have criticised John that his gospel was
to simple.  I've talked with Schaeffer one on one.  I've been in lectures with
the man when he was being drilled by philosphy students and prof's from secular
as well as Christian universities. (ND alone would fill both those catagories) 
His answers were enough that the prof's themselves often were taken back and
caused to re-think what their question was.  I saw this time and time again at
different open forums.  So yes, Schaeffers books are by in large, well,
simplistic.  It certainly isn't grad level reading.  But we must get off our
high horses when it comes to recommended reading.  Do you seriously think most
people would get through the first chapter of Wittgenstein?  I may have more to
say about this secular scientist at another time.

Also, one must finally get beyond the doubt caused by *insistent*
inquisitiveness.  One cannot live his life constantly from a cartisian doubt
base.  

Look, the Christian wholeheartedly supports genuine rationality.  But we must
add a qualification to give this balance.  Christianity is second to none in
keeping reason in its place.  We never know the value of a thing until we know
its limits.  Put unlimited value on something and in the end you will exhaust
it of all value!

THis is why Xianity is thoroughly rational but not the least bit rationalistic.
 It also explains the curious fact that it is rationalism, and not Christian
faith, which leads to irrationality.  If we forget the limits of a thing, we
fly in the face of reality and condem ourselves to learn the simple ironic
lesson of life: 

"More without limits is less;  less with limits is more."  

Or as I have so often stated it, freedom without form soon becomes form w/o
freedom.

Let's put it another way.  The rationality of faith is implacably opposed to
absurdity but has no quarrel with mystery. Think about that.  It can tell the
difference between the two if you will let it.  Christianity's contention with
rationalism is not that it has too much reason in it, but that it has very
little else.  When a Christian comes to faith his understanding and his trust
go hand in hand, but as he continues in faith his trust may sometimes be called
to go on by itself without his understanding.

This is where the principle of suspended judgment applies.  At such time if the
Christian faith is to be itself and let God be God, it must suspend judgment
and say, "Father I do not understand you but I trust you."  Now don't read all
your objections of me into that statement.  I wasn't saying I do not understand
you at all, but I trust you anyway." It means that "I do not understand You *in
this situation* but I do understand *why I trust You* anyway"  Therefore I can
trust that you understand even though I do not. The former is a mystery
unrelieved by rationality and indistinguishable from absurdity.  The latter is
a statement of rationality of faith walking hand in hand with the mystery of
Faith.  So.... the principle of suspended judgment is not irrational.  It is
not a leap of faith but a walk of faith.  As believers we cannot always know
why, but we canalways know why we trust God who knows why and this makes all
the difference.

Now, there is one obvious snag to all this and this is where I have parted
company with philosophy- what is eminently reasonable in theory is a rather bit
more difficult in practice.  In practice the pressure of mystery acts on faith
like the insistent "whying" of a 3 year old.  It isn't just that we would like
to know what we do not know but that we feel we *must* know what we cannot
know.  The one produces frustration because curiosity is denied; the other
leads to genuine anguish.  More specifically the poorer our understanding is in
coming to faith the more necessary it will be to understand everything after
coming to faith.  If we do not know why we trust God, then we will always need
to know exactly what God is doing in order to trust him.  Failing to grasp
that, we may not be able to trust him, for anything we do not understand may
count decisevely against what we are able to trust.  

If, on the other hand, we do know why we trust God, we will be able to trust
him in situations where we do not understand what He is doing. (Too many Xian
leaders teach as if the Christian had a window in the back of his head which
allows for understanding at every foot fall)  For what God is doing may be
ambiguous, but it will not be inherently contradictory!  It may be mystery to
us, but mystery is only inscrutable; what would be insufferable is absurdity.
And that my friend, was the conclusion of Nietzche both in theory and in
practice.   

--Rex

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20947
From: mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server)
Subject: Re: phone number of wycliffe translators UK

>  I'm concerned about a recent posting about WBT/SIL.  I thought they'd
>pretty much been denounced as a right-wing organization involved in
>ideological manipulation and cultural interference, including Vietnam
>and South America. A commission from Mexican Academia denounced them in
>1979 as " a covert political and ideological institution used by the
>U.S. govt as an instrument of control, regulation, penetration, espionage and
>repression."
>  My concern is that this group may be seen as acceptable and even
>praiseworthy by readers of soc.religion.christian. It's important that
>Christians don't immediately accept every "Christian" organization as
>automatically above reproach.
> 
>                                                                  mp

Good heavens, you mean my good friend Wes Collins, who took his wife and two 
small children into the jungles of Guatemala, despite dangers from primitive 
conditions and armed guerillas, so that the indigenous people groups their 
could have the Bible in their native languages--the young man who led Bible 
studies in our church, who daily demonstrated and declared his deep abiding 
faith in the Lord of Love--you mean he really was a sneaky imperialistic *SPY* 
whose _real_ reason for going was to exploit and oppress the ignorant and 
unsuspecting masses?  Imagine my surprise!  I never would have thought it of 
him.

How was this terrible deceit discovered?  What exactly was the "cultural 
interference" they were caught committing?  Attempting to persuade the locals 
that their ancestral gods were false gods, and their sacrifices (including 
human sacrifices in some cases) were vain?  Destroying traditional lifestyles 
by introducing steel tools, medical vaccines, and durable clothes?  Oh and by 
the way, who did the denouncing?

I am terribly shocked to hear that my friend Wes, who seemed so nice, was 
really such a deceitful tool of the devil.  Please provide me with specific 
documentation on this charge.  There is some risk that I may not believe it 
otherwise.

- Mark

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20948
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: Hell_2:  Black Sabbath

[In looking through my files this weekend, I ran across some lyrics from
various rock groups that have content.  Here are two from Black Sabbath's
"Master of Reality".  I'll say this much for the music of the '60's and early
'70's, at least they asked questions of significance.  Jethro Tull is another
to asked and wrote about things that caused one to wonder. --Rex] 

AFTER FOREVER

Have you ever thought about your soul--
     can it be saved?
Or perhaps you think that when you're dead
     you just stay in you grave.
Is God just a thought within you read in a book
     when you were at school?
When you think about death 
     Do you lose your breath
     Or do you keep your cool?

Would you like to see the Pope on the end of a rope?
Do you think he's a fool?
Well I have seen the truth.  Yes I have seen the light
     and I've changed my ways.
And I'll be prepared 
     When you're lonely and scared
     at the end of your days.

Could it be you're afraid of what your friends might say
If they knew you believed in God above?
They should realize before they criticise
That God is the only way to love. 

Is your mind so small that you have to fall
In with the pack wherever they run?
Will you still sneer when death is near
And say they may as well worship the sun?

I think it was true -it was people like you
     that crucified Christ.
I think it is sad the opinion you had
     was the only one voiced.
Will you be so sure when your day is near
     to say you don't believe?
You had the chance but you turned it down
     now you can't retrieve.
Perhaps you'll think before you say that God is dead & gone
Open your eyes, just realize that He is the one.
The only one who can save you now from all this sin and hate.
Or will you still jeer at all you hear?
Yes!  I think it's too late.


LORD OF THIS WORLD

You're searching for your mind don't know where to start.
Can't find the key to fit the lock on your heart.
You think you know but you are never quite sure
Your soul is ill but you will not find a cure.
Your world was made for you by someone above
But you choose evil ways instead of love.
You made me master of the world where you exist
The soul I took from you was not even missed.
Lord of the world,
Evil Possessor,
Lord of this world,
He's now your confessor!
You think you're innocent -you've nothing to fear
You don't know me, you say, but isn't it clear?
You turned to me in all your worldly
    greed and pride.
But will you turn to me when it your turn to die?

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20949
From: Christopher.S.Weinberger@williams.edu (Gib)
Subject: Re: Divine providence vs. Murphy's Law

In article <Apr.19.05.13.28.1993.29224@athos.rutgers.edu> rolfe@junior.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe) writes:
>Romans 8:28 (RSV)   We know that in everything God works for good with those 
>who love him, who are called according to his purpose. 
>Murphy's Law:  If anything can go wrong, it will.
>We are all quite familiar with the amplifications and commentary on
>Murphy's Law.  But how do we harmonize that with Romans 8:28?  For that
>matter, how appropriate is humor contradicted by Scripture?

	Both Christians and non-Christians laugh at this quote because
it exaggerates something we all feel, but know is not true.  Us
Christians just KNOW that a little better!    :)



			In God we trust!


			-Christopher


			email @ 96csw@williams.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20950
From: tbrent@bank.ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent)
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell

In article <Apr.19.05.14.08.1993.29279@athos.rutgers.edu> atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez) writes:

>  I don't see what the problem is!  To Christians, Hell is, by definition, 
>eternal death--exactly what atheists are expecting when they die.  There's no
>reason Hell has to be especially awful--to most people, eternal death is bad
>enough.
>  Literal interpreters of the Bible will have a problem with this view, since
>the Bible talks about the fires of Hell and such.  Personally, I don't think
>that people in Hell will be thrust into flame any more than I expect to Jesus
>with a double-edged sword issuing from his mouth--I treat both these statements
>as metaphorical.

Phew! That takes a load off. I don't want to live forever.  I wish
most Christians held this view.  You can't walk across campus in
spring without being assailed by fire-and-brimstone preachers.  I
really think the metaphor should be limited, at least with respect to
teaching our children.  It's criminal to put these ideas into a young
and trusting mind.  Besides, why not rely on the positive aspects of
your religion to win their faith?
 
-Tim 

 ______________________________________________________________________________
|				|				       	       |
|       Timothy J. Brent        |   A man will come to know true happiness,    |
|   BRENT@bank.ecn.purdue.edu   |   only when he accepts that he is but a      |
|=========$$$$==================|   small part of an infinite universe.	       |
|       PURDUE UNIVERSITY       |			  	   -Spinoza    |
| MATERIALS SCIENCE ENGINEERING |			 	 [paraphrased] |
|_______________________________|______________________________________________|
________________________________________________________________________________

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20951
From: johnsd2@rpi.edu (Dan Johnson)
Subject: Re: intolerance - eternal life - etc

I apologize if this article is slightly confusing, and late. The origonal
draft didn't make it through the moderators quote-screens. So I did
violence to it, but if you remember the article I am responding
to it should still make sence.

In article 1850@geneva.rutgers.edu, jsledd@ssdc.sas.upenn.edu (James Sledd) writes:
>Hi Xian Netters,  God bless you

What, no hello for heathan netters?

I feel all left out now. :(

[deletia- table of content, intro, homosexuality]

>
>INCREDIBLY CHOPPED UP POST

[deletia- incorrect attributions]

Uh, you have your attributions wrong, you were responding
to my article, so Dan Johnson should be the 1st one.

>In article 28388@athos.rutgers.edu, jayne@mmalt.guild.org 
>(Jayne Kulikauskas) writes:

[deletia- no free gifts speil nuked by moderator fiat.]

>I find that I am dissatisfied with the little purposes that we can
>manufacture for ourselves.  Little in the cosmic sense.

Ah, in the _cosmic_ sence.. but who lives in the cosmic sence?
Not me! Cosmicly, we don't even exist for all practical purposes.
I can hardly use the Cosmic Sence Of Stuff as a guide to life.
It would just say: "don't bother."

Luckily for mortals, there are many sences of scale you can talk
about. In a human sence, you can have big purposes.

>  Even the
>greatest of the great pharos are long gone, the pyramids historical
>oddities being worn down by the wind, eventually to be turned into dust.

But the influence of Aristotle, Confucious, Alexander, Ceasar and
countless others is still with us, although their works have perished.

But they have changed to course of history, and while humanity exists,
their deeds cannot be said to have come to nothing, even if they
are utterly forgotten.

>Mankind itself will one day perish.

One day, surely. (well, unless you believe in the Second Coming, which
I do not)

But in that time we can make a difference.

> Without some interconnectedness
>that transcends the physical, without God, it is all pointless in the
>end.

In the end. But it must be the end; until then, there is all the
point you can muster. And when that end comes, there will be nobody
to ask, "Gee, I don't think James Sledd's deeds are gonna make
much of a difference, ulitmately, ya know?".

But they will have already have made a difference, great or small,
before the end.

Why must your ends be eternal to be worthwhile?

>  Most people are able to live with that, and for them little
>purposes (success, money, power, effecting change, helping others)
>suffice.

Little is in the eye of the beholder, of course.

>  I suppose they never  think about the cosmic scale, or are at
>least able to put it out of their minds.

I don't doubt it. But I have thought about the cosmic scale. And
it does not seem to mean much to us, here, today.

>To me, it is comforting to know that reality is an illusion.

I would not find this comforting. But perhaps it is merely my
definitions. Here's what I think the relevant terms are:

"Reality"	That which is real.
"Illusion"	That which is not real, but seems to be.
"Real"		Objectively Existing

For "reality" to be an "illusion" would mean, then:

That which is real is not real, but seems to be.

Or:

That which objectively exists, does not objectively exist, but
does seem to objectively exist.

From which we can conclude, that unless you want to get a
contradiction, that no things objectively exist.

But I have a problem with this because I would like to say
that *I* objectively exist, if nothing else. Cogito Ergo Sum
and all that.

Perhaps you do not mean all that, but rather mean:
"Objective Reality is Unreachable by humans."

Which is not so bad, and so far as I know is true.

>  That the
>true reality underneath the the physical is spirit.

Have on. If reality is an illusion, isn't True Reality an illusion
too? And if True Reality is spirit, doens't that make Spirit an Illusion
as well?

If I am not distinctly confused, this is getting positively Buddhist.

>  That this world is a school of sorts, where we learn
>and grow, and our souls mature.

That is one hell of a statement, although perhaps true.

Do you mean to imply that it was *intended* to be so? If so,
please show that this is true. If not, please explain how this
can give a purpose to anything.

> That gives a purpose to my little purposes,

How does it do that?

Wouldn't the world=school w/ intent idea make the world a preparation for
some *greater* purpose, rather than a purpose in itself.

> and takes some of the pressure off.

What pressure?

>  It's not so necessary to make this life a success in human terms
>if you're really just here to learn.

It is not necessary to be a success in human terms, unless your
goals either include doing so or require doing so before they
themselves can be achived.

Indeed, many people have set goals for themselves that
do not include success in human terms as _I_ understand it. Check
out yer Buddhist monk type guy. Out for nirvana, which is not
at all the same thing.

>  It's more important to progress,
>grow, persist, to learn to love yourself and others and to express your
>love, especially when it's dificult to do so.  Honest effort is rewarded
>by God, he knows our limitations.

Why is learning to love a goal? What happens if you fail in this
goal? To you? To God? To the mysterious Purpose?


[deletia- question about immortailty and my answer deleted because it was
 mostly quote.]

>TWO SERIOUS QUESTIONS/INVITATIONS TO DISCUSSION
>1. What is the nature of eternal life?
>2. How can we as mortals locked into space time conceive of it?
>
>Possible answer for #2: The best we can do is Metaphor/Analogy
>Question 2A  What is the best metaphor?

I'll have a crack at that.

(1) The nature of eternal life is neatly described by its name: It is
the concept of life without death, life without end.

(2) No. We can put together word to describe it, but we cannot imagine it.

(2a) No metaphor is adequate next to eternity; if it were we could not
understand it either. (or so I suspect)
---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions probably show what I know.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20952
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5



In article <Apr.19.05.12.10.1993.29131@athos.rutgers.edu> 
pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes:

>priority than the direct word of Jesus in Matt5:14-19? Paul begins
>Romans 14 with "If someone is weak in the faith ..." Do you count
>yourself as one who is weak in the faith?

Do you count yourself as one who is weak in the faith?

>you read Jesus' word in Matt5:14-19? Is there any doubt in your mind
>about what is right and what is sin (Greek hamartia = missing the mark)?

Is there any doubt in your mind about what is right and what is missing
the mark?

>>However I'd like to be clear that I do not think there's unambiguous
>>proof that regular Christian worship was on the first day.  As I
>>indicated, there are responses on both of the passages cited.
>Whereas, the Ten Commandments and Jesus' words in Matt5:14-19 are fairly
>clear, are they not?

Are they clear or do you have doubts?

>[No, I don't believe that Paul can overrule God.

An important first step; the realization that Paul was human.

>However Paul was writing for a largely Gentile audience.

Yes, and he was writing and speaking for an audience that was at best,
very weak in the faith; most could not read, most were unfamiliar with
the Hebrew Scriptures in even the Septuagint form. Paul adapted the
message of the Bible to a largely uneducated market. Granted, this
market still exists today, but do you count yourself as part of it? To
be "weak in the faith" is not missing the mark (hamartia) if you do the
best that your education allows. Are you doing the best?

>The Law was regarded by Jews
>at the time (and now) as binding on Jews, but not on Gentiles.  There
>are rules that were binding on all human beings (the so-called Noachic
>laws), but they are quite minimal.

Let me make clear that the "Law" is none other than the Pentateuch of
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. What did Jesus say
about the "Law" in Matt5:14-19? Where did Jesus say that the "Law" only
applies to Jews and that Gentiles are above the "Law"?

>The issue that the Church had to
>face after Jesus' death was what to do about Gentiles who wanted to
>follow Christ.  The decision not to impose the Law on them didn't say
>that the Law was abolished.  It simply acknowledged that fact that it
>didn't apply to Gentiles.

Who acknowledged this fact? On what basis? Are we extra-biblical at this
point? Why not also acknowledge that the Bhagavad-Gita is the only
relevant text for Gentiles, after all we see in the Bible that it was
Magus from the east who observed the star-signs of Jesus? Why bother
with any texts at all? Why not just follow whatever the Church has to
say?

>Thus there is no contradiction with Mat 5.

I don't see how you can say this with a straight face. Are you a
follower of Christ, or do you follow someone else? Are you saying that
the words of Jesus only apply to Jews?

>As far as I can tell, both Paul and other Jewish Christians did
>continue to participate in Jewish worship on the Sabbath.  Thus they
>continued to obey the Law.

How Jewish was Paul after he changed his name from Saul?

>The issue was (and is) with Gentile
>Christians, who are not covered by the Law (or at least not by the
>ceremonial aspects of it).

Who says Gentile Christians are not covered by the first five books? Who
says that Gentile Christians are above the Ten Commandments?

>Jesus dealt mostly with Jews.  I think we can reasonably assume that
>Mat 5 was directed to a Jewish audience.

You're implying that Jesus' words are valid only for Jews. Is this
really what you mean to say? You do realize that you are gutting rather
large portions of the Bible? When you read Jesus' words, did you ever
consider that maybe, just maybe Jesus is talking to you, no matter what
your race or sex? If the Hebrew Scriptures and the Gospel accounts of
Jesus are only directed to Jews, why were they translated into English?

>He did interact with
>Gentiles a few times (e.g. the centurion whose slave was healed and a
>couple of others).  The terms used to describe the centurion (see Luke
>7) suggest that he was a "God-fearer", i.e. a Gentile who followed
>God, but had not adopted the whole Jewish Law.

As Paul would call him, one who was weak in the faith.

>He was commended by
>Jewish elders as a worthy person, and Jesus accepted him as such.
>This seems to me to indicate that Jesus accepted the prevailing view
>that Gentiles need not accept the Law.

Which is more important: 1) The recorded word of Jesus or 2) Indications
that you can deduce from the Bible? Was Jesus God only of the Jews, or
God of all humankind of all race and sex?

>However there's more involved if you want to compare Jesus and Paul on
>the Law.  In order to get a full picture of the role of the Law, we
>have to come to grips with Paul's apparent rejection of the Law, and
>how that relates to Jesus' commendation of the Law.  At least as I
>read Paul, he says that the Law serves a purpose that has been in a
>certain sense superceded.

This is your understanding of Paul. Compare this to the word of Jesus.
Are you Christian or Pauline?

>Again, this issue isn't one of the
>abolition of the Law.  In the middle of his discussion, Paul notes
>that he might be understood this way, and assures us that that's not
>what he intends to say.  Rather, he sees the Law as primarily being
>present to convict people of their sinfulness.  But ultimately it's an
>impossible standard, and one that has been superceded by Christ.

Again, this is your understanding of Paul. Did Jesus say that the Law
was an "impossible standard?" Did Jesus say that He superceded the Law?
Are you Christian or Pauline?

>Paul's comments are not the world's clearest here, and not everyone
>agrees with my reading.

You acknowledge that it is *your* reading of Paul. What did Jesus say?
Can you deny that Matt5:14-19 is quite clear in its meaning? Are you 
Christian or Pauline?

>But the interesting thing to notice is that
>even this radical position does not entail an abolition of the Law.
>It still remains as an uncompromising standard, from which not an iota
>or dot may be removed.  For its purpose of convicting of sin, it's
>important that it not be relaxed.

When did Jesus say that the purpose of the Law was conviction of sin?

>However for Christians, it's not
>the end -- ultimately we live in faith, not Law.

Please reread Matt5:14-19. Are you Christian or Pauline?

>Jesus' interpretations
>emphasize the intent of the Law, and stay away from the ceremonial
>details.

Are you saying that the Ten Commandments are ceremonial details?

>Paul's conclusion is similar.  While he talks about the Law being
>superceded, all of the specific examples he gives involve the
>"ceremonial law", such as circumcision and the Sabbath.  He is quite
>concerned about maintaining moral standards.

You call observance of the Sabbath, the day on which the Lord rested,
ceremonial? Has circumcision been superceded for Christians?

....

Are you Christian or Pauline?

[Both.  There is no doubt in my mind about what is sin and what is
not, at least not in this case.  Jesus did not deal explicitly with
the question of whether the Law was binding on Gentiles.  That's why I
have to cite evidence such as the way Jesus dealt with the Centurion.

As to general Jewish views on this, I am dependent largely on studies
of Pauline theology, one by H.J. Schoeps, and one whose author I can't
come up with at the moment.  Both authors are Jews.  Also, various
Christian and non-Christian Jews have discussed the issue here and in
other newsgroups.

Mat 5:19 is clear that the Law is still valid.  It does not say that
it applies to Gentiles.

And yes, I say that the specific requirement for worship on the
Sabbath in the Ten Commandments is a ceremonial detail, when you're
looking at the obligations of Gentiles.  Similarly circumcision.

I'm not sure quite what else I can say on this subject.  Again, it's
unfortunate the Jesus didn't answer the question directly.  However we
do know (1) what the 1st Cent. Jewish approach was, (2) how Jesus
dealt with at least one Gentile, and (3) how Jesus' disciples dealt
with the issue when it became more acute (I'm referring to Acts 15
more than Paul).  Given that these are all in agreement, I don't see
that there's a big problem.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20953
From: mtf@vipunen.hut.fi (Antti Lahelma)
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell

In <Apr.19.05.14.08.1993.29279@athos.rutgers.edu> atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez) writes:

>  Hello,

>  I have seen two common threads running through postings by atheists on the 
>newsgroup, and I think that they can be used to explain each other.  
>Unfortunately I don't have direct quotes handy...

>1) Atheists believe that when they die, they die forever.

 More correctly: when people die, they cease to exist.

>2) A god who would condemn those who fail to believe in him to eternal death
>   is unfair.

>  I don't see what the problem is!  To Christians, Hell is, by definition, 
>eternal death--exactly what atheists are expecting when they die.

 The idea I've gotten is that to christians, Hell is -- like Heaven --
 afterlife; i.e, you don't cease to exist, but are subjected to eternal 
 torture (well, that's the orthodox idea anyway; "eternal death" if you
 prefer that). Atheists don't believe in any sort of afterlife.

>  Literal interpreters of the Bible will have a problem with this view, since
>the Bible talks about the fires of Hell and such.  Personally, I don't think
>that people in Hell will be thrust into flame any more than I expect to Jesus
>with a double-edged sword issuing from his mouth--I treat both these state-
>ments as metaphorical.

 I think it's safe to say that Hell was never intended metaphorical. Certainly
 not the equivalent of ceasing to exist. Some christian concepts are indeed
 metaphors, but your idea of Hell is a 20th century interpretation. It is, of
 course, nice to see that even christianity might evolve to fit the worldview 
 of modern age, but I fear the church will not accept it. Understandably, per-
 haps, because if you accept that Hell is a metaphor, then you're one step
 closer to turning God into a metaphor as well.
-- 
Antti Lahelma   |	      mtf@saha.hut.fi 	           |   GNOTHI SEAUTON 
Lehtotie 3     -O-	      stel@purkki.apu.fi          -*-  ====== ======= 
00630 HELSINKI  | <<Jumalat ovat pakanoille suosiollisia>> |    TUNNE ITSESI   

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20954
From: will@futon.webo.dg.com (Will Taber)
Subject: [soc.religion.christian] Re: The arrogance of Christians

In a previous message  aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker) writes:

>If I don't think my belief is right and everyone else's belief is wrong,
>then I don't have a belief. This is simply what belief means.

 [More stuff deleted]

This seems to be a pretty arogant definition of belief.  My beliefs
are those things which I find to be true based on my experience of the
world.  This experience includes study of things that I may not have
experienced directly.  But even then, I can only understand the
studies to the extent to which I can relate what I study back to what
I have experienced.

Which means that by beliefs about God are directly related to my
experience of God.  Having experienced God, I try to make sense of
that experience.  I study religion and read the Bible.  I find things
that echo what I have already experienced.  Out of this I build my
beliefs.  I also find things that don't match my experience.  That
doesn't make them false.  They just don't match my experience.  Maybe
I will understand that stuff later.  I don't know.  Maybe all of my
beliefs are wrong.  I can change my beliefs.

If someone else has beliefs that are different from mine, so what.
Neither of us are necessarily wrong.  Someone else is making sense out
of a different set of experiences.  Even though we have different
explanations and beliefs, if we talk we might even discover that the
underlying experiences are similar.

Some people approach religion as a truth that can only exist in one
form, and usually has a single revelation.  The more dogmatic and
inflexible the belief system, the more arrogant it will appear to an
outsider.  There is another approach possible, however.  God is a
mystery.  I am trying to solve the mystery, so I look at the evidence
available to me.  I try to arrive at the best understanding that I can
based on the evidence.  New evidence may cause me to change my
understanding.  When I encounter someone with a different belief than
my own, it isn't a threat, it is an opportunity to perhaps discover
something new about this mystery I can never fully comprehend.

Peace
Will Taber
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
| William Taber         | Will_Taber@dg.com 	  | Any opinions expressed |
| Data General Corp.    | will@futon.webo.dg.com  | are mine alone and may |
| Westboro, Mass. 01580 |                         | change without notice. |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| When all your dreams are laid to rest, you can get what's second best,   |
|	But it's hard to get enough.		David Wilcox               |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20955
From: schnitzi@osceola.cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell

atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez) writes:

>1) Atheists believe that when they die, they die forever.

>2) A god who would condemn those who fail to believe in him to eternal death
>   is unfair.

>  I don't see what the problem is!  To Christians, Hell is, by definition, 
>eternal death--exactly what atheists are expecting when they die.  

Well, I think that most Christians believe that your conciousness will
somehow continue on after your 'physical' death, which contradicts what
most atheists (myself included) believe, namely that your conciousness,
being contained in your brain, dies when your brain dies.

>There's no
>reason Hell has to be especially awful--to most people, eternal death is bad
>enough.

I fear the pain that often comes with the process of dying, but since I
won't be around to worry about it, I don't fear eternal death.

>  Literal interpreters of the Bible will have a problem with this view, since
>the Bible talks about the fires of Hell and such.  

This is something I've always found confusing.  If all your nerve endings
die with your physical body, why would flame hurt you?  How can one "wail
and gnash teeth" with no lungs and no teeth?


Mark Schnitzius
schnitzi@eola.cs.ucf.edu
University of Central Florida

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20956
From: conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt)
Subject: Latest on Branch Davidians

Most of you will have probably seen the news by the time you read this,
but the Branch Davidian compound is no more.  This morning about 6:00,
the feds punched holes in the compound walls by using a tank.  They 
then started using non-lethal tear gas.  Shortly after noon, 2 cult
members were seen setting fire to the compound.  So far, about 20-30
people have been seen outside the compound.  The fate of the other 60 or
70 people is unknown, neither is the fate of the 17 children that were
inside.  The compound did burn to the ground.

Koresh, who at times has claimed to be the Messiah, but then backed off
and only claimed to be a prophet, had promised several times to come
out peacefully if his demands were met.  First, he demanded that his
message be broadcast on the radio, which it was, but he didn't come out.
He claimed to be waiting for a message from God.  Finally, he said that
God told him that he needed to decipher the mystery of the 7 seals in
Revelation, and when he was finished, he'd come out.  He finished the
first one, but didn't do any more work that anyone knows of since then.
The federal agents did warn him that if they didn't come out, they 
would be subjected to tear gas.

I think it's really sad that so many people put their faith in a mere
man, even if he did claim to be the son of God, and/or a prophet.  I
think it underscores the importance of putting you faith only in
things that are eternal and knowing for yourself what the Scriptures
say and what they mean, instead of relying on others to do it for you,
even if those others are learned and mean well.

Paul Conditt

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20957
From: johnsd2@rpi.edu (Dan Johnson)
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell

In article 29279@athos.rutgers.edu, atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez) writes:

>  I have seen two common threads running through postings by atheists on the 
>newsgroup, and I think that they can be used to explain each other.  
>Unfortunately I don't have direct quotes handy...

>1) Atheists believe that when they die, they die forever.

>2) A god who would condemn those who fail to believe in him to eternal death
>   is unfair.

>  I don't see what the problem is!  To Christians, Hell is, by definition, 
>eternal death--exactly what atheists are expecting when they die.

This is the problem. This is not hell, this is permanent death. It is
indeed what atheists (generally) expect and it is neither fair nor
unfair, it just is. You might as well argue about whether being made
mostly of carbon and water is "fair".

However, the atheists who claim that Hell is unfair are talking about
the fire and brimstone place of endless suffering, which necessarily
includes eternal existance (life, I dunno, but some sort of continuation);
not at all the same thing.

Granted, you clearly feel that hell=death, but this is not a univeral
sentiment as near as I can tell.

If *your* idea of God "condemns" heathens to ordinary death, I have no
problem with that. I do have a problem with the gods that hide from humans
and torture the unbelievers eternally for not guessing right.

[deletia- Hell, and Literalness.]

---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions probably show what I know.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20958
From: johnsd2@rpi.edu (Dan Johnson)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."

In article 29201@athos.rutgers.edu, seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson) writes:
>In article <Apr.14.03.07.38.1993.5420@athos.rutgers.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
>>In article 28388@athos.rutgers.edu, jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas) writes:
>>
>>>  This is why the most effective 
>>>substance-abuse recovery programs involve meeting peoples' spiritual 
>>>needs.
>>
>>You might want to provide some evidence next time you make a claim
>>like this.
>>
>In 12-step programs (like Alcoholics Anonymous), one of the steps
>involves acknowleding a "higher power".  AA and other 12-step abuse-
>recovery programs are acknowledged as being among the most effective.

[deletia- and so on]

I seem to have been rather unclear.

What I was asking is this:

Please show me that the most effective substance-absure recovery
programs involve meetinsg peoples' spiritual needs, rather than
merely attempting to fill peoples' spiritual needs as percieved
by the people, A.A, S.R.C. regulars, or snoopy. This will probably
involve defining "spritual needs" (is it not that clear) and
showing that such things exist and how they can be filled.

Annother tack you might take is to say that "fulfilling spiritual
needs" means "acknowledging a "higher power" of some sort, then
show that systems that do require this, work better than otherwise
identical systems that do not. A correlation here would help you,
but as you point out this might just be demonstrating swapping
one crutch for annother. (however, I do feel that religion is
usually a better crutch than alchohol, as it is not usually
poisonous! :) )

I hope with that clarification, my question will be answerable. I actually
did know about the 12 step program, its the question of what it does,
rather than what it tries to do, that makes a difference to me.
---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions probably show what I know.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20959
From: maridai@comm.mot.com (Marida Ignacio)
Subject: Refusing Divine Peace and Alive Prayer? (was Re: Question about Mary)

It's like refusing 'God's kingdom come'.

In one of Jesus' revelation in this century, "...same thing as in
the old days.  People refuse to believe my messengers.  Even when
I was alive here on earth, they refuse Me.  What more when I am just
talking through somebody else?" (paraphrased).

With all the knowledge believers accumulated, He would think that
we would be 'enlightened' enough to detect which ones are 
'authentic and divine' as opposed to 'evil or man-made'.

These signs, these miracles, are you afraid that they are not from God?
That these are the signs we should not open our hearts and mind to for thinking
  they are evil?
Well, is faith in God evil?
Is true peace evil?  Is true love that is divine and pure evil? 
Why can't someone accept that God can do what He wants in fulfillment of His
  generous love and Jesus' never ending forgiveness to those who turn back to
  Him for salvation?
Why are we refusing God's messenger of this truth?  The mother to all who are
  in Christ?
What brings us these:
    fears of being shamed by what others will think or say about us?
        which, in contrary, could be pleasing to God?
    fears of being humbled?
    fears of being judged as wrong (wrt mainstream standard of what is right)?
Why can't we tolerate non-believers' mockery or ridicule of us for the
  sake of peace, love and obedience to God?  The humbling lessons left to us
  by martyrs and saints?
We'd rather engage in never-ending bickering and disproof of each other's
  opinion - looking at each other's mistakes - for the sake of arguments,
  instead of having communion in one body with Christ.
What makes us go blind to the truth that God is All Powerful and that He can
  not be binded by what people wrote and have written about Him in all ages?
Why is our faith in God limited?  By all the words and literature we muster?
What prevents us from going *beyond* being saved and extend God's rich love
  to others who are not?

Why are our eyes not wide open to see that He continuously sees our faith, hope
  and love which glorify Him and so He gives us indications of His 
  acknowledgements with signs/miracles (ordinary/common or divinely inspired) 
  everywhere?  Isn't that like an atheist/agnostic's view that all these
  are just ordinary here on earth and not caused by anything supernatural?

Why then does the Holy Mother comes back to remind us:
  "We must really __accept that prayer__ changes the course of things and that
  with prayers __even wars can be prevented__."
but then she continues:
  "You often have an egotistic attitude.  Dear children, in these days you
  have prayed very much, __but your hands have remained empty__."
Why hesitate in proclaiming what needs to be done:
  "prayer, conversion, peace, penance, fasting, the Holy Mass, living life
  as what the Gospel brings."?
Why not do so?  How?  To the world?
To this, the Mother says:
  "Start in your family.  Be a good example.  Live the Word."
Why worry if it is going to be of good use to many?
Our Holy Mother says:
  "The fruits, __leave them to the Lord__, do not worry about anything or 
  anyone but entrust yourself to the Lord."

Although the Holy Mother does not insist because:
  "You are free; I bow before the freedom which God gives you."
but she follows this with:
  "You are surprised because I say to you: Decide for God and yet, see how
  you have lived this day."
Why does she constantly conveys:
  "Take this life toward God in the way as to __experience__ the Lord Himself
  in your __behavior__ and __not only__ when you pray" or one time when we 
  decide that we are saved, or talk/write about God, etc.
The Holy Mother warns:
  "Satan (the serpent) is always trying to dissuade you to turn you away from
  my peace plan and prayer."  (Rev 12:17, the dragon became angry with the woman
  and went off to wage war against the rest of her offsprings, those who keep
  God's commandments, and bear witness to Jesus.)

Do you have fear or hate for God's current messenger of true peace, love and
  our motherly protector from the anti-Christ?
The one who is being apprehensive of communism, wars, famine and other evils
  that the serpent brings upon us? 
This obedient and blessed new Eve?
The mother who warns us so we can be prepared and be strong against Satan?
Haven't there been renewed faith, hope, love, peace and obedience wherever
  this messenger has shared her blessings and graces that God has given her
  in good purpose?
Why do we choose to be blind?
Why fear the truth that God has been giving us a chance and sharing Christ's
  ever-forgetting forgiveness to us through the obedient mother?
The mother who has been consecrated the task __to reverse__ the disobedient
  harm and example done by the ancient Eve.
She has been preparing the new Eden with her Immaculate Heart.
The new Eden as sanctuary (the womb) for the next coming and judgement of the 
  righteous by our Lord, Jesus Christ; when The Lamb marries His bride.
Shouldn't we give her a hand in her exhaustive job of preparing us for the
  second coming of her Son as she has been conceived without sin to bear
  the Son of God in her womb?
Why fear true peace, love and renewed faith and obedience to God that Mary
  faithfully brings to God's children?  She has been protecting the flock
  (the rest of the offsprings) from the greedy dragon so as to present more 
  righteous members for her Son's coming.
Not all apparitions and miracles that resulted from them are worthy
  of belief.  With prayer and guidance from the Holy Spirit and, of course,
  approval of our Church authorities, we should be aware of the true and
  divinely inspired ones; specifically, the ones which aligns with the
  Scripture.
  

Also, our Lady reminds us of recommendation of __silence__ in our prayers:
  "If you speak unceasingly in your prayers, how will you be able to hear
  God?  Allow Him room to answer you, to speak to you." 

She encourages us (with motherly nurturing) to continue in exuberant 
faith, hope and love to Jesus, constantly.  NOT with mere emotions, 
but with deep, constant obedience to Jesus, her Beloved Son and
acknowledgement of our need to have Him as part of our lives.

Let's not wait to the last minute to renew our faith and the life
that God wants us to live; when there won't be enough time or when
it will be late.
                                                      
Nowadays, Mary says, 
"Pray, pray, pray for peace...reconciliation, my children."
Have peace within yourself first before you can promote peace to
others.  For without peace, you can not fully accept my Son."
                                                                       

And you think she's just an ordinary lady.  Not to me.  She's
our good Mother/messenger from God and she is so nice enough to
share God's kingdom to us through her Son and experience it.

With Mary, we are assured that The Lamb always succeeds.

-----
Note:  All enclosed in quotes are from "Latest News of Medjugorje"
       Number 10, June, 1991 by Fr. Rene' Laurentin.

-----

O, new Mother of Eden, Most Pure
Preparing the sanctuary for true christians
Cleansing us with peace for God's kingdom come
Bring us to your loving, protective and obedient Church
That we may belong in one Body to your Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord
And not go astray from His perfect completeness
Pray that we ourselves pray with the Holy Spirit guiding us
So that we may help you in strength to conquer the enemies of your Son
  while you prepare us for Him with your Immaculate Heart.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20960
From: mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server)
Subject: Re: So far so good

>>This may be a really dumb one, but I'll ask it anyways:
>>       Christians know that they can never live up to the requirements of  
>>God, right? (I may be wrong, but that is my understanding)  But they still  
>>try to do it.  Doesn't it seem like we are spending all of our lives  
>>trying to reach a goal we can never achieve?  I know that we are saved by  
>>faith and not by works, but does that mean that once we are saved we don't  
>>have to do anything?  I think James tells us that Faith without works is  
>>dead (paraphrase).  How does this work?

Short reply:  We can never achieve perfect health, yet we always strive for it.  
We don't seek to do God's will because we're forced to, we follow His way 
because His way is best.  The reason it's hard is because we are flawed, not 
because He's unreasonable.  But we seek to follow His way because we want to 
improve ourselves and our lives.

- Mark

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20961
From: mussack@austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Subject: Re: tuff to be a Christian?

Please realize that I am frequently getting in trouble for
straying from orthodoxy, but here is my opinion:

In article <Apr.17.01.10.58.1993.2246@geneva.rutgers.edu>, mdbs@ms.uky.edu (no name) writes:
> ... Moreover the Buddha says that we are 
> intrinsically good (as against Christ's "we are all sinners").

I never thought of these two ideas being "against" each other.
People might quibble about what "intrinsically" means but the
reason we are sinners is because we do not behave as good as we
are. The message of Christ is that each of us are not only good,
but great, that we can approach perfection, albeit perhaps through a 
different technique than you claim Buddhism teaches. Because we do
not realize our greatness, we sin. Peter had no problem walking 
on water until a little doubt crept in.

Doesn't David ask in the 8th Psalm "what is man that you [God] 
should care for him, but you have made him just a little lower 
than the angels"?

I probably exagerate in my mind what a scrawny little kid David
was, just as I probably exagerate what a gigantic monster Goliath
was, but David's power easily defeated Goliath's.

Remember the rich young man who comes up to Jesus and asks what
he can do to enter the Kingdom, Jesus says follow the commandments.
I always picture the smug look on his face as he says he's done that
his whole life, probably anticipating an "attaboy" from the 
Messiah. Instead Jesus gives him a harder task, sell everything
and follow Him. Jesus is raising the bar. The desciples say
how can anyone do this if it's so hard even for rich people.
Jesus says anyone can do it, with God's help.

Jesus says not only can we avoid killing people, we can avoid
getting angry at people. Not only can we avoid committing
adultery, we can control our own desires. 

I realize this was not your main point, but I wonder how other
people see this. 

> ...
> 	Parting Question:
> 		Would you have become a Christian if you had not
> been indoctrinated by your parents? You probably never learned about
> any other religion to make a comparative study. And therefore I claim
> you are brain washed.

(Please forgive any generalizations I am about to make.)

Your point about how "hard" other religions are is a good one, just 
as your "Parting Question" is a tough question. I think that Muslims
worship the same God as I do, we can learn from their name "submission".
Hindus and Buddhists and Taoists, etc. claim that "God" is impersonal. 
Is God personal or impersonal? I say yes, but if I think a little
more my answer is whichever is greater. I think it is greater 
to be a personal entity, with an individual consciousness, but
you're right that that might be a cultural bias. If I think more
I must admit that God's personal nature is as far beyond my
conception as His impersonal nature is beyond the Hindu's
conception. If somehow Jesus could fit into Hindu cosmology
then maybe I wouldn't have a problem, though that is hard to imagine.

Are there any former (or present) "Eastern Religion" members here 
who could comment?

Chris Mussack

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20962
From: mussack@austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5

General question: Since the world was discovered to be
round, the definition of Saturday is, if not ambiguous,
at least arbitrary. How would someone answer this?

Also, when the calendar was changed (Gregorian to Julian?)
was the day of the week changed or just the date? Once again
this points to the arbitrariness of the days.

Chris Mussack

[When calendars change, there is no change in the 7-day weekly cycle,
just months and dates.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20963
From: shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker)
Subject: Re: SSPX schism ?

In article <Apr.17.01.11.35.1993.2284@geneva.rutgers.edu> jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes:
>
>[Descriptions of true and false obedience]
>
>Obedience is not solely a matter of compliance/refusal.  The nature of
>the commands must also be taken into account; it is not enough to
>consider someone's compliance or refusal and then say whether they are
>"obedient" or "disobedient".  You also have to take into consideration
>whether the commands are good or bad.

You ask where we are.  I would echo that question.  I'm not trying to be
contentious.  But assuming that the Pope has universal jurisdiction
and authority, what authority do you rely upon for your decisions?
What prevents me from choosing ANY doctrine I like and saying that
Papal disagreement is an error that will be resolved in time?
This is especially true, since Councils of Bishops have basically
stood by the Pope.

It appears that much of what lies at the heart of this matter is
disagreements over what is tradition and Tradition, and also over
authority and discipline.  

My question to the supporters of SSPX is this:

  Is there ANY way that your positions with respect to church reforms
  could change and be conformed to those of the Pope? (assuming that
  the Pope's position does not change and that the leaders of SSPX
  don't jointly make such  choice.)

If not, this appears to be claiming infallible teaching authority.
If I adopt the view that "I'm NOT wrong, I CAN'T be wrong, and
there's NO WAY I'll change my mind, YOU must change yours", that
I've either left the Catholic Church or it has left me.

The Orthodox Church does not recognize papal authority/jurisdiction
viewing authority as present in each bishop, and in Ecumenical
Councils.  We regard the subsequent development of the doctrines 
regarding papal authority and jurisdiction to be a separation of
the Bishop of Rome from the Orthodox church.  Without going into
the merits of the Great Schism, at least the Orthodox agree that
a split occurred, and don't paly what appear to be semantic games
like "He's the Pope, but we don't recognize that what he does
is effective...".  Words aside, it appears to be a de facto split.

>So where are we?  Are we in another Arian heresy, complete with weak
>Popes?  Or are the SSPX priests modern Martin Luthers?  Well, the only
>way to answer that is to examine who is saying what, and what the
>traditional teaching of the Church is.

We sould argue from now until the Second Coming about what the "real"
traditional teaching of the Church is.  If this were a simple matter
East and West would not have been separated for over 900 years.
 
>Many Catholics will decide to side with the Pope.  There is some
>soundness in this, because the Papacy is infallible, so eventually
>some Pope *will* straighten all this out.

I thought that the teaching magisterieum of the church did not allow
error in teachings regarding faith and morals even in the short term.`
I may be wrong here, I'm not Roman Catholic. :-)

What would be the effect of a Pope making an ex cathedra statement
regarding the SSPX situation?  Would it be honored?  If not, how
do you get around the formal doctrine of infallibility?
Again, I'm not trying to be contentions, I'm trying to understand.
Since I'm Orthodox, I've got no real vested interest in the outcome,
one way or the other.

>Schism is a superset of disobedience (refusal to obey a legitimate
>command).  All schismatics are disobedient.  But it's a superset, so
>it doesn't work the other way around: not all disobeyers are
>schismatics.  The mere fact that the SSPX priests don't comply with
>the Holy Father's desires doesn't make them schismatics.

It does if the command was legitimate.  SSPX does not view the
Pope's commands as legitimate.  Why?  This is a VERY slippery slope.
 
>                                      But my problem with this is
>this: according to the traditional theology of Holy Orders, episcopal
>consecration does not confer jurisdiction.  It only confers the power
>of Order: the ability to confect the Sacraments.  

True enough.

>                                                  Jurisdiction must be
>conferred by someone else with the power to confer it (such as the
>Pope).  The Society bishops, knowing the traditional theology quite
>well, take great pains to avoid any pretence of jurisdiction over
>anyone.  They simply confer those Sacraments that require a bishop.

One could argue that they are establishing a non-geographic jurisdiction.
I don't know if that's even a concept or problem in Catholic circles.
 
Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com)
-- 
-------
Lawrence Overacker
Shell Oil Company, Information Center    Houston, TX            (713) 245-2965
llo@shell.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20964
From: JJMARVIN@pucc.princeton.edu
Subject: Re: Losing your temper is not a Christian trait

In article <Apr.15.00.58.22.1993.28891@athos.rutgers.edu>
ruthless@panix.com (Ruth Ditucci) writes:
 
> One of the tell tale signs/fruits that give non-christians away - is
>when their net replies are acrid, angry and sarcastic.
>
>We in the net village do have a laugh or two when professed, born again
>christians verbally attack people who might otherwise have been won to
>christianity and had originally joined the discussions because they were
>"spiritually hungry."  Instead of answering questions with sweetness and
>sincerity, these chrisitan net-warriors, "flame" the queries.
 
Although I certainly agree with the basic sentiment that snideness is
unloving and ineffective, I'm a little disturbed by the formulation that
ill temper is not a Christian trait. It seems like a false argument to
say that anyone who displays trait X must not be a Christian. Could
well be a sinning Christian, but a Christian nonetheless.
Anger is human, and Christians are
human: Christians get angry and defensive and react badly just like
everyone else. It's not perfect righteousness but the effort of seeking
righteousness that marks a dedicated Christian. And one of the greatest
gifts of faith to me is that of seeking and accepting forgiveness for
my failures. Expecting flawless behavior from self or others isn't
Christianity: it's perfectionism.
 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20965
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Some questions from a new Christian

In a previous article, 18669@bach.udel.edu (Steven R Hoskins) writes:
> 
>  One of my questions I would
> like to ask is - Can anyone recommend a good reading list of theological
> works intended for a lay person?
> 

I would recommend "Essential Truthes of the Christian Faith" by RC Sproul.
It is copywrited 1992 from Tyndale House Publishers. Sproul offers concise 
explanations, in simple language, of around 100 different Christian 
doctrines, grouped by subject. I think it would be particularly good for
newer Christians (and older Christians suffering spiritual malnutrition),
as it gives a Biblically sound basic treatment of the issues, avoiding 
long in-depth analysis that can wait until after you know the basics. 

---
Dave Weaver               | "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to
weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com|  gain what he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot (1949)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20966
From: fraseraj@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Andrew J Fraser)
Subject: Re: God-shaped hole (was Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")

[Several people were involved in trying to figure out who first used
the phrase "God-shaped hole".  --clh]

"There is a God shaped vacuum in all of us" (or something to that effect) is
generally attributed to Blaise Pascal.
What I want to know is how can you have a God shaped vacuum inside of you if
God is in fact infinite (or omnipresent)?

=========================================================================
||     Name: Andrew James Fraser  E-mail: fraseraj@dcs.gla.ac.uk       ||
||     ESE-3H student, University of Glasgow.			       ||
||     Standard disclaimers...                                         ||

[Don't you think you're being a tad too literal with this metaphor?  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20967
From: wdburns@mtu.edu (BURNS)
Subject: Interfaith weddings

Hello everyone.

Last week I posted a similar question to alt.wedding.  Now I come in
search of a deeper-level answer.

My fiance is Lutheran and I am Catholic.  We plan on getting married in
her church because she is living there now and I plan on moving there
in a month or so.  I called my Catholic priest to find out what I needed
to do in order for the marriage to be recognized by my church.

Needless to say that I have found that there is no "hard and fast" rule
when it comes to how the Catholic law for interfaith weddings is interpreted.
But I'm pretty sure that we CAN get married without too much problem; the
trick lies in the letter of dispensation.

But that is not why I am here....

What I'd like to know is: 
  What are the main differences between the Lutheran and Catholic religions?
  My priest mumbled something about how the Eucharist was understood...
  I have heard that if two religions combine soon, it would be these two.

Any help would be appreciated...

Thanks so much!

Bill
-- 
  Bill Burns  [ Internet: wdburns@mtu.edu ]  Mac Network System Administrator
              [ AppleLink: SHADOW         ]  Apple Student Rep, MTU
First we must band together as friends,
     then mearcilessly crush our enemies into paste.

[We've had enough Catholic/Protestant arguments recently that I'm not
going to accept any renewals.  I suggest responses via email, unless
they are clearly non-controversial.  I would be happy to see positive
summaries of both important Catholic and Lutheran beliefs.  Among
other things, they'd be useful for the FAQ collection.  But I'm not up
for yet another battle.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20968
From: fernandeza@merrimack.edu
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article <Apr.19.05.11.41.1993.29112@athos.rutgers.edu>, aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker) writes:

> I am asking you to believe in things not visible. I don't know if this is
> believeing blindly or not. .... If you decide in advance that your reason 
> will act only on the evidence of the five physical senses, then you cut
> reason off from any possibility of reaching a conclusion outside the
> physical sphere

Someone said:
	"Thinking if I could see, I would believe. Then someone said

	BELIEVE		AND 	YOU	WILL	SEE!!"

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20969
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: So far so good

In article <Apr.19.05.13.16.1993.29204@athos.rutgers.edu> armstrng@cs.dal.ca (Stan Armstrong) writes:
>In article <C4z5u3.Jxo@spss.com> luomat@alleg.edu writes:
>>
>>This may be a really dumb one, but I'll ask it anyways:
>>	Christians know that they can never live up to the requirements of  
>>God, right? (I may be wrong, but that is my understanding)  But they still  
>>try to do it.  Doesn't it seem like we are spending all of our lives  
>>trying to reach a goal we can never achieve?  I know that we are saved by  
>>faith and not by works, but does that mean that once we are saved we don't  
>>have to do anything?  I think James tells us that Faith without works is  
>>dead (paraphrase).  How does this work?
>>
>So long as we think that good things are what we *have* to do rather than
>what we come to *want* to do, we miss the point. The more we love God; the
>more we come to love what and whom He loves.
>
>When I find that what I am doing is not good, it is not a sign to try
>even harder (Romans 7:14-8:2); it is a sign to seek God. When I am aware 
>of Jesus' presence, I usually want what He wants. It is His strenth, His love 
>that empowers my weakness.
>-- 
>Stan Armstrong. Religious Studies Dept, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, N.S.
>Armstrong@husky1.stmarys.ca | att!clyde!watmath!water!dalcs!armstrng

I apologize to the moderator, but the first quote was deleted and I
would like to respond to both.

As for the "goal we can never achieve", the reward comes from the
trying.  Paul makes a clear claim that we are to continue straining for
the prize over in Philippians 3:10-16.  Only by not living out the
commands do we stagnate and become lukewarm, to be spit out by Jesus.
As it says in 1 John 5:3:  "This is love for God:  to obey his comands."
That obedience is our straining to achieve for God.  Of course, this
requires work on our part.

As for the quote in James, Satan doesn't care what we believe.  What
matters is the results of our belief (works).  If one truly has faith in
what one believes, one will either act on that faith or be lying to
oneself about believing in the first place.  

Stan, as for your first line, you have a very good point.  Obedience by
obligation (grudgery) is not what God desires.  Instead, look at how
many times the Bible talks about being joyous in all situations and when
doing God's work.  Being begrudged by the work has no value.  Also, we
should do the work necessary whenever we can, not just when we feel
Jesus' presence.  Feelings can deceive us.  However, as Paul states to
Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:2:  "Preach the Word; be prepared in season and
out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and
careful instruction."  Also, remember that Paul tells Timothy in 1
Timothy 4:16:  "Watch your life and doctrine closely.  Persevere in
them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers."
So, in order to do the work necessary, we need to be sure that we are
correct first.  Remember Jesus' warning in Matthew 7:3-5 not to be
hypocritical about what we do.  The best way to accomplish this is to be
a disciple completely in both thought and deed.  

Joe Fisher
 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20970
From: nigel.allen@canrem.com (Nigel Allen)
Subject: library of congress to host dead sea scroll symposium april 21-22


 Library of Congress to Host Dead Sea Scroll Symposium April 21-22
 To: National and Assignment desks, Daybook Editor
 Contact: John Sullivan, 202-707-9216, or Lucy Suddreth, 202-707-9191
          both of the Library of Congress

   WASHINGTON, April 19  -- A symposium on the Dead Sea 
Scrolls will be held at the Library of Congress on Wednesday,
April 21, and Thursday, April 22.  The two-day program, cosponsored
by the library and Baltimore Hebrew University, with additional
support from the Project Judaica Foundation, will be held in the
library's Mumford Room, sixth floor, Madison Building.
   Seating is limited, and admission to any session of the symposium
must be requested in writing (see Note A).
   The symposium will be held one week before the public opening of a
major exhibition, "Scrolls from the Dead Sea: The Ancient Library of
Qumran and Modern Scholarship," that opens at the Library of Congress
on April 29.  On view will be fragmentary scrolls and archaeological
artifacts excavated at Qumran, on loan from the Israel Antiquities
Authority.  Approximately 50 items from Library of Congress special
collections will augment these materials.  The exhibition, on view in
the Madison Gallery, through Aug. 1, is made possible by a generous
gift from the Project Judaica Foundation of Washington, D.C.
   The Dead Sea Scrolls have been the focus of public and scholarly
interest since 1947, when they were discovered in the desert 13 miles
east of Jerusalem.  The symposium will explore the origin and meaning
of the scrolls and current scholarship.  Scholars from diverse
academic backgrounds and religious affiliations, will offer their
disparate views, ensuring a lively discussion.
   The symposium schedule includes opening remarks on April 21, at
2 p.m., by Librarian of Congress James H. Billington, and by
Dr. Norma Furst, president, Baltimore Hebrew University.  Co-chairing
the symposium are Joseph Baumgarten, professor of Rabbinic Literature
and Institutions, Baltimore Hebrew University and Michael Grunberger,
head, Hebraic Section, Library of Congress.
   Geza Vermes, professor emeritus of Jewish studies, Oxford
University, will give the keynote address on the current state of
scroll research, focusing on where we stand today. On the second
day, the closing address will be given by Shmaryahu Talmon, who will
propose a research agenda, picking up the theme of how the Qumran
studies might proceed.
   On Wednesday, April 21, other speakers will include:

   -- Eugene Ulrich, professor of Hebrew Scriptures, University of
Notre Dame and chief editor, Biblical Scrolls from Qumran, on "The
Bible at Qumran;"
   -- Michael Stone, National Endowment for the Humanities
distinguished visiting professor of religious studies, University of
Richmond, on "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pseudepigrapha."
   -- From 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. a special preview of the exhibition
will be given to symposium participants and guests.

   On Thursday, April 22, beginning at 9 a.m., speakers will include:

   -- Magen Broshi, curator, shrine of the Book, Israel Museum,
Jerusalem, on "Qumran: The Archaeological Evidence;"
   -- P. Kyle McCarter, Albright professor of Biblical and ancient
near Eastern studies, The Johns Hopkins University, on "The Copper
Scroll;"
   -- Lawrence H. Schiffman, professor of Hebrew and Judaic studies,
New York University, on "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of
Judaism;" and
   -- James VanderKam, professor of theology, University of Notre
Dame, on "Messianism in the Scrolls and in Early Christianity."

   The Thursday afternoon sessions, at 1:30 p.m., include:

   -- Devorah Dimant, associate professor of Bible and Ancient Jewish
Thought, University of Haifa, on "Qumran Manuscripts: Library of a
Jewish Community;"
   -- Norman Golb, Rosenberger professor of Jewish history and
civilization, Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, on "The
Current Status of the Jerusalem Origin of the Scrolls;"
   -- Shmaryahu Talmon, J.L. Magnas professor emeritus of Biblical
studies, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, on "The Essential 'Commune of
the Renewed Covenant': How Should Qumran Studies Proceed?" will close
the symposium.

   There will be ample time for question and answer periods at the
end of each session.

   Also on Wednesday, April 21, at 11 a.m.:
   The Library of Congress and The Israel Antiquities Authority
will hold a lecture by Esther Boyd-Alkalay, consulting conservator,
Israel Antiquities Authority, on "Preserving the Dead Sea Scrolls"
in the Mumford Room, LM-649, James Madison Memorial Building, The
Library of Congress, 101 Independence Ave., S.E., Washington, D.C.
    ------
   NOTE A: For more information about admission to the symposium,
please contact, in writing, Dr. Michael Grunberger, head, Hebraic
Section, African and Middle Eastern Division, Library of Congress,
Washington, D.C. 20540.
 -30-
--
Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario
416-629-7000/629-7044

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20971
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5

In article <Apr.19.05.14.21.1993.29291@athos.rutgers.edu> dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:

>You cannot show, from scripture, that the weekly Sabbath is part of the
>ceremonial laws.   Before you post a text in reply investigate its context.

First of all, "ceremonial law" is an extraScriptural term.  It is sometimes
used as a framework to view Scripture.  But if you look at Collosions,
without going into it with the assumption that the Sabbath cannot be 
a ceremonial law, you will see that it does refer to the sabbath.

Paul writes in Collosions 2:14-17 how that Christ nailed the laws that were
against us to His cross, and therefore we should not be judged in what
what food we eat, what we drink, the keeping of new moons and holy days,
or the keeping of the sabbath.

The word for sabbath in this verse is "sabbaton" and is used throughout the
New Testament to refer to the 7th day.  If there is any Scripture from
which we get the idea of the ceremonial law, this is one of them, and the
sabbath is listed among the ceremonial laws.

If one goes into this with the fundamental assumption "the sabbath cannot
be a ceremonial law" then he will have to find some way around it, like
saying that this can only refer to the other sabbath holy days besides the
7tH day, Because "the sabbath cannot be a ceremonial law."  But
Paul is very careful in his letters to add some kind of parenthetcal 
statement if there is anything that can be seen as a liscence to sin
in his writings.

Also, why is the sabbath absent from the epistles (except for Hebrews 4, which
talks about the rest that comes through faith?)  Surely it would have
been a big problem for first century Christians living in a society
that did not rest on the 7th day.  Especially slaves. Many new converst were
slaves.  It would have been difficult for slaves to rest on the sabbath
if it had been mandatory.  Why is there no mention of this in the epistles?

Link Hudson.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20972
From: jasons@atlastele.com (Jason Smith)
Subject: Re: Atheist's views on Christianity (was: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")

In article <Apr.19.05.13.48.1993.29266@athos.rutgers.edu> kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko) writes:
= Jason Smith (jasons@atlastele.com) wrote:
=  
= : [ The discussion begins: why does the universe exist at all?  ]
=  
= : One of the Laws of Nature, specifying cause and effect seems to dictate 
= : (at least to this layman's mind) there must be a causal event.  No
= : reasonable alternative exists.
= 
= I would argue that causality is actually a property of spacetime; 
= causes precede their effects. 

And I must concede here.  Cause *before* effect, implies time, time is part
of spacetime.  Hense, the argument would be valid.  I could return and say 
that this does not infer the cause and effect relationship being *unique*
to *this* spacetime, but I won't 8^), because the point is moot.  Doesn't
address why (which Petri Pikho addresses below).  

I also concede that I was doubly remiss, as I asserted "No reasonable
alternative exists", an entirely subjective statement on my part (and one
that could  be invalidated, given time and further discovery by the
scientist).  I also understand that a proving a theory does not necessarily
specify that "this is how it happened", but proposes a likely description of
the phenomena in question.  Am I mistaken with this understanding?

= But if you claim that there must be
= an answer to "how" did the universe (our spacetime)  emerge from 
= "nothing", science has some good candidates for an answer.

All of which require something we Christians readily admit to: ``Faith''.

The fact that there are several candidates belies that *none* are conclusive.  
With out conclusive evidence, we are left with faith.

It could even be argued that one of these hypotheses may one day be proven (as
best as a non-repeatable event can be "proven").  But I ask, what holds  
someone *today* to the belief that any or all of them are correct, except by 
faith?

[ a couple of paragraphs deleted.  Summary: we ask "Why does the
universe exist" ]

= I think this question should actually be split into two parts, namely
= 
= 1) Why is there existence? Why anything exists?
= 
= and
= 
= 2) How did the universe emerge from nothing?
= 
= It is clear science has nothing to say about the first question. However,
= is it a meaningful question, after all?
=
= I would say it isn't. Consider the following:

Apparently it *is* for many persons.  Hence, we *have* religions.

= The question "why anything exists" can be countered by
= demanding answer to a question "why there is nothing in nothingness,
= or in non-existence".  Actually, both questions turn out to be
= devoid of meaning. Things that exist do, and things that don't exist
= don't exist. Tautology at its best.

Carefully examine the original question, and then the "counter-question". 
The first asks "Why", while the second is a request for definition.  It 
doesn't address why something does or does not exist, but asks to define 
the lack of existence.  The second question is unanswerable indeed, for
how do we identify something as "nothing" (aren't they mutually exclusive
terms)?.  How do we identify a state of non-existence (again, this is
nearing the limits of this simple layman's ability to comprehend, and I
would appreciate an explanation). 

I might add, the worldview of "Things that exist do, and things that
don't...don't" is as grounded in the realm of the non-falsifiable,
as does the theist's belief in God.  It is based on the assumption
that there is *not* a reason for being, something as ultimately
(un)supportable as the position of there being a reason.  Its very
foundation exists in the same soil as that of one who claims there *is* a
reason.

We come to this. Either "I am, therefore I am.", or "I am for a reason."
If the former is a satisfactory answer, then you are done, for you are
satisfied, and need not a doctor.  If the latter, your search is just
beginning.  

= I seriously doubt God could have an answer to this question.

Time will tell. 8^)

= 
= Some Christians I have talked to have said that actually, God is
= Himself the existence. However, I see several problems with this
= answer. First, it inevitably leads to the conclusion that God is
= actually _all_ existence, good and evil, devils and angels, us and
= them. This is pantheism, not Christianity.

Agreed.  It would lead me to question their definition of Christianity as
well.

= Another answer is that God is the _source_ of all existence.
= This sounds much better, but I am tempted to ask: Does God
= Himself exist, then? If God is the source of His own existence,
= it can only mean that He has, in terms of human time, always
= existed. But this is not the same as the source of all existence.

This does not preclude His existence.  It only seeks to identify His
*qualities* (implying He exists to *have* qualities, BTW).

= The best answer I have heard is that human reasoning is incapable
= of understanding such questions. Being an atheist myself, I do not
= accept such answers, since I do not have any other methods.

Like the theist, we come to a statement of faith, for this position assumes 
that the evidence at hand is conclusive.  Note, I am not arguing against 
scientific endeavor, for science is useful for understanding the universe in
which we exist. But I differ from the atheist in a matter of perspective.  I
seek to understand what exists to understand and appreciate the art of the
Creator.

I also have discovered science is an inadequate tool to answer "why".   It
appears that M. Pihko agrees (as we shall see).  But because a tool is
inadequate to answer a question does not preclude the question.  Asserting
that 'why' is an invalid question does not provide an answer.  

= : As far as I can tell, the very laws of nature demand a "why".  That isn't
= : true of something outside of nature (i.e., *super*natural).
= 
= This is not true. Science is a collection of models telling us "how",
= not why, something happens. I cannot see any good reason why the "why"
= questions would be bound only to natural things, assuming that the
= supernatural domain exists. If supernatural beings exist, it is
= as appropriate to ask why they do so as it is to ask why we exist.

My apologies.  I was using why as "why did this come to be".  Why did
pre-existence become existence.  Why did pre-spacetime become spacetime.

But we come to the admission that science fails to answer "Why?".  Because
it can't be answered in the realm of modern science, does that make the
question invalid?
= : I don't believe *any*
= : technology would be able to produce that necessary *spark* of life, despite
= : having all of the parts available. Just my opinion.
= 
= This opinion is also called vitalism; namely, that living systems are
= somehow _fundamentally_ different from inanimate systems. Do Christians
= in general adopt this position? What would happen when scientists announce
= they have created primitive life (say, small bacteria) in a lab?

I suppose we would do the same thing as when Galileo or Capernicus was 
*vindicated*  (before someone starts jumping up and down screaming
"Inquisition!", note I said *vindicated*.  I certainly hope we've gotten
beyond the "shooting the messenger" stage).

M. Pihko does present a good point though.  We may need to ask "What do I 
as an individual Christian base my faith on?"  Will it be shaken by the
production of evidence that shatters our "sacred cows" or will we seek to
understand if a new discovery truly disagrees with what God *said* (and
continues to say) in his Word?

"Why do I ask why?" (apologies to Budweiser and company 8^]).

Jason.



-- 
Jason D. Smith  	|
jasons@atlastele.com	|    I'm not young enough to know everything.
     1x1        	| 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20973
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: Does 'Just/justifiable War' exist?

Some thoughts:

[A. On the non-pacifist side:]

(1) Killing to defend the innocent may be, if anything, _more_ justifiable
than killing in self-defense.  I can turn my _own_ other cheek, but I have
no right to turn someone else's.

(2) It seems to me that if Jesus had meant to teach pacifism, He would have
made His position more explicit.  He didn't tell the centurion to leave the
army, for instance; and the NT is full of military metaphors.

[B. On the pacifist side:]

(1) Apparently many early Christians refused to fight in the Roman army,
or stated that one should refuse if given a choice.  But it's not clear
whether they were objecting to war _per se_, or objecting to Roman policies.

(2) In modern warfare, it seems to be impossible to direct attacks only at
combatants.  Bombing, both conventional and nuclear, kills lots of civilians.

(3) It's hard to tell whether any _particular_ war is justified at the time.
Often it takes decades for the requisite information to become available
to the general public.

Please, NO EMAIL REPLIES -- this is meant as a contribution to a public
discussion, and anyone wanting to reply should also reply publicly.
-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20974
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: Divine providence vs. Murphy's Law

In article <Apr.19.05.13.28.1993.29224@athos.rutgers.edu> rolfe@junior.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe) writes:
>Romans 8:28 (RSV)   We know that in everything God works for good with those 
>who love him, who are called according to his purpose. 
>
>Murphy's Law:  If anything can go wrong, it will.
>
>We are all quite familiar with the amplifications and commentary on
>Murphy's Law.  But how do we harmonize that with Romans 8:28?  For that
>matter, how appropriate is humor contradicted by Scripture?
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I've always taken Murphy's Law to be an exhortation to prudence, and
an observation about the behavior of complex systems, rather than a
denial of divine benevolence.
-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20975
From: conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt)
Subject: Re: Being right about messiahs

[The following is my comment on an article by Desiree Bradley.  --clh]

>By the way, from Koresh's public statement it's not so clear to me
>that he is claiming to be Christ.

Koresh did originally claim to be the Christ, but then backed off and
said he was a prophet.  The latest news at 8:00 CDT from Waco is that
the feds broke through a wall of the compound with a tank.  No news
besides that at this time.

Paul

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20976
From: kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Questioning Authority

Chris Mussack writes:

> For all those people who insist I question authority: Why?

How about:

	The Holocaust
	The Spanish Inquisition
	Jonestown

(just to name a few) ?

Authorities sometimes tell people to do evil things.  People who "just
follow orders" have tortured and killed others in very large numbers,
and protest their innocence afterwards.

When your authority starts telling you to do things, you should ask
questions.  Except for situations of pressing need ("I said shut the
hatch because the submarine is filling with water!"), any reasonable
authority should be able to give at least some justification that you
can understand.

Just be sure to listen when authority answers.

(If anybody is interested in questions of psychological pressure and
 following orders, you might want to read about a study done by Solomon Ashe
 in 1951 on conformity, and another done by Stanley Milgram in 1963 on
 obedience.  Both should be in any good book on psychology/sociology.  The
 results are both fascinating and terrifying.)


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu
"we do what we're told
 we do what we're told
 we do what we're told
 told to do" -- Peter Gabriel

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20977
From: dxf12@po.cwru.edu (Douglas Fowler)
Subject: Re: Christian Parenting


     Sorry for posting this, but my e-mail keeps bouncing.  Maybe it will
help others here, anyway, and therefore I pray others will read this.  It is
actually a response from my Aunt, who has 5 kids, since I have none yet.

>Hi I am a Sociology student and I am currently researching into
>young offenders.  I am looking at the way various groups of
>children are raised at home.  At the moment I am formlulating
>information on discipline within the Christian home.
>
>Please, if you are a parent in this catagory can you email me
>your response to the following questionaire.  All responses
>will be treated confidentially and will only be used to prepare
>stats.
     I'm posting this for a good Christian relative who does not have e-mail
access.  Since this aunt and uncle have 5 kids I felt they would be more
relevant than I, who have none (yet).

>1.  Ages & sexes of children
     13-year-old (13YO) twins, 10YO boy, 6.5YO boy, 2YO girl

>2.  Do you spank your kids?
     I don't call it spanking, but they do, so yes, very rarely.

>3.  If so how often?
     I don't call it spanking because it's more of a reaction to something
very dangerous, such as trying to stick their finger in a fan or running
into the road.  Maybe 3-4 times for each except for the 2YO girl, who has
not been spanked yet.
     They call it that because it *does* hurt their feelings, and of course
I give all the hugs and stuff to ensure they know they're still loved.

>4.  Do you use an implement to spank with?
     No, that would be too painful.  If it's too traumatic they never recall
why they were punished.  Besides, it must be immediate, and taking the time
to go get a toolmeans you're not doing it right away, and that lessens the
impact.  It's very emotional for a child as it is - which is evidenced by the
fact that a little slap on the rear - which hurts for perhaps 5 seconds -
is called a spanking.
>
>5. If you do not spank, what method of discipline do you use?
     Lots of logical consequences - for instance, when 4YO Matthew dared
a good friend to jump out of his treehouse or he would push him out, I made
sure they didn't play together for 5 days so he'd know that would make him
lose friends very quickly.  He's never done anything like that since.
     We also use time-out in their rooms - I use a timer so they don't keep
arguing with me over leaving, since it's hard to argue with a macine.
I will go to the closed door and tell them timeout won't be over until they
calm down if they're too tantrumy.  I use the top of the stairs when they're
really young.

>6.  Your age?
     40

>7.  Your location
     Bath, Ohio.  It's right outside of Akron, in the northeast part of Ohio.

>8.  While under the age of 16 did you ever commit a criminal
>offence?
     No, and none of my kids would dream of it.  I hope you can use this to
teach all parents that physical punishment isn't always required - parents use
that as an excuse to hit too hard.

>9.  How ere you disciplined as a kid
     Lots of timeouts, same as I use.  Our family and my husband's have never
used spankings.  In fact, my grandmother in law was one of 11 kids, and they
were almost never spanked.  This was around the turn of the century.  And,
none of us has ever been afoul of the law - man-made or God's law.
     Jesus says, referring to a small child whom he is holding, that "what
ye do to the least of these, ye do also to me."  The Bible also says in all
things to be kind, and merciful, and especially loving. (Colossians 3:12-15.)
There is no room for selfish anger, which I'll admit I've been tempted with
at times.  When I've felt like spanking hard in anger, maybe the kid deserved
a little slap on the rear, but what I would have given would have been the
devil's work.  I could feel the temptation, and just angrily ordered the kid
to his/her room and went to my room myself.  After praying and asking God's
forgiveness, I was much calmer, and did not feel like spanking, but felt that
what I had done was enough punishment.
-- 
Doug Fowler: dxf12@po.CWRU.edu  : Me, age 4 & now: "Mommys and Daddys & other
    Ever wonder if, after Casey : relatives have to give lots of hugs & love
missed the 3rd strike in the poem: & support, 'cause Heaven is just a great
he ran to first and made it?     : big hug that lasts forever and ever!!!"

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 20978
From: thssccb@iitmax.iit.edu (catherine c bareiss)
Subject: Re: phone number of wycliffe translators UK

In article <Apr.17.01.11.19.1993.2268@geneva.rutgers.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>
>  I'm concerned about a recent posting about WBT/SIL.  I thought they'd
>pretty much been denounced as a right-wing organization involved in
>ideological manipulation and cultural interference, including Vietnam
>and South America. A commission from Mexican Academia denounced them in
>1979 as " a covert political and ideological institution used by the
>U.S. govt as an instrument of control, regulation, penetration, espionage and
>repression."

I have personally know quite of few of the Wycliffe Bible Translators.
As an organization their fundamental purpose is to translate the scriptures
into the native languages which in terms usual means learning it and 
developing a written language (along with teaching the natives to read).
It is not associated with the U.S. govt. at all.  Many governments
want the help of the translators.  To the best of my knowledge the 
Mexican government now encourages them to come.  Their idea is not
cultural interference but the presentation of the Good News.

To understand more about what they do, I suggest you read some of the books
(autobiographical and biographical) about some of the translators.  One
that stands out in my mind as an excellent is called "Peace Child."
This would give a true picture of what their mission is.

>  My concern is that this group may be seen as acceptable and even
>praiseworthy by readers of soc.religion.christian. It's important that
>Christians don't immediately accept every "Christian" organization as
>automatically above reproach.
>
>                                                                  mp
I agree with this statement, but we cannot also accept what others
say without looking into the issues.  That would be the same as taking 
Suddan's discussion about the CIA, etc. as being true.  We must look
at both sides.

Cathy Bareiss

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21308
From: mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary

a.faris@trl.oz.au (Aziz Faris) writes:

>Helllo Netters:

>I was told the Bible says that God took the body of the Virgin Mary as
>she was being carried for burial. Is this true, if so were in the Bible
>does it say that.

>Regards,
>A.Faris

>[I think you're talking about the "assumption of the Blessed Virgin
>Mary".  It says that "The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin
>Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed
>body and soul into heavenly glory."  This was defined by a Papal
>statement in 1950, though it had certainly been believed by some
>before that.  Like the Immaculate Conception, this is primarily a
>Roman Catholic doctrine, and like it, it has no direct Biblical
>support.  Note that Catholics do not believe in "sola scriptura".
>That is, they do not believe that the Bible is the only source of
>Christian knowledge.  Thus the fact that a doctrine has little
>Biblical support is not necessarily significant to them.  They believe
>that truth can be passed on through traditions of the Church, and also
>that it can be revealed to the Church.  I'm not interested in yet
>another Catholic/Protestant argument, but if any Catholics can tell us
>the basis for these beliefs, I think it would be appropriate.  --clh]


	Again I find myself wanting to respond to a posting and having neither
the time nor the proper materials with me (you would think I would learn my
lesson by now--but I'm trying to finish writing my Thesis and don't have tons
of time.  Anyway...)

	The basis for our (the catholic church's) belief in the assumption of
Mary, body and soul, into heaven is that, to put it simply, the apostles 
and all the early generation Christians believed it.  In fact, throughout their
ministry the apostles kept in close contact with Mary, and 11 of the 12 were
present when she died.  Only Thomas was missing--when he arrived several days
later, he asked to be shown her body, and moved with pity, Peter and several of
the other apostles brought him to her tomb.  When they arrived the seal was
still unbroken.  They broke the seal, entered, and the body was missing.  There
was no sign that anyone had entered, forcibly or otherwise, and everything else
was laid out exactly as it had been left.  The apostles present all believed
that Mary was assumed into heaven--and the apostles TAUGHT this in their  
preaching (of course, this does not appear in any of the texts currently 
considered part of the bible, but it does appear in other writings left behind
by several of them.)  Basicaly, as an apostolic church (ie. founded by the
apostles), we believe that the teachings of the apostles, whether written down
in the bible or written down in other sources, is true, providing that the
authenticity of those other sources can be confirmed.  At least in the case of
the assumption of Mary, the authenticity is quite clear.

	Hope this helps--I would welcome anyone who has more information to
	add to what I've said.
					- Mike Walker
					  mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
					  (Univ. of Illinois)
					  ]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21309
From: news@cbnewsk.att.com
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary

In article <May.3.05.01.53.1993.9964@athos.rutgers.edu> a.faris@trl.oz.au (Aziz Faris) writes:

>[I think you're talking about the "assumption of the Blessed Virgin
>Mary".  It says that "The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin
>Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed
>body and soul into heavenly glory."  This was defined by a Papal
>statement in 1950, though it had certainly been believed by some
>before that.  --clh]

So true.  I'm not sure of the basis of the belief, but it was a widely
held belief among the laity of the RC church and their support of it
lead to it being declared to be true.  Basically the teaching on infallibility
holds that the pope is infallible in matters of faith and doctrine, the
college of bishops is likewise infallible, and the laity is as well.
The pope gets most of the attention/criticism but the consensus of the
other bodies is equally infallible (according to RC teaching).

Joe Moore

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21310
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: What WAS the immaculate conception

Biblical basis for the Immaculate Conception:

1) "I will put enmity between you [the Serpent] and the woman, and
between your seed and her seed, she [can also be read he] shall crush
your head and you shall bruise her [or his] heel."
    -Genesis 3.15

2) "He who commits sin is of the devil ..."
    -1 John 3.8

3) "Hail, full of grace [greek - kecharitomene], the Lord is with thee ..."
    -Luke 1.28

   From the above, we prove the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
   First, God has given the proto-evangel in Genesis 3.15, which is the
first promise of a savior, who will redeem mankind from the wiles of
Satan. "[Satan] was a murderer from the beginning, and has not stood in
the truth because there is no truth in him." John 8.44.  Now the
proto-evangel promises several things, enmity between Satan and "the
woman", and enmity between Satan and "her seed."  Now the woman is both
Eve (who is the immediate point of reference) and Mary, the second Eve. 
"Her seed" is Jesus Christ, and He is also at enmity with Satan in the
same way as Mary is said to be at enmity with Satan.  Thus, knowing as
we do that Jesus Christ is sinless (Hebrews 7.26), we can conclude that
Mary is also sinless because if she wasn't she would 1) not be at enmity
with the devil, as 1 John 3.8 tells us, and 2) the relation of her
sinlessness to Christ's sinlessness would be called into question, as
would God's veracity.  For God promised an enmity between Mary and the
serpent, and it is not possible for God to lie or be decieved.
    Second, we have the Angelic Greeting where Mary is called by the
Archangle Gabriel "full of grace."  As I pointed out above this is from
the Greek word "Kecharitomene" which means not just full of grace, but a
plenitude or perfection of grace.  The sense of it is best grasped by
the footnote to the Jerusalem Bible, "Hail you who have been and reamin
filled with grace."  But that is a little to long to say, so it is
reduced to full of grace.  And as it says, "you who have been" Mary had
always been filled with grace, from the moment of her conception, which
was also the moment of her salvation, until her death some years later.
    It must be admitted that it is possible that God could have done
what the doctrine of the Immaclute Conception says He did do.  And if
God could keep himself free from any contact with sin, through his
Mother, He would have, and the Bible records this fact, to which the
Fathers of the Church such as St. John Damascus, St. Augustine of Hippo
, St. Ambrose and others are in complete agreement with, as is all of
Christian tradition, and as is the infallible declaration of the Pope on
the matter in "Ineffibilus Deus."

Andy Byler

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21311
From: marka@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley)
Subject: Re: SATANIC TOUNGES

In article <May.2.09.50.21.1993.11782@geneva.rutgers.edu> mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>I have seen the claims, but I don't know if there are any
>authenticated cases of people making prolonged speeches in
>real languages they don't know. From my observations, "speaking
>in tongues" in practice has nothing at all do with this.

I have a simple test. I take several people who can speak
only one language (e.g. chinese, russian, german, english).
Then I let the "gifted one" start "speaking in toungues".
The audience should understand the "gifted one" clearly
in their native language. However, the "gifted one" can
only hear himself speaking in his own language.

Works everytime. 8-)
Perhaps I would believe the "gifted ones" more if they were
glorifying God rather than themselves. Then perhaps we'd
witness a real miracle.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Ashley                        |DISCLAIMER: My opinions. Not Harris'
marka@gcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com      |
The Lost Los Angelino              |

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21312
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: Babylon Book Offer

From time to time I have made reference to a book called "The Two Babylons"
which is a book written by Alexander Hislop (mid 1800's) about the Babylonian
mystery religion and its flight through history.  I was unable to put it down
the first time I read it, but others have found it dry.  It has numberable
references and illustrations.  If you are interested in purchasing your own
copy, you can call Moody Book Store @ (312)329-4352 and order it for $16.99 and
they will ship it to you.   
  It is a good book just to get the reference titles for your own digs into the
mystery religions.  I have found it invaluable for that purpose alone.  But for
those who only want to skim the subject, it comes highly recommended.  
  Just a note to my RC brothers and sisters.  You may find this to be a
diatribe or you may find it to be a test to the origin and true nature of the
origin of RCism.  If you are offended by anything that asks hard questions
about your denomination (as to whether or not it is "Christian") then perhaps
you should just passover this offer.  To those who are a little more
adventurous, go for it and later, please contact me with you reasons pro or con
on the scholorship of this book.  I really would be interested.

adelphoi ev Christos,
Rex 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21313
From: storrs@eos.ncsu.edu (JERRY STORRS)
Subject: Re: March for Jesus

The only info I have is my area is not having a large march.  They are leaving
it up to each congragation.  IMO this means organizers found it too difficult
to manage or no one feels the need to be involved.

I'm not casting stones, my involvement with the Lord does not include the March
this year.  Maybe He is giving a message by the lack of one??  JLS

=============================================================================
Jerry L Storrs, Systems Manager   ||| U Got 2 B Tru,
Dept of Chemical Engineering	  |||   U Got 2 B Livin' What U Say U Believe
North Carolina State University   ||| U Got 2 B Tru,
Raleigh, NC 27695		  |||   Even when nobody but Jesus is watchin U
919-515-6393  (-3465 FAX)	  |||
storrs@che.ncsu.edu (preferred)   |||			(Steven Curtis Chapman)
			<><       |||
=============================================================================

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21314
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: Record burning...

rgolder@hoh.mbl.edu (Robert Golder) writes:

>The movie version
>of "The Last Temptation of Christ" was so awful that practically no one
>would have seen it, or been influenced by its message, had not
>conservatives loudly protested its distribution.  They unwittingly
>created a larger market for the movie.

In many places, Christians were sucessful in their attempts
to get the films banned, or at least given a very restrictive 
showing.

I have no problem with Christians burning their own pieces of
art (though I find it a tragic waste). I do however have a 
problem with their attempts to censor what I may or may not
view.

P.
-- 
 moorcockpratchettdenislearydelasoulu2iainmbanksneworderheathersbatmanpjorourke
clive p a u l  m o l o n e y  Come, let us retract the foreskin of misconception
james trinity college dublin  and apply the wire brush of enlightenment - GeoffM
 brownbladerunnersugarcubeselectronicblaylockpowersspikeleekatebushhamcornpizza 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21315
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Monophysites and Mike Walker

>		- Mike Walker 
> 
>[If you are using the standard formula of fully God and fully human,
>that I'm not sure why you object to saying that Jesus was human.  I
>think the usual analysis would be that sin is not part of the basic
>definition of humanity.  It's a consequence of the fall.  Jesus is
>human, but not a fallen human.  --clh]

The proper term for what Mike expresses is Monophysitism.  This was a
heresy that was condemned in the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD.  It
grew up in reaction to Nestorianism, which held that the Son and Jesus
are two different people who happened to be united in the same body
temporarily.  Monophysitism is held by the Copts of Egypt and Ethipoia
and by the Jacobites of Syria and the Armenian Orthodox.  It believes
that Jesus Christ was God (which is correct), that he was man (which is
correct), that he was one person (which is correct), but that he had
only one nature and one will and oen energy (which is heretical, the
orthodox position is that he had two natures and two wills and two
energies, both divine and human, though the wills were in perfect
harmony).  That is what Mike is trying to get across, that while Jesus
came in human form, Mike says He did not have a human nature or a human
will.  In reality, he had both, though neither made him subject to
original sin.
It is interesting to note that the Monothelites were a reaction to this
conflict and attempted to solve the problem by admitting two natures but
not two wills or two energies.  It also was condemned, at a late council
in Constantinople I believe.

Andy Byler

[These issues get mighty subtle.  When you see people saying different
things it's often hard to tell whether they really mean seriously
different things, or whether they are using different terminology.  I
don't think there's any question that there is a problem with
Nestorius, and I would agree that the saying Christ had a human form
without a real human nature or will is heretical.  But I'd like to be
a bit wary about the Copts, Armenians, etc.  Recent discussions
suggest that their monophysite position may not be as far from
orthodoxy as many had thought.  Nestorius was an extreme
representative of one of the two major schools of thought.  More
moderate representatives were regarded as orthodox, e.g. Theodore of
Mopsuestia.  My impression is that the modern monophysite groups
inherit the entire tradition, not just Nestorius' version, and that
some of them may have a sufficient balanced position to be regarded as
orthodox.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21316
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse


   The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. 
    The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you. 
Romans 16:20

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21317
From: brownli@ohsu.edu@ohsu.edu (Liane Brown)
Subject: CHRIST, MY ADVOCATE - A Poem


                 _MY ADVOCATE_

I sinned. And straightway, posthaste, Satan flew
Before the presence of the Most High God
And made a railing accusation there.
He said, "This soul, this thing of clay and sod,
Has sinned. 'Tis true that he has named Thy name;
But I demand his death, for Thou hast said,
'The soul that sinneth, it shall die.' Shall not
Thy sentence be fulfilled? Is justice dead?
Send now this wretched sinner to his doom!
What other thing can righteous ruler do?"
Thus Satan did accuse me day and night;
And every word he spoke, O  God, was true!

Then quickly One rose up from God's right hand,
Before whose glory angels veiled their eyes;
He spoke, "Each jot and tittle of the law
Must be fulfilled; the guilty sinner dies!
But wait -- suppose his guilt were all transferred
To Me and that I paid his penalty!
Behold My hands, My side, My feet! One day
I was made sin for him and died that he
Might be presented, faultless, at Thy throne!"
And Satan flew away.  Full well he knew
That he could not prevail against such love,
for every word my dear Lord spoke was true!


					by Martha Snell Nicholson

+++++++++++++++++++++++
I heard this poem read last night and wanted to share it with other 
subscribers of this newsgroup.  It's such a wonderful blessing to see how 
secure our salvation is because the Lord Jesus paid for what He did not owe 
because we had a debt which we were not capable to pay.

Thanks and praise be to the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who is seated at 
the right hand of the Majesty on High, making intercession for us.
++++++++++++++++++++++++

Liane Brown
(Internet) brownli@ohsu.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21318
From: loisc@microsoft.com (Lois Christiansen)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <Apr.30.03.11.27.1993.10101@geneva.rutgers.edu> FSSPR@acad3.alaska.edu wrote:
> This subject was beaten to death on bit.listserv.christia recently,
> until Madge stepped in and closed the topic.  It has been discussed
> since privately in e-mail amongst their participants, and I've 
> received some of it.  A fairly large file (approx. 18 KB) of comments 
> made on the March On Washington was among these.  If it hasn't been 
> posted here already (I don't know;  I just scan through this 
> newsgroup, as at 1200 bps, I couldn't possibly read it all), I would
> be glad to send it along.  I believe that it would be of interest to
> people here.
> 
> 
> I hope that anyone who remembers seeing Rev. Troy Perry's
> "performance" at the 1987 March On Washington will see for themselves
> just how inconceivable it is to mix Christianity with homosexuality.
> 
> Sean Patrick Ryan****fsspr@aurora.alaska.edu or sean@freds.cojones.com

You might visit some congregations of Christians, who happen to be homosexuals,
that are spirit-filled believers, not MCC'rs; before you go lumping us all
together with Troy Perry.  

The Lord IS working in our community (the homosexual community, that is).  He's
not asking us to change our sexual nature, but He is calling us to practice
the morality that He established from the beginning.

Isn't Satan having a hayday pitting Christian against Christian over any issue
he can, especially homosexuality.  Let's reach the homosexuals for Christ. 
Let's not try to change them, just need to bring them to Christ.  If He
doesn't want them to be gay, He can change that.  If they are living a moral
life, committed to someone of the same sex, and God is moving in their lives,
who are we to tell them they have to change?

That's my two cent.

God Bless You All
Loisc

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21319
From: sdixon@andy.bgsu.edu (Sherlette Dixon)
Subject: Re:  My original post (Was Jesus Black?)

My, my, my.  I knew that I would receive a response to my post, but not
THIS extensive.  Thank you to all who responded; it at least showed that
people were willing to think about it, even though the general response was
a return to the same old "Why should it matter?" question.  To those of you
who were a part of this response, I suggest that you read the articles
covering this same question in soc.culture.african.american, for you are in
DIRE need of some cultural enlightenment.

Hasta luego

Sherlette

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21320
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Going permanent no-mail

Well, it's that time of year again here at IU:  graduation.
Unfortunately, this means that I am out of here, more than likely for
good.  I cannot say if I'll be in here under another username or not, or
even if I'll ever get back in here at all.  I am leaving this part of my
ministry to another brother, John Right.  So, have fun and remember that
flaming can be considered slander.

Joe Fisher

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21321
From: MNHCC@cunyvm.bitnet (Marty Helgesen)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary

In article <May.3.05.01.53.1993.9964@athos.rutgers.edu>, a.faris@trl.oz.au (Aziz
Faris) says:
>A.Faris
<<Posting deleted.  The moderator replies:
>[I think you're talking about the "assumption of the Blessed Virgin
>Mary".  It says that "The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin
>Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed
>body and soul into heavenly glory."  This was defined by a Papal
>statement in 1950, though it had certainly been believed by some
>before that.  Like the Immaculate Conception, this is primarily a
>Roman Catholic doctrine, and like it, it has no direct Biblical
>support.  Note that Catholics do not believe in "sola scriptura".
>That is, they do not believe that the Bible is the only source of
>Christian knowledge.  Thus the fact that a doctrine has little
>Biblical support is not necessarily significant to them.  They believe
>that truth can be passed on through traditions of the Church, and also
>that it can be revealed to the Church.  I'm not interested in yet
>another Catholic/Protestant argument, but if any Catholics can tell us
>the basis for these beliefs, I think it would be appropriate.  --clh]

That is generally accuate, but contains one serious error.  We Catholics
do believe that God's revealed truth that is not explicitly recorded in
the Bible can be and is passed on through the Tradition of the Church.
It should be noted that the Tradition of the Church, otherwise known as
Sacred Tradition, is not the same as ordinary human traditions.
However, we do not believe that additional truth will be revealed to
the Church.  Public revelation, which is the basis of Catholic doctrine,
ended with the death of St. John, the last Apostle.  Nothing new can
be added.  Theologians study this revelation and can draw out implications
that were not recognized previously, so that the Council of Nicea could
define statements about the theology of the Trinity and the Incarnation
that were not explicitly stated in the Bible and had been disputed
before the council, but there was no new revelation at Nicea or at
any subsequent council.

Cardinal Newman's _An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine_,
written while he was still an Anglican, is an excellent discussion of
of this point.  It was recently reprinted as a Doubleday Image Books
paperback with some related shorter works under the title _Conscience,
Consensus, and the Development of Doctrine_.
-------
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm   Internet: mnhcc@cunyvm.cuny.edu

"What if there were no such thing as a hypothetical situation?"

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21322
From: Steve.Hayes@f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
Subject: MAJOR VIEWS OF THE TRINITY

04 May 93, D. Andrew Byler writes to All:

 DAB> I think I need to again post the Athanasian Creed, whicc pretty well
 DAB> delinieates orthodox Christian belief on the Trinity, and on the
 DAB> Incarnation.

 DAB> It's a pretty good statement of the beliefs eventually accpeted, and the
 DAB> Creed is in use by the Catholic Church, as well as the Lutheran,
 DAB> Anglican, and Orthodox churches (the last minus the filioque, which they
 DAB> delete from the original form of the creed).

Do you have any evidence that it is used by the Orthodox Churches?

As far as I know it is purely Western, like the "Apostles' Creed". The
Orthodox Churches use the "Symbol of Faith", commonly called "The
Nicene Creed".

Steve Hayes
Department of Missiology
University of South Africa

--- GoldED 2.40

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21323
From: sun075!Gerry.Palo@uunet.uu.net (Gerry Palo)
Subject: Re: Athiests and Hell

In article <Apr.30.03.10.22.1993.10056@geneva.rutgers.edu> REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov writes:
>In article <Apr.29.04.19.17.1993.9069@geneva.rutgers.edu>
>sun075!Gerry.Palo@uunet.uu.net (Gerry Palo) writes:
>
>>Note that in this, perhaps the oldest of the creeds, there is no mention
>>of the danger of hell for non-believers.  Likewise there is no mention 
>>of the salvation of the believers' soul and its destiny in heaven after 
>>death. There is only the resurrection of the body (and it does not say 
>>when or how).
>
>You don't go far enough back.  If we believe in God and that He did create the
>heavens and the earth and He did create Adam and Eve and that they walked in
>the garden and history flowed from there, if we can agree with that, then would
>you agree that the further back you go the closer you get to people who had a
>stronger memory of who God was and what He said and commanded?  

Between Adam and Eve and Golgotha the whole process of the fall of man
occurred.  This involved a gradual dimming of consciousness of the spiritual
world.  This is discernable in the world outlooks of different peoples through
history.  The Greek, for example, could say, "better a beggar in the land
of the living than a king in the land of the dead." (Iliad, I think).

The question of what happens to human beings who died before Christ is
an ever present one with Christians.  I am not ready to conscign Adam
or Abraham, or even Cain to eternal damnation.  Yet they all died in their
sins, in the Christian sense.  The same can be said of the whole of  Gentile
humanity, and also of the unrepentant malefactor on the cross next to
him.  I do not limit the power of Christ to save even him, through whom
Satan would mock his deed of salvation at the very moment of its fulfillment.

>In my studies
>of the ancient mystery reliegions, I have run across many poems or rituals or
>what nots with the interpretation that those who are of God will be with Him
>via the promised seed but those who rebel will suffer *eternal* life in dieing.
> It was a standard belief back then.  

It is possible to experience eternity in a passing moment.  The
relationship of eternity to duration is not simply one of indefinitely
extended conditions of Greenwich mean time. It is possible to imagine
an eternity of agony or bliss - or even many of them - in the
spiritual world during the time between earthly death and a new birth.

It was also a standard belief among many peoples that even the righteous
were lost. This again is the result of the loss of the paradisal consciousness
that fled from us after the fall, with our ever increasing involvement with
the sense world.

It would be interesting to share in the results of your studies of ancient
people's ideas of life after death.

>                                    Today we think we know so much and that
>if we could go back in time we could sure teach those people a thing or two. 
>But I think that as this age has grown older that it is we who opperate from a
>mist, not those of the older ages.
>

Mankind fell into mist and darkness, and at "the turning point of
time" a new light entered into the world.  The light still grows, and
we are developing the eyes with which to see by it.  Much new
revelation and growth in under- standing lies before us.  Our new
vision and understanding is still very feeble, but it contains
something new that will grow in time to embrace that which is old and
much more as well.

(At this point I should acknowledge openly my debt to the work of Rudolf
Steiner, founder of Anthroposophy, for  many insights that have led me to my
views on this subject).

>I have said it before, I'd love to post on this but the vulcan hammer would
>fall.  The history to purgatory can be shown from the druids in England to the
>Greeks who pilaged it from the Egyptians who ultimately got it from the
>Babylonian mysteries. And yes, the eastern religions also show many
>similarities.  I mean, its black and white.  THe writings and the archeological
>finds plainly show its origin and the whys and wherefores of this doctine.  

The way you refer to it as "doctrine" puts a modern intellectual coloring
on it. I think it was much less abstract and much more real and spiritually
concrete, a teaching that struck much closer to home than our doctrines or
teachings today can be received.

I am not so ready to attribute widespread notions in antiquity to
simple dispersion from an original source.  Even if they were passed
on, the question is, to what extent did they reflect real perception
and experience?  The similarity in the midst of great variety of
expression of the different people's ideas of the time immediately
after death testifies to the presence of an underlying reality.  In
any case, we study geometry not by reading old manuscripts of Euclid,
but by contemplating the principles themselves.

On the other hand, there is one notion firmly embedded in Christianity
that originated most definitely in a pagan source.  The idea that the
human being consists essentially of soul only, and that the soul is
created at birth, was consciously adopted from Aristotle, whose ideas
dominated Christian thought for fifteen hundred years and still does
today. He was at once the father of modern thought and at the same
time lived during that darkened time when the perception of our
eternal spiritual being had grown dim.

>maybe at sometime in the future-  

Indeed. I should also clarify that I do not deny that eternal
irrevocable damnation is a real possibility.  But the narrow range in
which we conceive of the decisive moment, i.e. after the end of a
single earthly life, is not in my mind sufficient to embrace the
reality, and I think that is why the early creeds were couched in
terms that did not try to spell it out.

>Rex

Gerry (73237.2006@compuserve.com)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21324
From: sml@rpsyc.nott.ac.uk (Steve Lang)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article <May.2.09.51.49.1993.11841@geneva.rutgers.edu>, you wrote:

> The genius of science is that it discovered that enormous progress 
> in knowledge could be made by isolating the study of physical 
> interactions for the more general areas of study and proceeding
> not by logical argument but by experiment. The scientific method
> is hypothesize, attempt to disprove the hypothesis, if you fail, 
> publish, if others fail to disprove your hypothesis, accept it
> as a working theory and move on. This method is suitable only
> for the study of objects without will, objects which do not
> take an interest in the experiment.

Science does not progress via experimentation but by philosophising.  One
aim of experiments is to investigate the validity of the hyptheses
resulting from the models produced by this thinking process.

> The arrogance of science is the assumption many advocates of 
> science make that the scientific method is the only method of
> serious study, the only one leading to knowledge rather than
> belief. 

Science has one advantage of all other approaches to explaining the world.
It is objective.

> Its further arrogance, is the assumption which arises
> that, since science is the only valid method of thought, everything
> which exists must be the sort of thing which the scientific 
> method can study, and that if the scientific method cannot 
> study it it either does not exist or cannot in any way be known.

Anything which affects the physical world can be studied.  For example,
since we are part of the physical world, anything (including spirits) which
affects our behaviour can be observed.  Science does not make any claims
about the existence or non-existence of objects which do not affect the
physical world.

> Since these asumptions about the nature of the world cannot
> themselves be made the subject of experiment, it is bad science
> to believe them, as well as arrogance, illogic, and just plain
> sloppy thinking.

The purpose of science is to produce a model of the *physical* world.  The
model must be able to explain all past observations and predict the outcome
of future observations.  One of the aims of experiments is to carry out
well defined observations which are objective.

Ideally scientist will except the model which best describes the world, and
the model which realises on the minimal number of assumptions.  At the
moment models which do not rely on the assumption of some *spiritual* world
existing are equally powerful to ones which assume the assumption of a
*spiritual* world.  As the non-spiritual models has fewer assumptions it
should be the currently accepted models.

The scientific process never assumes that its present models are the
correct ones, whereas many religions claim to represent the truth.  The
arrogance of many theists is that they claim to represent the truth, this
cannot be said of scientists.

Steve Lang
SLANG->SLING->SLINK->SLICK->SLACK->SHACK->SHANK->THANK->THINK->THICK

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21325
From: marka@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary

>[I think you're talking about the "assumption of the Blessed Virgin
>Mary".  It says that "The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin
>Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed
>body and soul into heavenly glory."  This was defined by a Papal
>statement in 1950, though it had certainly been believed by some
>before that.  Like the Immaculate Conception, this is primarily a
>Roman Catholic doctrine, and like it, it has no direct Biblical
>support.  Note that Catholics do not believe in "sola scriptura".
>That is, they do not believe that the Bible is the only source of
>Christian knowledge.  Thus the fact that a doctrine has little
>Biblical support is not necessarily significant to them.  They believe
>that truth can be passed on through traditions of the Church, and also
>that it can be revealed to the Church.  I'm not interested in yet
>another Catholic/Protestant argument, but if any Catholics can tell us
>the basis for these beliefs, I think it would be appropriate.  --clh]

In the Bible, there are a lot of instances where God speaks
to people, where a person just "came to know" some piece
of information, where a person walks off into the desert
for "40 days", etc. With all of God's power He certainly can
do whatever He wants when He wants it. The Bible "ends"
with the book of Revelations. But does God's reign end there ? No.
So who can say for sure that God's messages are either no longer
happening or still happening ?

I can now hear the clamor for proof. 8-)
With the cold response I've gotten from the past from this
group, it's very hard to get the point across. I'll only
go over the physical stuff so that skeptics can look
at documents stored somewhere. I've cited the uncorrupted
bodies of saints before. They're still there. 8-)
The apparitions at Fatima, Portugal culminated in a miracle
specifically granted to show God's existence. That was
the spinning/descending of the sun. It was seen in several
countries. That event is "approved" by the Pope. Currently,
images of Mary in Japan, Korea, Yugoslavia, Philippines, Africa
are showing tears (natural or blood). These are still under
investigation by the Church. But realize that investigations
take decades to finish. And if the message is Christ will come
in ten days, that's a bit too late, isn't it 8-).
Other events under investigation are inner locutions ("coming
to know"), stigmata (the person exhibits Christ's wounds. And
they don't heal. And doctor's don't know why).
Non-believers are welcome to pore through documents, I'm sure.

This stuff is not like Koresh. Or Oral Roberts (give me $5M
or God will call me home). It's free. Find out why they're
happening (as we ourselves are studying why). If anybody
can figure this out, tell us ! You can be of any religion.
If you have the resources, go to one of the countries I mentioned.
These are not "members only" events. God and Mary invites 
everybody.

So in conclusion (finally) ...
We RC's believe in the modern day manifestations of God and Mary.
We are scared to death sometimes although we're told not to.
There are more proofs and events. And that is why "not everything
is in the Bible". Although in a lot of the apparitions, we are told
to read the Bible.

As far as the Protestant vs. Catholics issue is concerned...
In the end, God's churches will unite. I'm not sure how.
I have some idea. But the point is we shouldn't worry
about the "versus" part. Just do God's work. That's all
that matters. Unity will come.

BTW, I'm just a plain person. I'm not the Pope's spokesperson.
But I am RC.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Ashley                        |DISCLAIMER: My opinions. Not Harris'
marka@gcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com      |
The Lost Los Angelino              |

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21326
From: news@cbnewsk.att.com
Subject: Re: What WAS the immaculate conception

In article <May.3.05.01.26.1993.9898@athos.rutgers.edu> todd@nickel.laurentian.ca writes:
>{:>         Your roommate is correct.  The Immaculate Conception refers to
>{:> the conception of Mary in Her mother's womb.  
>
>Okay, now that we've defined the Immaculate Conception Doctrine would it
>be possible for those more knowledgeable in the area to give the biblically
>or other support for it. I've attempted to come to terms with it previously
>(in an attempt to understand it for learning purposes) and haven't been able
>to grasp the reasoning. 
>
It was a gift from God.  I think basically the reasoning was that the
tradition in the Church held that Mary was also without sin as was Jesus.
As the tenets of faith developed, particularly with Augustine, sin was
more and more equated with sex, and thus Mary was assumed to be a virgin
for life (since she never sinned, and since she was the spouse of God, etc.)
Since we also had this notion of original sin, ie. that man is born with
a predisposition to sin, and since Mary did not have this predisposition
because she did not ever sin, she didn't have original sin.  When science
discovered the process of conception, the next step was to assume that
Mary was conceived without original sin, the Immaculate Conception.

Mary at that time appeared to a girl named Bernadette at Lourdes.  She 
refered to herself as the Immaculate Conception.  Since a nine year old 
would have no way of knowing about the doctrine, the apparition was deemed
to be true and it sealed the case for the doctrine.

RCs hold that all revelation comes from two equally important sources, that
being Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition.  In this case, mostly tradition.

Joe Moore

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21327
From: e_p@unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)
Subject: Legal definition of religion


  .
           It's my understanding that the U.S. Supreme Court has never 
       given a legal definition of religion.  This despite the many 
       cases involving religion that have come before the Court. 
           Can anyone verify or falsify this?  
           Has any state or other government tried to give a legal 
       definition of religion? 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21328
From: maridai@comm.mot.com (Marida Ignacio)
Subject: Re: What WAS the immaculate conception?

Note: I am cross-posting (actually, emailing) this to 
bit.listserv.catholic while main posting goes to 
soc.religion.christian.

[Quotations omitted.  This is in response to a question about
the Immaculate Conception.  I explained it, but left justification
up to our Catholic readers.  --clh]

There is no direct reference in the Holy Scripture except for the
mention of Mary's _blessedness_/full of grace in the "Annunciation" by
Angel Gabriel in Luke 1:26-28

 And in the 6th month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto
 a city of Galilee, named Nazareth.  To a virgin espoused to a
 man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's
 name was Mary.  And the angel came unto her and said, _"Hail,
 thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed
 art thou among women."_

Now, now, hold that line of thought - "the Lord is with Mary &
blessed art thou among women" - while you read on....

In the book, "First Lady of the World, A Popular History of
Devotion to Mary" by Peter Lappin:

The _Immaculate Conception_ matter is really far more complicated
than the _Assumption_.  This arose in 430 AD.  It is quite possible
that the feast of _Mary's Conception_ under the title "The Conception
of Saint Anne", originally commemorated the _physical miracle_ of
a woman _beyond the age_ of child bearing, conceiving a daughter,
just as Elizabeth had conceived John the Baptist.  A transfer in
emphasis from the physical miracle wrought in Anne to the miracle
of grace wrought by God in the soul of Mary was _logical_.  Mary
is the incorruptible timber "out of which was hewn the _tabernacle_
of Christ's sinless body"; she is "God's Eden, in whom there is
no tree of knowledge, and no serpent that harms."  Her perfect
beauty and spotlessness find their exemplar in Christ, her
purity in that of the Father.  At the time of the Council of Ephesus,
she was hailed as "innocent, without blemish, immaculate, inviolate,
spotless, holy in soul and body, who was blessed as a lily from
among thorns, unlearned in the evil ways of Eve".
...
At the end of the thirteenth century, an Irish Franciscan,
John Duns Scotus (1266-1308),...God maintained that it was a 
greater thing for Him to preserve His (the Son) mother from all
sin _than to use His power to clease her from it later_.
...

Now let's go to the discussion of baptism and original sin.
From "Pocket Catholic Cathechism" by John A. Hardon:

Baptism -
Concupiscence Remains after Baptism.
Concupiscence or the tendency to sin remains in the baptized
but since it is left to provide trial, it has no power to
injure those who do not consent and who by the grace of
Christ Jesus, manfully resist (Canon 5).

Original gifts of Adam and Eve before their fall:
In the light of the foregoing, we see that our first
parents were originally gifted three times over:
-They had the natural gifts of human beings especially the
 power to think and to choose freely.
-The had the _preternatural_ gifts of bodily immortality
 and of integrity, or the internal power to control desires.
-They had the _supernatural_ gifts of sanctifying grace,
 the virtues of faith, hope, and charity and the corresponding
 title to enter heaven.
By their disobedience, they lost the _supernatural and
preternatural_ gifts entirely, and were weakened (without
losing) their natural capacity to reason and to choose
freely.

Baptism restores the _supernatural_ life lost by Adam's
sin.  It _does not_ restore the _preternatural_ gifts
but gifts as a title to a glorified restoration of our
bodies on the last day...

Going back to _Immaculate Conception_
(I am not sure if this interpretation is in any other
books but it may be another contribution to the 'puzzle'):

Given the miracle of St. Anne bearing a child at a
non-childbearing age, AND Christ was not yet born 
AND _there was no baptism yet_ on Mary's birth but
STILL, the Angel Gabriel's greetings was:
"Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you.
Blessed art thou amongst women".

Even Mary was confused about this greeting.

Mary could very well have possessed all of the
_treefold original gifts above_ given to our first
parents (Adam and Eve before their sin):
    Hail Mary (Example of praise given by the Angel Gabriel)
    Full of grace (natural, preternatural, supernatural)
    The Lord is with you (At those times, God would
                definitely want to be with those He
                has made _blessed_)
    Blessed art thou amongst women (that says it all)

At the conception, God made Mary _full of grace
and blessed_ as the 'tabernacle' for the coming body
of Christ and so,

Immaculate Conception of Mary is true and Mary still
has maintained her Immaculate Heart. 

-Marida
(P.S.  I do hope that others will continue more
       light and facts on this matter.  Thanks.)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21329
From: Anthony Lest <lest@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Subject: 2nd CFV: soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya moderated

                      CALL FOR VOTES

This is the official 2nd Call For Votes for this newsgroup.

NAME OF PROPOSED NEWSGROUP: 
==========================

     soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya


CHARTER: 
=======

     A religious newsgroup, which would mainly be devoted to 
fostering an understanding and appraisal of the Ahmadiyya Muslim
Community, its beliefs, ideology and philosophy. It will also 
discuss the distinction between Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and 
other branches of Islam.
     
     In addition this newsgroup will also discuss the beliefs,  
teachings, and philosophy of all the other major religions to pro-
mote universal religious appreciation, awareness, and tolerance.

     The newsgroup may also be used to post important religious
events within the world wide Ahmadiyya Islamic Community.


VOTING INSTRUCTIONS: 
====================

Voting is being held since the first call for votes appeared (May 4, 1993),
and will continue untill May 25, 1993 (23:59:59 GMT)

All votes should be received within this period. It gives a total
of 21 days for all to vote.

All votes in _favor_ of creation of the proposed newsgroup should
be sent in a form of a e-mail message to:

                
                SRIA-YES@UCSU.COLORADO.EDU


with a clear statement in the  body of the message like:

     I vote YES for soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya
     I vote in favor of s.r.i.a.
     etc.

Similarly all votes _against_ the proposed newsgroup should be 
sent in a form of a e-mail message to:


                SRIA-NO@UCSU.COLORADO.EDU


with a clear statement in the body of the message like:

     I vote NO for soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya
     I vote against the creation of s.r.i.a.
     etc.


*  You may also include your vote in the SUBJECT header of your mail.

*  Please make sure to include your FULL NAME, if your mailer does
   not do that for you. 

*  One person may only vote ONCE. No matter how many e-mail accounts
   s/he has. Only one vote per person shall be considered valid.

*  Any ambiguous votes like "I vote YES for S.R.I.A., if ...." shall 
   only be considered comments and would NOT be counted as votes.

*  Votes received _after_ 23:59:59 GMT, on May 25, 1993, will not
   be valid and not counted.

*  In the event of multiple votes being received from the same
   person, only the last one will be counted. If you change your 
   mind regarding the way you have voted, send your new vote again,
   your previous vote shall be discarded.
   
*  Posting to USENET will NOT be counted a vote.

*  Please DO NOT send any votes to the e-mail address of the per-
   son who has posted this CVF. Those votes shall not be counted
   either.


NOTE: An acknowledgement shall be sent to everyone who votes.Two 
additional CFV's will be posted during the course of the vote.
Number(s) of "YES" or "NO" votes will not be disclosed during the
the voting period, at the end of which all votes shall be made
public.


PURPOSE OF THE NEWSGROUP: 
========================

    The following are the main purposes this group shall achieve:

    i)    To highlight the common beliefs of all major religions 
          and philosophical traditions as they relate to Ahmadiyya 
          Muslim Community.

    ii)   To discuss the doctrines, origin and teachings the Ahmad-
          iyya Muslim Community, a dynamic world-wide movement.

    iii)  To expound Islamic teachings and beliefs in the Holy 
          Quran and Islamic traditions from the Ahmadiyya Islamic
          perspective.

    iv)   To emphasize and discuss the similarities between Ahmadi 
          Muslims and followers of other religions of the world and 
          to explore how understanding and respect for each other's
          faith can be brought about to eliminate religious intol-
          erance and malice among people of all religious and phil-
          osophical traditions.
          
    v)    To look into the origin and teachings of all religions in
          general and of Islam and Ahmadiyya Muslim Movement in par-
          ticular, and to use the commonality of origin to foster
          better understanding among Ahmadi Muslims and other people
          and to promote an acceptance of universality of fundamental
          rights to the freedom of conscience.

    vi)   To point out current world problems and suggest solutions 
          to these problems, as offered by different religions and 
          systems of ethical philosophies.

    vii)  To investigate the implications of science on religion 
          with particular emphasis on the Ahmadi Muslim perspective,
          but with openness to dialogue with people of all religions
          and philosophical traditions with reasoned positions as to
          the relationship between religion and empirical science,
          logic, and scientific ethics. 
          
    viii) To exchange important news and views about the Ahmadiyya
          Muslim Community and of other religions.

    ix)   To add diversity to the existing religious newsgroups pre-  
          sent on Usenet in the interest of promoting a forum for
          decorous dialogue. 

    x)    To inquire why religious persecution is on the rise in the
          world and suggest solutions to remedy the ever deterior-
          ating situation in the world in general and in the Islamic
          world in particular. 

    xi)   To commemorate the contributions to humanity, society and
          world peace made by the founders and followers of all
          religions in general and by the International Ahmadiyya
          Muslim community in particular.


TYPE: 
====

The group will be MODERATED for orderly and free religious dialo-
gue. The moderation will NOT prevent disagreement, dissent, or 
controversy based on a difference of beliefs or doctrine; rather,
the moderators will seek mainly to discourage gratuitously deroga-
tory, abusive, or squalid language, and the introduction of issues
which are irrelevant based on the provisions of this charter. 

The moderators have been chosen through personal e-mail and through
a general consensus among the proponents by discussion in news.groups.
The following moderators have been proposed and agreed upon:

Moderator:     Nabeel A. Rana  <rana@rintintin.colorado.edu>
Co-Moderator:  Dr. Tahir Ijaz  <ijaz@ccu.umanitoba.ca>



A  BRIEF  DESCRIPTION  ABOUT  AHMADIYYA  ISLAM:
===============================================


        The Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam, an international organi-
sation, was found in 1889 in Qadian, India. The founder of this
movement, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908), was proclaimed to 
be the Promised Reformer of this age as foretold in the Scriptures
of almost all major religions of the world. He claimed to be the 
fulfillment of the long awaited second comming of Jesus Christ
(metaphorically), the Muslim Mahdi, and the Promised Messiah.

        The claims of Hazrat Ahmad raised storms of hostility and
extreme opposition, which are often witnessed in the history of 
divine reformers. Even today this sect is being persecuted especial-
ly in some of the Muslim regimes. The right of Ahmadi Muslims to 
openly practice their religion and to define themselves as Muslims
has been severely restricted in many Muslim Countries. The United
Nations, human rights organizations such as Amnesty International
and top leaderships of some countries have voiced their concerns 
against this denial of basic human and civil liberaties to the
members of this movement, but so far to no avail.

        Despite the opposition and persecution, the movement cont-
inues to grow with a current membership of millions from around the
world in over 130 countries, who come from diverse ethnic and cul-
tural backgrounds.

        The movement is devoted to world peace and strives towards
developing a better understanding of all religions. Ahmadi Muslims
have always been opposed to all forms of violence, bigotry, reli-
gious intolerance and fundamentalism.

        Among its many philanthropic activities, the sect has es-
tablished a network of hundreds of schools, hospitals, and clinics
in many third world countries. These institutions are staffed by
volunteer professionals and are fully financed by the movement's
internal resources. The movement stresses the importance of educa-
tion and leadership. Its members have included a high number of
professionals as well as world class individuals.

        The Ahmadiyya mission is to bring about a universal moral
reform, establish peace and justice, and to unite mankind under
one universal brotherhood.


NEWSGROUP CREATION: 
==================

        The  discussion for this proposed newsgroup has now offi-
cially ended. Voting will be held for three weeks. If the news-
group gets 2/3rd majority AND 100 more "YES/Create" votes than
"NO/don't create" votes; the newsgroup shall be created. 


ABOUT THE VOTE-TAKER: 
====================

        Mr. Anthony Lest has been asked by the proponents of
this newsgroup to act as an official impartial vote-taker for the
proposed newsgroup. He has no objection to  use his workstation
for the purpose of vote-taking. Neither the University of Colora-
do, nor Anthony Lest has anything to do with the proposal of the
newsgroup.  They are just collecting the votes as a neutral third
party.

QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS:
=====================

        Any questions or comments about the proposed newsgroup
may be sent to:
     Nabeel A. Rana  <rana@rintintin.colorado.edu>

        Any questions or problems in voting should be sent to:
     Anthony Lest    <lest@ucsu.colorado.edu>

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21330
From: David.Bernard@central.sun.com (Dave Bernard)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary

In article 28782@athos.rutgers.edu, revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille) writes:
>Just an observation- although the bodily assumption has no basis in
>the Bible, Carl Jung declared it to be one of the most important pronouncements
>of the church in recent years, in that it implied the inclusion of the 
>feminine into the Godhead.



What did Jung mean by a "Godhead?"

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21331
From: u0mrm@csc.liv.ac.uk (M.R. Mellodew)
Subject: Re: If There Were No Hell

In article <May.5.02.51.25.1993.28737@athos.rutgers.edu>, shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker) writes:

> Here's a question that some friends and I were debating last night.
> 
> Q: If you knew beyond all doubt that hell did not exist and that
>    unbelievers simply remained dead, would you remain a Christian?
> 
> My contention is that if you answer this question with "No. I would
> not then remain a Christian" then you really are not one now.  
> Following Jesus Christ has everything to do with sharing in
> his work and spreading the news that the Kingdom of Heaven is already
> among us.  Fear-based religion is not a faith-relationship with the
> One Who made us all.

So does that mean that anyone who is a Christian to avoid Hell isn't really
a Christian at all? It sounds like it to me.

Mit Liebe in Christus,
 Martyn R. Mellodew. (u0mrm@compsci.liverpool.ac.uk)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martyn R. Mellodew,                |     E-mail: u0mrm@compsci.liverpool.ac.uk
Department of Applied Mathematics  |     ARPA/Internet: u0mrm@csc.liv.ac.uk
  and Theoretical Physics,         |     JANET:         u0mrm@uk.ac.liv.csc
The University of Liverpool,       |
P.O. Box 147,                      | 
Liverpool,                         |
England,                           | 
L69 9BX.                           |     `Dubito ergo Deus est.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21332
From: MANDTBACKA@finabo.abo.fi (Mats Andtbacka)
Subject: Re: If There Were No Hell

In <May.5.02.51.25.1993.28737@athos.rutgers.edu> shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com writes:

> Here's a question that some friends and I were debating last night.
> Q: If you knew beyond all doubt that hell did not exist and that
>    unbelievers simply remained dead, would you remain a Christian?

      (Reasoning pertinent to believing Xians deleted for space)

      It strikes me, for no apparent reason, that this is reversible.
I.e., if I had proof that there existed a hell, in which I would be
eternally punished for not believing in life, would that make me a Xian?
(pardon my language) _Bloody_hell_no_!

      ...Of course, being merely a reversal of your thinking, this
doesn't add anything _new_ to the debate, but...

> Several friends disagreed, arguing the fear of hell was necessary
> to motivate people to Christianity. To me that fatally undercuts the
> message that God is love.

      A point very well taken, IMNSHO.

-- 
"Successful terrorism is called revolution, and is admired by history.
 Unsuccessful terrorism is just lowly, cowardly terrorism."
    - Phil Trodwell on alt.atheism

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21333
From: Bjorn.B.Larsen@delab.sintef.no (Bjorn B. Larsen)
Subject: Re: The Bible available in every language (was Re: SATANIC TOUNGES)

In article <May.5.02.53.10.1993.28880@athos.rutgers.edu>
koberg@spot.Colorado.EDU (Allen Koberg) writes:

> [ ... about tongues ... ]

> The concept of tongues as used at Pentecost seems an outdated concept
> now.  With the Bible available in nearly every language, and missionaries
> who are out there in ALL languages, why does the church need tongues?

I guess there are at least some people who are not able to support
this claim. There are still a lot of languages without the Bible, or a
part of the Bible. There are still many languages which we are not
able to write, simply because the written version of the language has
not yet been defined!

I guess this is one of the main goals for Wycliffe Bible Translators:
To define rules and a grammar for writing the 'rest' of the languages
of this world. I do not see that any of them will have any reason to
become unemployed during the foreseeable future. (Provided they get
their neccessary support!) And still they are one of the 3 largest
missionary organizations of the world.

Bjorn
--
______________________________________________________________________
               s-mail:                 e-mail:
|   |   |      Bjorn B. Larsen         bjorn.b.larsen@delab.sintef.no
|__ |__ |      SINTEF DELAB
|  \|  \|      N-7034 TRONDHEIM        tel: +47-7-592682 / 592600
|__/|__/|_     NORWAY                  fax: +47-7-591039 / 594302
______________________________________________________________________

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21334
From: wagner@grace.math.uh.edu (David Wagner)
Subject: Re: Deuterocanonicals, esp. Sirach

ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis)
writes:

 	II. The deuterocanonicals are not in the canon because
 		they are not quoted by the NT authors.

That is not quite accurate.  Otherwise we would have the book
of Enoch in the canon (as Dave noted).  One can say that the 
apocrypha are not quoted by Christ.  

Dave also writes:

III. The deuterocanonicals are not in the canon because
 		they teach doctrines contrary to the (uncontroverted)
 		parts of the canon.
 
 	then I answer: 
 		These is a logically invalid *a priori*. 
 		Besides, we are talking about OT texts- 
 		which in many parts are superceded by the NT
 		(in the Xtian view). Would not this same
 		principle exclude _Ecclesiastes_?
 		This principle cannot be consistently applied.
 
I have to reject your argument here.  The Spirit speaks with one
voice, and he does not contradict himself.  

The ultimate test of canonicity is whether the words are inspired
by the Spirit, i.e., God-breathed.  It is a test which is more
guided by faith than by reason or logic.  The early church decided
that the Apocrypha did not meet this test--even though some books
such as The Wisdom of Ben Sirach have their uses.  For example,
the Lutheran hymn "Now Thank We All Our God" quotes a passage
from this book.

The deutero-canonical books were added much later in the church's
history.  They do not have the same spiritual quality as the
rest of Scripture.  I do not believe the church that added these
books was guided by the Spirit in so doing.  And that is where
this sort of discussion ultimately ends.

David H. Wagner
a confessional Lutheran		"Now thank we all our God
				With heart and hands and voices,
				Who wondrous things hath done,
				In whom His world rejoices;
				Who from our mother's arms
				Hath blessed us on our way
				With countless gifts of love,
				And still is our today."
				--"Nun danket alle Gott", v. 1
				--Martin Rinckart, 1636
				(compare Ben Sirach 50: 22-24)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21335
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary

D. Andrew Kille writes:

>Just an observation- although the bodily assumption has no basis in
>the Bible, Carl Jung declared it to be one of the most important
>pronouncements
>of the church in recent years, in that it implied the inclusion of the 
>feminine into the Godhead.

Which means he has absolutely no idea about what the Assumption is.

However greatly we extoll Mary, it is quite obvious that she is in no
way God or even part of God or equal to God.  The Assumption of our
Blessed Mother, meant that because of her close identification with the
redemptive work of Christ, she was Assumed (note that she did not
ASCEND) body and soul into Heaven, and is thus one of the few, along
with Elijah, Enoch, Moses (maybe????) who are already perfected in
Heaven.  Obviously, the Virgin Mary is far superior in glorification to
any of the previously mentioned personages.

Jung should stick to Psychology rather than getting into Theology.

Andy Byler

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21336
From: sun075!Gerry.Palo@uunet.uu.net (Gerry Palo)
Subject: Re: Christianity and repeated lives

In article <May.5.02.52.15.1993.28800@athos.rutgers.edu> JEK@cu.nih.gov writes:
>Gerry Palo writes:
>
> > ...there is nothing in Christianity that precludes the idea of
> > repeated lives on earth.
>
>The Apostle Paul (Romans 9:11) points out that God chose Jacob
>rather than Esau to be the ancestor of the Covenant People and
>ultimately of the Messiah, and that He made this choice while the
>two boys were still in their mother's womb, and therefore could not
>possibly have done anything good or evil to deserve their appointed
>destinies. If we admit the possibility that they had lived previous
>lives, and that (in accordance with the Asiatic idea of "karma")
>their present lives are a reward or punishment for past behaviour,
>this makes nonsense of Paul's whole point.
>

The existence of repeated earth lives and destiny (karma) does not
mean that everything that happens is predetermined by past deeds.
There is an oriental view of it that tends in that direction, but I
did not subscribe to that view.  God may choose one individual over
another as the fit instrument for his plans, but that does not
preclude that the development of that individual into what he is in
this earthly life is not the result of a longer course of development.

I do not, and Rudolf Steiner did not, subscribe to the oriental view
of an inexorable, mechanistic karma determining everything that
befalls one.  This is a kind of shriveled caricature of a much greater
law in the context of which the deed of Christ on Golgotha and the
ultimate salvation and freedom of the human being as a working of
Christ can be seen as the master theme and, indeed, a new impulse that
was completely free of karma.  Christ incarnated only once in the
flesh, and in that he had no debt of karma or sin.  The oriental
concepts of reincarnation and karma, which are even more trivialized
and mechanized in some new age teachings, incorrectly assume Jesus
Christ to have been the reincarnation of a master.  avatar, etc.
Their teaching of reincarnation and karma also has no concept the
continuing individuality from one life to the next (e.g. Buddhism).
More important, they have no concept of the resurrection of the body,
the ultimate continuity of the whole human being -- to ultimate
resurrection and judgement on the Last Day.

There is another biblical passage that also has a bearing. It is the
tenth chapter of John, devoted almost entirely to the man born blind.
Clearly here, Jesus tells the disciples that it was not his past karma
or that of his parents that led to his blindness, but rather that a
new impulse is to be revealed through him.  But note that he does not
refute the disciples' question.  In fact, they ask it as a matter of
course, the question being stated as if it were self evident that only
one of two possibilities existed - it was either the sins of the man
himself, obviously not in this incarnation, or the sins of his
parents.  The fact that they even asked about the first possibility at
all indicates an awareness of the idea on their part and the form of
Christ's answer indicates that he did not disagree with it.

There is also Matthew 11:14, where Jesus says straight out about John
the Baptist,

   "If you care to accept it, he himself is Elias, who was to come."

This also emphasizes that the Gospels do not have a positive teaching
either way about reincarnation -- or, in fact, about what happens to
the human being at all between death and the Last Day.  Even Jesus did
not push this teaching on people who were not ready to embrace it ("If
you care to accept it").  So I took care to point out, not that the
Bible teaches reincarnation but that it does not deny it either, and
that much in both scripture and fundamental Christian doctrine becomes
understandable if reincarnation is understood in the right way.  I
pointedly used "repeated earth lives" to distinguish a little from the
oriental doctrines usually associated with the word "reincarnation".
The phrase is Rudolf Steiner's (wiederholte Erdenleben).  He noted too
that the idea needed to arise as a new insight in the west, completely
free from eastern tradition.  It did in the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries, the most important expression of it being Lessing's "The
Education of the Human Race".

To return to your original point, Paul's statement about Jacob and
Esau does not contradict the idea of repeated earth lives and karma.
And both of these principles receive their fulfillment in the
incarnation, death, and resurrection, ascension and return of Jesus
Christ, in my view.

Regards, 
Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21337
From: danc@procom.com (Daniel Cossack)
Subject: Re: The truth of the Bible

sodium.asc.slb.com@asc.slb.com (Michael A. Montgomery) writes:

>I believe that the God has preserved the Bible perfectly in that it
>perfectly conveys all of the truth that He intended. This He has done

Oh yea?  Which version of the Bible is the perfectly preserved one?  And
why are there so many translations that are not perfectly preserved?  Is
God trying to confuse us?

>Minor changes in wording or even accidental omission of passages in some
>manuscripts does not change the truth being conveyed, nor would it lead a
>serious student into doctrinal error. (Note also that God provided many

But that is exactly what happend.  There are so many branches of 
denominations of Christianity and deviations of doctrine portruding
from varying translations of biblical texts by "serious students" that
are much too numerous to begin to count.  If there is a Perfect Bible,
then there would be no possible misinterpretation and there would be
no need for anyone here to be debating it.  On the other hand, maybe
the Bible is perfect, but no one on this planet is perfect enough to
read it correctly, but then there would be no point in God giving us
something we cannot use correctly.

>In short, if you attack the credibility and reliability of the Bible, you
>are on weak ground. Furthermore, the only reason that I can see for wanting
>to do so is to remove the Bible as the final authority, and instead put
>that responsibility on men to sift the Bible to strain out the nuggets of
>truth that it contains (in other words, what they want to believe), and
>ignore the rest. The Bible IS Truth; it does not just contain truth.

IMHO, if you trust your salvation on the reliability of a single book,
you are on weak ground.  Remember, In the beginning was the Word, and
the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  This Word existed BEFORE
the Bible was written.  (Note: Word <==> God).  This Word that John is
trying to describe cannot be fully described in any written language,
all languages being IMPERFECT.  Realization comes only from contemplation
of the Word, and is outside the boundaries of language.  I use the Bible
as a guide, a stepping stone, but in no way is it my final authority.
God alone is the final authority.
-- 
===========================================================================
Daniel Cossack                |  danc@procom.com, 71333.2102@compuserve.com
Senior Software Engineer      |  2181 Dupont Drive, Irvine, CA 92715
Procom Technology, Inc.       |  +1 714 852 1000

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21338
From: bruce@liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

>>>>> On 5 May 93 06:51:23 GMT, shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker) said:

> In article <Apr.30.03.11.27.1993.10101@geneva.rutgers.edu> FSSPR@acad3.alaska.edu (Hardcore Alaskan) writes:
>>
>>I hope that anyone who remembers seeing Rev. Troy Perry's
>>"performance" at the 1987 March On Washington will see for themselves
>>just how inconceivable it is to mix Christianity with homosexuality.

> Whether or not Christianity and homosexuality are compatible is clearly
> debatable, since it IS being debated.  In my opnion, it is genuinely
> destuctive to the cause of Christianity to use this sort of ad hominem
> argument to oppose one's adversaries.  It only serves to further drive
> people away from Christianity because it projects and confirms the
> frequently held opinion that Christians are unable to think critically
> and intelligently. 

I agree entirely.  Speaking as an atheist (heterosexual, for what it's
worth), this is one of the least attractive parts of some varieties of
Christianity.  Although I'm sure it's possible to argue theologically
that we shouldn't make analogies between discrimination on the basis
of sex and race and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,
morally the case looks unanswerable (for those outside religion): the
three forms _are_ analogous; we shouldn't discriminate on the basis of
sex, race or sexual orientation.

I found the moderator's FAQs on the subject instructive, and recommend
everyone to read them.

There seem to be three different levels of acceptance:

1) Regard homosexual orientation as a sin (or evil, whatever)
2) Regard homosexual behaviour as a sin, but accept orientation
(though presumably orientation is unfortunate) and dislike people who
indulge
3) As 2, but "love the sinner"
4) Accept homosexuality altogether.

My experience is that 3 is the most common attitude (I imagine 1 and 2
are limited to a few fundamentalist sects).

I suppose I can go along with 3, except that I have this feeling that
a 14--15 year old living in a community with this attitude, on
discovering that they were more attracted to members of the same sex,
would not feel the love of the community, but would rather feel the
pressure not to exhibit their feelings.  I'm not saying that the
community (in particular the parents) would not love the child, but I
suspect the child would not feel loved.
--
Bruce              CMSR, University of Liverpool

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21339
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: SATANIC TOUNGES

In article <May.6.00.34.49.1993.15418@geneva.rutgers.edu> marka@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley) writes:
>I have a simple test. I take several people who can speak
>only one language (e.g. chinese, russian, german, english).
>Then I let the "gifted one" start "speaking in toungues".
>The audience should understand the "gifted one" clearly
>in their native language. However, the "gifted one" can
>only hear himself speaking in his own language.

That would be neat, but nowhere in the Bible does it say
that one who has the gift of tounges can do this.  If the gift
of tounges were the ability to be understood by everyone,
no matter what languages they know, there would be no need for the
gift of interpretation, and I Corinthians 14 would not have had to
have been written. 


>Perhaps I would believe the "gifted ones" more if they were
>glorifying God rather than themselves. Then perhaps we'd
>witness a real miracle.

That's a pretty harsh assumption to make about a several million
Christians world wide.  Sure, there are some who want glory
for themselves who speak in tounges, just as there are among those
who do not have this gift.  There were people like this in the Corinthian
church also.  that does not mean that there is no true gift or that all
who speak in tounges do it for their own glory in the sight of men.  
I would venture to say that a large percentage of those who do speak in tounges 
do so more often in private prayer than in public.

Link Hudson

[There were apparently those in the early church who claimed that
at Pentecost the miracle was that the crowd were all given the
ability to understand the Apostles speaking in Greek.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21340
From: wjhovi01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

Undoubtedly people adopt atheism for many reasons, but I suspect that a biggie
is that the God they've believed in is (in J.B. Phillips's words) "too small". 
If a person's understanding of God is not allowed to grow and develop, it will
eventually become inadequate.  The grey-haired gentleman on a throne who was a
comforting image in childhood becomes a joke.

A therapist friend of mine sometimes suggests to her clients that they "fire
God".  What she means by that is letting go of an inadequate understanding of
God to make room for a fuller one.  But she follows up by encouraging them to
"hire a new one".  My guess is that a lot of folks go through the firing
process, but are not adequately supported in the subsequent re-hire.

billh

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21341
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse


   When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives,
the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for
all the miracles they had seen: 
Luke 19:37

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21342
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Athiests and Hell

In article <May.6.00.35.31.1993.15453@geneva.rutgers.edu>
sun075!Gerry.Palo@uunet.uu.net (Gerry Palo) writes:>Between Adam and Eve and
Golgotha the whole process of the fall of man
>occurred.  This involved a gradual dimming of consciousness of the spiritual
>world.  

This was precisely my point.  From a theological bent, those who lived
immediately after the flood, such as Noah, Ham, his son Cush, and his son
Nimrod had a much stronger appreciation of Divine wrath.  They also had a
stronger understanding of the True God.  In fact, this immediacy was a cause of
hardship for some, so much so that Atlas, who is seen with heavens resting on
his shoulders.  But this is not merely the physical heavens that he is lifting.
 It is to put God and the strict spirituality of His law at a distance, and
thus he became the "Elevator of the heavens."  This "god" made men able to
"feel" as if heaven were afar off and "as if either the God of Heaven could not
see through the dark cloud, or did not regard with displeasure the breakers of
His laws."  It is interesting to see that it was that was titled "Emancipator"
or "Deliverer"  or Phoroneus. It was Nimrod who invaded the patriarchal system
and abridged the liberties of mankind, yet was worship for having given many
benefits.  He was a deliverer all right but not as we think of Christ as a
Deliverer.  One delivered from a conscious feeling of God's wrath, the other
actually performed a delivery from Gods wrath and it is up to us to accept it
as true.

>The question of what happens to human beings who died before Christ is
>an ever present one with Christians.  I am not ready to consign Adam
>or Abraham, or even Cain to eternal damnation.

I don't see the problem.  From the time of Adam, those who looked forward to
the coming "Anointed One" and put their faith in the fact that it was God who
was to do the provision, were accounted as righteous.  But up to the
Crucifixion, their sins were only covered, not taken away.  Therefore, the
dispensation of the Church views the accountability of sin the same, but see it
as a completed action.  Rom's makes it clear that it has always been salvation
via faith and nothing else.

>It is possible to experience eternity in a passing moment.  The
>relationship of eternity to duration is not simply one of indefinitely
>extended conditions of Greenwich mean time. 

I understand what you're trying to convey, but I don't think I'd lay hold of it
because the scriptures do equate the eternality of the second death with the
eternality of, say the Church ruling with Christ.  Jn 17 tells us what eternal
life is exactly, as you are correct that it is much more than non-cessation of
consciousness.  

>It was also a standard belief among many peoples that even the righteous
>were lost. 

It depends upon your def of "lost."  The elect were lost only in time as
outside of time they had been chosen from the foundation of the world. 
Existentially we were all born "lost", but the "righteous" were "in Christ" and
therefore never *assuredly* lost.  
>
>It would be interesting to share in the results of your studies of ancient
>people's ideas of life after death.

Maybe this summer I could find time to put together a paper on it.  I simply
have to buy more books for myself, and these older books are very expensive. 
Either that or countless trips to the oriental museum.
>
>Mankind fell into mist and darkness, and at "the turning point of
>time" a new light entered into the world.  The light still grows, and
>we are developing the eyes with which to see by it.  Much new
>revelation and growth in under- standing lies before us.  Our new
>vision and understanding is still very feeble, but it contains
>something new that will grow in time to embrace that which is old and
>much more as well.


Couldn't agree with you more.  Our understanding, of say eschatology, is
clearly clearer than that of, say Isaiah.  But that is not what I was referring
to.

>(At this point I should acknowledge openly my debt to the work of Rudolf
>Steiner, founder of Anthroposophy, for  many insights that have led me to my
>views on this subject).

>The way you refer to it as "doctrine" puts a modern intellectual coloring
>on it. I think it was much less abstract and much more real and spiritually
>concrete, a teaching that struck much closer to home than our doctrines or
>teachings today can be received.

No, I understand it as you have said. This was my point.

>
>I am not so ready to attribute widespread notions in antiquity to
>simple dispersion from an original source.  Even if they were passed
>on, the question is, to what extent did they reflect real perception
>and experience? 

Ah!  This is it.  This is the big question.  However, I would say, again I
think, that the best lie is one that has an appreciable amount of truth to it. 
Look at Satan's twist of God's Word when he coerced Eve.  That is a very
interesting study.

 >The similarity in the midst of great variety of
>expression of the different people's ideas of the time immediately
>after death testifies to the presence of an underlying reality.

Yes, that is my point.  But it is a two edged sword. For some do not want the
underlying reality to be revealed.  They were not known as "mystery" religions
for no reason.  There was the public side of them and there was the private
side, that was so protected that the initiates to an oath of death if they
revealed that private side.  That is why it is so hard to bring their teachings
to light. The "Mystery of Iniquity" that we find in the Bible, correlates to
this I think.  The primary object of the mysteries was to introduce privately,
little by little, under the seal of secrecy and sanction of oath, what it would
not have been safe to openly profess was the true religion.  Case in point
today might be the Masons.  (Just a note, that they too worshipped Osiris in
Egypt, who can be traced to Nimrod, the "husband son.")

>On the other hand, there is one notion firmly embedded in Christianity
>that originated most definitely in a pagan source.  The idea that the
>human being consists essentially of soul only, and that the soul is
>created at birth, was consciously adopted from Aristotle, whose ideas
>dominated Christian thought for fifteen hundred years and still does
>today.

No, I disagree with you here Gerry.  I know what you're alluding to in that the
church, primarily the RCC, did endorse Aristotelian philosophy into their
worldview, but I would disagree with you that it originated in Greece.  If you
are a student of history, you will come to see that much of what Greece came to
expound to the world as their original, was just an adulteration of that which
they had taken from conquered countries.  The soul is clearly mentioned and
discussed at length in the Egyptian religions. As was the unity of God and also
the trinity of God.  See if you can find Wilkinson's "Egyptians."  He really
does a number on what the Greeks did to what they "pilfered" from the
Egyptians. 

> He was at once the father of modern thought and at the same
>time lived during that darkened time when the perception of our
>eternal spiritual being had grown dim.

I'm not knocking Aristotle or Plato or any other Greek thinker.  Its just that
"there is nothing new under the sun."


>Indeed. I should also clarify that I do not deny that eternal
>irrevocable damnation is a real possibility.  But the narrow range in
>which we conceive of the decisive moment, i.e. after the end of a
>single earthly life, is not in my mind sufficient to embrace the
>reality, and I think that is why the early creeds were couched in
>terms that did not try to spell it out.

Each age has its own focus of theology.  The early church struggled with the
Trinitarian formulation.  The reformation dealt with authority.  Today,
eschatology has had much study.  The early creeds do not spell these things out
in detail because, 1) they weren't the topic of concern, 2) there was
insufficient wisdom accumulated, 3) they didn't have the exegetical tools that
we have today.  Also, each age seems to have an air of revelation to it.  One
age has a well tended and cultivated garden in which a particular doctrine is
given growth.  It would be natural for the end of times to have the garden
appropriate for the growth of eschatology, wouldn't it?
>
tangents, never ending tangents,
Rex

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21343
From: nabil@cae.wisc.edu (Nabil Ayoub)
Subject: Re: Monophysites and Mike Walker

Hello src readers,

Again the misconception that Copts among other Oriental Orthodox
Churches believe in Monophysitism pops up again. We had a discussion
about it a while ago. 

In article <May.6.00.34.58.1993.15426@geneva.rutgers.edu> db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes:
>
>The proper term for what Mike expresses is Monophysitism.  This was a
>heresy that was condemned in the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD.  It
>grew up in reaction to Nestorianism, which held that the Son and Jesus
>are two different people who happened to be united in the same body
>temporarily.  Monophysitism is held by the Copts of Egypt and Ethipoia
>and by the Jacobites of Syria and the Armenian Orthodox. 

Then OFM comments :

>
>
>[These issues get mighty subtle.  When you see people saying different
>things it's often hard to tell whether they really mean seriously
>different things, or whether they are using different terminology.  I
>don't think there's any question that there is a problem with
>Nestorius, and I would agree that the saying Christ had a human form
>without a real human nature or will is heretical.  But I'd like to be
>a bit wary about the Copts, Armenians, etc.  Recent discussions
>suggest that their monophysite position may not be as far from
>orthodoxy as many had thought. 

With my appreciation to the moderator, I believe that further elaboration
is needed. This is an excerpt from an article featured in the first issue
of the Copt-Net Newsletter :

Under the authority of the Eastern Roman Empire of Constantinople (as opposed
to the western empire of Rome), the Patriarchs and Popes of Alexandria played
leading roles in  Christian theology.  They were  invited everywhere to speak
about the Christian faith. St. Cyril, Pope of Alexandria, was the head of the
Ecumenical Council which was held in Ephesus in the year 430 A.D. It was said
that the bishops of the Church of Alexandria did nothing but spend  all their
time in meetings. This leading role, however, did not fare well when politics
started to intermingle with  Church affairs.  It all started when the Emperor
Marcianus interfered with matters of faith in the Church. The response of St.
Dioscorus, the Pope of Alexandria who was later  exiled, to this interference
was clear: "You have nothing to do with the Church."  These political motives
became even more  apparent in Chalcedon  in 451, when the Coptic  Church  was
unfairly  accused of following  the  teachings of  Eutyches, who believed  in
monophysitism. This  doctrine maintains that the  Lord Jesus Christ  has only
one nature, the divine, not two natures, the human as well as the divine.

The Coptic  Church   has never  believed  in  monophysitism  the way   it was
portrayed in the Council of Chalcedon!  In  that Council, monophysitism meant
believing in one  nature.  Copts   believe that the Lord   is perfect in  His
divinity,  and He   is perfect in  His humanity,  but  His  divinity  and His
humanity were united in one nature called "the nature of the incarnate word",
which was reiterated by St. Cyril of Alexandria.  Copts, thus, believe in two
natures "human" and   "divine"  that are   united in   one "without mingling,
without confusion, and without alteration" (from the  declaration of faith at
the end of the Coptic divine liturgy).  These  two  natures "did not separate
for a moment or the twinkling of an eye" (also from  the declaration of faith
at the end of the Coptic divine liturgy).

The  Coptic Church was  misunderstood in the 5th century  at the  Council  of
Chalcedon.  Perhaps the Council  understood   the Church correctly, but  they
wanted to exile the  Church,   to  isolate it  and to  abolish the  Egyptian,
independent Pope. Despite  all of this,  the Coptic Church  has remained very
strict  and steadfast in its faith.   Whether it was   a  conspiracy from the
Western Churches to exile the Coptic Church  as a  punishment for its refusal
to be politically influenced, or whether Pope Dioscurus  didn't  quite go the
extra  mile to  make the  point that  Copts  are not  monophysite, the Coptic
Church has always felt a mandate  to reconcile "semantic" differences between
all  Christian  Churches.   This is   aptly  expressed by the  current  117th
successor  of  St. Mark, Pope Shenouda III:  "To the  Coptic Church, faith is
more  important  than  anything, and   others  must know that  semantics  and
terminology are of  little importance to us."  Throughout this  century,  the
Coptic Church has played  an important role  in the ecumenical  movement. The
Coptic Church is one of the founders of the World Council of Churches. It has
remained a member of that  council  since 1948 A.D.   The Coptic Church is  a
member  of the all  African Council of Churches  (AACC)  and the  Middle East
Council of  Churches (MECC).  The Church    plays an  important role   in the
Christian   movement   by   conducting dialogues   aiming  at  resolving  the
theological differences with the  Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Presbyterian, and
Evangelical Churches.

[...]

As a final note, the Oriental Orthodox and Eastren Orthodox did sign
a common statement of Christology, in which the heresey of Monophysitism
was condemned. So the Coptic Orthodox Church does not believe in
Monophysitism.

Peace,

Nabil

          .-------------------------------------------------------------.
         /  Nabil Ayoub                        ____/   __  /    ____/  /
        /  Engine Research Center             /       /   /    /      /
       /  Dept. of Mechanical Engineering    ___/    __  /    /      /
      /  University of Wisconsin-Madison    /       /   |    /      /
     /  Email:ayoub@erctitan.me.wisc.edu  _____/ __/   _|  _____/  /
    '-------------------------------------------------------------'

[As I mentioned in a brief apology, the comment quoted above from me
is confused.  I appear to say that Nestorius was monophysite.  As
Andrew Byler correctly stated it, the Nestorians and monophysites were
actually opposite parties.  The point I was making, which Nabil
explains in some detail, is that some groups that have been considered
heretical probably aren't.

Chalcedon was a compromise between two groups, the Alexandrians and
Antiochenes.  It adopted language that was intended to be acceptable
to moderates in both camps, while ruling out the extremes.  I agree
that there were extremes that were heretical.  However in the course
of the complex politics of the time, it appears that some people got
rejected who didn't intend heresy, but simply used language that was
not understood or even was mispresented.  And some seem not to have
jointed in the compromise for reasons other than doctrine.  There are
groups descended from both of the supposedly heretical camps.  This
posting discussed the descendants of the Alexandrians.  There are also
a remaining Nestorians.  Like some of the current so-called
monophysites, there is reason to believe that the current so-called
Nestorians are not heretical either.  They sheltered Nestorius from
what they saw as unfair treatment, but claim they did not adopt his
heresies, and in fact seem to follow more moderate representatives of
the Antiochene tradition.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21344
From: will@futon.webo.dg.com (Will Taber)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary

ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis) writes:

[ Much deletion.  He is trying to explain the Immaculate Conception
and the Assumption of Mary.]

>	'Original sin' is the only reason (fallen) humanity
>	dies. Adam and Eve would not have died had they
>	not fallen.

If this is true than why in the Genesis story is God concerned that
Adam and Eve might also eat from the Tree of Life and live forever and
be like gods?  Eating of the tree of life would not take away the
effects of eating of the Tree of Knowledge.  Is there any reason to
assume that they had already eaten of the Tree of Life and so had
already attained to eternal life?  If so, what basis is there for
saying that this was taken away from them?  To me the wages of sin are
a spiritual death, not necessarily a physical death.  I
can attest to the truth of this interpretation from my own experience.
I suspect that many others could attest to this as well. 

Peace
Will

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
| William Taber         | Will_Taber@dg.com 	  | Any opinions expressed |
| Data General Corp.    | will@futon.webo.dg.com  | are mine alone and may |
| Westboro, Mass. 01580 |                         | change without notice. |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| When all your dreams are laid to rest, you can get what's second best,   |
|	But it's hard to get enough.		David Wilcox               |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21345
From: MNHCC@cunyvm.bitnet (Marty Helgesen)
Subject: Public/Private Revelation (formerly Re: Question about Virgin Mary

Mark Ashley's account of private revelation does not, as some might
think, contradict my posting in which I said that the Catholic Church
believes that public revelation, on which Catholic doctrine is based,
ended with the death of St. John, the last Apostle.  In that posting
I made sure I used the word "public".  Public revelation contains
God's truth intended for everyone to believe.  The revelation contained
in the Bible is a significant subset of public revelation.  Private
revelation is revelation that God gives to an individual.  He may speak
directly to the individual, He may send an angel, or He may send the
Virgin Mary or some lesser saint.  The only person who is required to
believe a private revelation is the person to whom it is revealed.
Devotional practices may be based on reported private revelations,
but doctrines can not.

When an alleged private revelation attracts sufficient attention, the
Church may investigate it.  If the investigation indicates a likelihood
that the alleged private revelation is in fact from God, it will be
approved.  That means that it can be preached in the Church.  However,
it is still true that no one is required to believe that it came from
God.  A Catholic is free to deny the authenticity of even the most
well attested and strongly approved private revelations, such as those
at Fatima and Lourdes.  (I suspect that few if any Catholics do reject
Fatima and Lourdes, but if any do their rejection of them does not
mean they are not orthodox Catholics in good standing.)

I do not have at hand a list of the criteria the Church uses in
evaluating an alleged private revelation--it's not something I need
every day--but I know that one of the primary requirements is that
nothing in the alleged private revelation can contradict anything
known through public revelation
-------
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm   Internet: mnhcc@cunyvm.cuny.edu

"What if there were no such thing as a hypothetical situation?"

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21346
From: bruce@liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Subject: Re: Question from an agnostic

>>>>> On 2 May 93 13:53:23 GMT, damon@math.okstate.edu (HASTINGS DAMON TOD) said:

> A Christian friend of mine once reasoned that if we were never created, then
> we could not exist.  Therefore we were created, and therefore there exists a
> Creator.

> Is this statement considered to be a valid proof by many Christians (and
> followers of other religions, I suppose)?  [rest deleted]

Some variant is quite popular.  This, and other arguments, are
discussed in John Leslie Mackie's "The Miracle of Theism: arguments
for and against the existence of God".  Although Mackie ultimately
sides with "against", his arguments are, I think, quite fair to both
sides.  Brief discussions can be found in the alt.atheism FAQs.
--
Bruce              CMSR, University of Liverpool

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21347
From: will@futon.webo.dg.com (Will Taber)
Subject: Re: SATANIC TOUNGES


 pwhite@empros.com (Peter White) relates a story about a person who 
gives a message in tongues which consists entirely of the words pu'
ka.  He was asked to refrain from doing that.


>Well, Brother Puka controlled himself for a while, but a few weeks
>later, the church had invited a missionary in to speak. At the time of
>the meeting where tongues and interpretation were appropriate, who 
>should arise to speak but Brother Puka. And off he went as before,
>all the words were Puka. The pastor was about to apologize for this
>embarrassment when the missionary arose to speak saying that he
>was sorry that he did not have the interpretation but that he could
>give the translation. In a tribe where he had worked, they only had
>one word in the language, puka. Meaning was derived from the inflection
>and other voice qualities. Brother Puka had given a perfectly inflected
>and reasonable message.

Nice story but it sets off my urban legend (or is it charismatic
legend?) alarms.  Can the linguists on the net identify the language
from the description?  Or can they even attest that such a language
exists.  It seems to be odd enough (at least by the standards of
European languages) that if it exists, it should be reasonably well
known to linguists as an extreme case of something or other.

Or have I just overreacted to your basic shaggy dog story?

Will


---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
| William Taber         | Will_Taber@dg.com 	  | Any opinions expressed |
| Data General Corp.    | will@futon.webo.dg.com  | are mine alone and may |
| Westboro, Mass. 01580 |                         | change without notice. |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| When all your dreams are laid to rest, you can get what's second best,   |
|	But it's hard to get enough.		David Wilcox               |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21348
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary

>As the moderator noted, I think you mean the Assumption.  Catholics
>believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary went to Heaven body *and* soul at
>the end of her life.  This is unusual because the normal course of
>events is for your body to decay in the grave and stay that way until
>the Resurrection of the Dead.

Well, it wasn't that way for Enoch and Elijah, both of whom were
translated directly into heaven.  It's beyond my grasp why some object
that Mary, who was far greater than either Enoch or Elijah, should not
benefit from the same privelege they recieved.  She was after all,
Mother of God, full of grace, and immaculate.

>Historically, belief in the Assumption can be found in the writings of
>St. Gregory of Tours (late 6th century).

And in St. Germain of Constantinople and St. John of Damascus, and in
St. Andrew of Crete, among others.

And it should be noted that the Monophysite Chruches of Egypt and Syria
also hold to this belief as part of divine revelation, even though they
broke away from the unity of the Chruch in 451 AD by rejecting the
Council of Chalcedon.  It might be argued by some Protestants that the
Catholics and Orthodox made this belief up, but the Monophysites, put a
big hole in that notion, as they also hold the belief, and they split
from the Chruch before the belief was first annunciated in writing (as
far as is known, much has been lost from the time of the Fathers).

Andy Byler

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21349
From: rich0043@student.tc.umn.edu (Timothy Richardson)
Subject: Re: Seeking Christian opinion, all sorts.

Subject: Re: Seeking Christian opinion, all sorts.
From: Rob Steele, rsteele@adam.ll.mit.edu
Date: 5 May 93 06:52:54 GMT

>Do you mean that your fellow Christians tend to find you wacky?  Maybe  
>they're right.  You might be interested in Franky Schaeffer's books  
>about what philistines American Christians are: _Addicted to  
>Mediocrity_ and more recently _Sham Pearls for Real Swine_.

One day a few years ago Franky Schaeffer walked into a Greek Orthodox
Church.  He is now an Orthodox Christian.  So is his mother and if his
father, Fransis Schaeffer, had not passed away he too would have come
into the church.  
Franky, like many Americans who have recently found the Orthodox church,
described the experience as finally coming home after a long jouney
through a desert.  You should also read the book "Becoming Orthodox" by
Peter Gillquist.  It describes the long journey of some 2000 weary
Evangelical Protestants to the Orthodox church.   Come taste and see how
good the Lord is.

Timothy Richardson
rich0043@student.tc.umn.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21350
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: The Nicene Creed (was Re: MAJOR VIEWS OF THE TRINITY)

Michael Bushnell writes;

>The so-called Creed of Athanasius, however, has always been a Western
>creed, and has always had the filioque.  The Orthodox have said that
>they accept all that it says, with the exception of the filioque, but
>it is not "in use."

Which is exactly what I pointed out.  (Though I was wrong about your use
of the Creed, the 1913 Catholic Encylcopedia in which I read about it
said the Orthodox do use the Creed minus the filioque.  Apparently that
has changed.)  The Athanasian Creed has always had the Filioque, the
Nicene - Constantinopolitan did not.
	Of course the Orthodox did not delete the Filioque from the Nicene
Creed (it wasn't there to begin with), but they certainly did from the
Athanasian Creed, which did have it from the beginning.
	I might point out that the whole problem started over the difference in
ways of explaining the generation of the Blessed Trinity, the East
emphasizing the idea of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father
through the Son, and the West using proceeding from the Father and the
Son.  In fact, some, such as Tertullian, used both formulations (see
below)

	"Following, therefore, the form of these examples, I profess that I do
call God and His Word, - the Father and and His Son, - two.  For the
root and the stem are two things, but conjoined; the fountain and the
river are two kinds, but indivisible; the sun and the ray are two forms,
but coherent ones.  Anything which proceeds from another must
necessarily be a second to that from which it proceeds; but it is not on
that account separated from it.  Where there is second, however, there
are two; and where ther is third, there are three.  The Spirit, then, is
third from God and the Son, just as the third from the root is the fruit
of the stem, and third from the fountain is the stream from the river,
and thrid from the sun is the apex of the ray."
	-Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 8, 5 (about 213 AD)

and

	"I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father
through the Son"
	-Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 4, 1 (about 213 AD)

And as St. Thomas showed in his Summa Theologica Part 1, Question 36,
Articles 2 and 3, there is no contradiction between the two methods of
generation, and in fact, the two methods of reckoning the procession
emphasize what St. Augustine, among others taught, that the Holy Spirit
proceeds from the Father and the Son, but He proceeds from the Father in
a more preeminent way.

	"For whatever the Son has, He has from the Father, certainly He has it
from the Father that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him ... For the
Father alone is not from another, for which reason He alone is called
unbegotten, not, indeed, in the Scriptures, but in the practice of
theologians, and of those who employ such terms as they are able in a
matter so great.  The Son, however, is born of the Father; and the Holy
Spirit proceeds principally from the Father, and since the Father gives
to the Son all that He has without any interval of time, the Holy Spirit
proceeds jointly from both Father and Son.  He would be called Son of
the Father and of the Son if, which is abhorent to everyone of sound
mind, they had both begotten Him.  The Spirit was not begotten by each,
however, but proceeds from each and both."
	-St. Augustine of Hippo, The Trinity, 15, 26, 47 (400 to 416 AD)

So, in a sense, all of the formulations are correct (to the West at
least), because the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son, but
in proceeding from the Son, the orgin of that procession is the
procession from the Father, so the Holy Spirit is proceeding from the
Father through the Son, but as all that the Son has is from the Father,
the Holy Spirit can be said to proceed from the Father, without any
mention of the Son being necessary.
	In any case, I am happy to know that I follow in the beliefs of Pope
St. Leo I, St. Fulgence of Ruspe, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Pope St.
Damsus I, St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Epiphanius of Salamis, St. Ambrose
of Milan, St. Hilary of Poitiers, Tertullian, and others among the
Fathers, who all have very quotable quotes supporting the Catholic
position, which I enunciated above.
	As for the issue of the adoption of another Creed being forbidden, I
will point out that the Holy Fathers of Ephesus and Chalcedon both spoke
of the Creed of Nicea in their statement forbidding anyone "to produce,
write, or compose a confession of faith other than the one defined by
the Fathers of Nicea."  That Creed is a different Creed than that of
Constantinople, which is commonly called the Nicene Creed.  Not of
course in that they were condemning the adoption of the
Constantinopolitan Creed, which is but an enlargement upon the Creed of
Nicea, but that they were condemning the impious opinions of Nestorious,
who had adopted a radically different Creed from the one used by the
Church, which among other things denied the procession of the Holy
Spirit form the Son.  Thus, the additions of the Constantinopolitan
Creed were not thought to be in violation of this, and as the Council
Chalcedon also affirmed the doctrine of the procession of the Holy
Spirit from the Son, which Nestorius denied, they could hardly have been
against explaining in a fuller way the Creed, for they themselves
approved of previous additions to it.  And if the further explanations
of the Creed made in Constantinople were not denigrating of the work
done by the Holy Fathers of Nicea or in any way heretical, it follows
that the Council of Toledo was fully able to add what was not disputed
by the faithful to the Creed so as to combat the impieties of the Arians
in Spain, because the filioque was not in dispute in the Church until
many years later under Photius and others.  And that the filioque was
not disputed, I provide more quotes below.

	"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to
God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly
clear that He is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding
from it."
	-St. Cyril of Alexandria, The Treasury of the Holy and Consubstantial
Trinity, Thesis 34, (423-425 AD)

	"The Holy Spirit is not of the Father only, or of the Son only, but he
is the Spirit of the Father and the Son.  For it is written: `If anyone
loves the world, the Spirit of the Father is not in him'; and again it
is written: `If anyone, however, does not have the Spirit of Christ, he
is none of His.'  When the Father and the Son are named in this way, the
Holy Spirit is understood, of whom the Son himself says in the Gospel,
that the Holy Spirit `proceeds from the Father,' and that `He shall
receive of mine and shall announce it to you.'"
	-Pope St. Damasus I, The Decree of Damasus, 1 (382 AD)

	"The only-begotten Holy Spirit has neither the name of the Son nor the
appelation of Father, but is called Holy Spirit, and is not foreign to
the Father.  For the Only-begotten Himself calls Him: `the Spirit of the
Father,' and says of Him the `He proceeds from the Father,' and `will
receive of mine,' so that He is reckoned as not being foreign to the
Son, but is of their same substance, of the same Godhead; He is Spirit
divine, ... of God, and He is God.  For he is Spirit of God, Spirit of
the Father, and Spirit of the Son, not by some kind of synthesis, like
soul and body in us, but in the midst of Father and Son of the Father
and of the Son, a third by appelation....
	"The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit
breathes from the Father and the Son; and neither is the Son created nor
is the Spirit created."
	-St. Epiphanius of Salamis (which is on Cyprus), The Man Well-Anchored,
8 and 75 (374 AD)

	"Concerning the Holy Spirit, I ought not to remain silent, nor yet is
it necessary to speak.  Still, on account of those who do not know Him,
it is not possible for me to be silent.  However it is necessary to
speak of Him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the
Son, His Sources."
	-St. Hilary of Poitiers, The Trintiy, 2, 29 (356 to 359 AD)

	Thus, as I have pointed out before, Gaul, Spain, Italy, Africa, Egypt,
Palastine, and the lands of the Greeks, all of Christnedom at that time,
all have Fathers who can be cited to show that they confess the doctrine
expressed by the filioque.  I suggest to those of the Orthodox Church
that they come up with some of the Fathers, besides St. John of Damascus
who all will admit denied the filioque, to support their views.  It is
not enough to bring up the "proceeds from the Father" line of the Creed
or the Gospel of John, for that says what we believe also.  But it does
not say the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, only that He does
proceed from the Father.

Andy Byler

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21351
From: b8!anthony@panzer.b17b.ingr.com (new user)
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

In article <May.2.09.48.32.1993.11721@geneva.rutgers.edu>, db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes:
|> Beyt (BCG@thor.cf.ac.uk) writes:
|> 
|>
|> 4) "Nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]" (Rev. 21.27). Therefore,
|> babies are born in such a state that should they die, they are cuf off
|> from God and put in hell,

Oh, that must explain Matthew 18:

1) In that hour came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, "Who then is greatest in
the kingdom of heaven?"
2) And he called to him a little child, and set him in the midst of them,
3) and said, "Verily I say unto you, Except ye turn, and become as little
children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.
14) Even so it is not the will of your father who is in heaven, that one of these
little ones should perish.

Nice thing about the Bible, you don't have to invent a bunch of convoluted
rationalizations to understand it, unlike your arguments for original sin. Face
it, original sin was thought up long after the Bible had been written and has no
basis from the scriptures.

Anthony

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21352
From: tp0x+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Price)
Subject: Re: Serbian genocide Work of God?

In article <Apr.24.01.09.19.1993.4263@geneva.rutgers.edu> revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille) writes:
>James Sledd (jsledd@ssdc.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
>: Are the Serbs doing the work of God?  Hmm...
>:
>
>Are you suggesting that God supports genocide?
>Perhaps the Germans were "punishing" Jews on God's behalf?
>
>Any God who works that way is indescribably evil, and unworthy of
>my worship or faith.

You might want to re-think your attitude about the Holocaust after
reading Deuteronomy chapter 28.

      Tom Price   |    tp0x@cs.cmu.edu   |   Free will? What free will? 
 *****************************************************************************
  plutoniumsurveillanceterroristCIAassassinationIranContrawirefraudcryptology

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21353
From: kene@acs.bu.edu (Kenneth Engel)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

Let me tell you my story.
I grew up catholic. Up until I was 14, it wasn't an issue for me. Then I met
a born-again christian, a very sweet person, not proseletyzing(sp?), not 
imposing. I tried to get into being as christian as I could, as I felt I 
'should'.

But the more I tried, the more depressed I got. I felt guilty for some of my
own personal, honest feelings. I tried so hard to reconcile this conflict.
until I was 23.

Then I taught myself to think rationally. I read a lot of books, pro and con 
religion in general and, specifically, catholicism. I came to a crisis point,
then it finally clicked and now I am a staunch atheist. 

This is a very loose explanation, but it's the gist of it.

Now, (at 26) I feel better about myself, better self-esteem, a generally 
stronger person. I have well-defined goals. I have a strong and stable sense 
of morals and values. I am not a neo-nazi or a corrupt politicain, etc. I 
believe in human rights and 'live and let live' among other things. I am very 
anti-violent and anti-hatred. (This is to debunk the myth that atheists are
depraved.)
Religion has no place in my system.
Tough.

Bertrand Russell said that we cannot *know* god doesn't exist, we can't prove 
it. So, in that sense, we can only truly be agnostic. But, for all practical
purposes there is no god.

Thanqs 
ken engel
kene@acs.bu.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21354
From: ka2czu@cbnewsh.att.com
Subject: Christians in the Martial Arts

Greetings and Salutations!

I would like to get in touch with people who
(a) consider themselves Christians (you define it), and
(b) are in the Martial Arts

Some topics for discussion:
	- your particular martial art
	- your view of the relationship between
		Christianity and your art
	- your view of the relationship between
		*your* Christianity and your art
	- why should a Christian participate in MA
	- why shouldn't a Christian participate in MA
	- Biblical views of MA; pro or con.

For example, I heard from one fellow:
	"...I tried the Karate for Christ thing and it wasn't for me..."
	- why or why not?

As an aside, I am involved (in *NO* official way) with an
organization called the Christian Black Belt Association and
I would also like to distribute info regarding upcoming events
to *those who are interested*.  No, you won't be put on any
"mailing list" nor will your name be "sold".

However, if you ARE intested in an email list, let me know.

I am interested in email replies ONLY as this is cross-posted 
to groups I don't normally read.  If anyone wants a summary
or, of course, on-going discussion, then let me know.


Shalom,
Robert Switzer
ka2czu@cbnewsh.att.com
-- 
Bell Labs, 200 Laurel Ave., 2b-334, Middletown, NJ 07748-4801 USA (908)957-2923
...-.-    Amateur Radio Operator           KA2CZU   Robert Switzer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21355
From: sun075!Gerry.Palo@uunet.uu.net (Gerry Palo)
Subject: Re: Good Jewish Arguments

kwfinken@pooh.harpo.uccs.edu (Kevin W. Finkenbinder)  wrote:

>scott@born.phys.virginia.edu wrote:
>: 
>:[intro deleted...] 
>: 
>:       1) Jesus wasn't really descended from David as the Messiah was supposed
>: to have been. Joseph was, but Christians say that Joseph wasn't related to
>: Jesus truthfully.
>
>        If you look at the geneology of Christ in Luke 3 and the one in
>Matthew 1 you will notice that they trace different lines back to David.
>I have been told that one traces Mary's line back to David and the other
>traces Joseph's line back to David.  (Both of them go beyond David in
>history)  Acording to some of my Jewish friends, "Jewishness" is passed
>to a child by the mother and the legal rights of "Jewishness" are passed
>through the father.  If it is true that one of these geneologies is
>Mary's, then Christ's bloodline is from David through His mother.  This
>also means that Christ had all of the legal rights of a decendant of
>David as according to at least Roman law (and possibly Mosaic law as
>well, but I am not sure) Joseph was Christ's LEGAL FATHER.

The argument for Luke's genealogy being that of Mary is very weak. According
to Luke 3:23

   And when he began his ministry, Jesus himself was about 
   thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph,
   the son of Eli,

Aside from the fact that Mary is not mentioned, there are two possible
interpretations: either Joseph was her father or he was her brother.
Clearly this is not acceptable.  A third would be that Joseph, the son
of Eli, was her Father and just happened to have the name as the man
to whom she was betrothed. But that would seem to be grasping at
straws. The most straightforward interpretation is that Luke had no
intention of tracing Mary's genealogy (in which case he would have
named her) but that he traces her husband's, from David's son Nathan.

The Matthew descendant list most definitely traces down from David's
son, Solomon, to Joseph.  Matthew 1:16 reads:

   And to Jacob was born Joseph, the husband of Mary, by whom was born
   Jesus, who is called Christ. 

There are two apparent problems.  The first is, how to reconcile the
two paternal genealogies - which diverge with the sons of David,
Solomon and Nathan.  The second is, why is any genealogy of Joseph
relavent at all, if Joseph had nothing to do with it.  If Joseph was
not Jesus's physical father, then the original poster is quite
correct, that claims for Jesus's messianic heritage are not based on
truth but only on appearances, whatever Jesus's divine nature was.

The second problem is easy, in my mind.  We assume that Joseph was not
involved in the conception of Jesus in any way.  However, a Holy
Spirit capable of working a physical conception in Mary is also
capable of employing the physical agency of Joseph's seed in this
work.  In our materialistic times we interpret viginity and its loss
solely in terms of a physical act, whereas it is really a matter of
purity on a much higher level as well.  The important thing is that
neither Mary nor Joseph was conscious of any union between them (they
had not "known"each other).  Thus the first gospel's dedication of
half its opening chapter to the genealogy of Joseph is quite relevant
to Jesus, the Virgin birth not- withstanding.

To the first question there is an answer that creates, to begin with, more
problems than it resolves.  It is that the two evangelists are relating 
the births of two entirely different children of two entirely different
sets of parents.  Except for the names of the parents and the child, and 
the birthplace in Bethlehem there is no point in common between the two 
stories.  Matthew and Luke converge in their accounts only thirty years
later with the Baptism of Jesus in Jordan.  Rudolf Steiner offered his
explanation of how these accounts begin with two children and then converge
with their accounts of the one Jesus of Nazareth.  He did not derive his
resolution from biblical study or speculation, or from other external
documents, and the discussion of "how this could be" might bring us beyond
the limits of appropriateness for this newsgroup.  In any case, the
details are described in Steiner's "The Spiritual Guidance of the Human 
Being and of Humanity", "The Gospel of St. Luke", and "The Gospel of St.
Matthew". 

Whether or not Rudolf Steiner's methods and explanation are accepted
as valid, at least this interpretation resolves the apparent
contradictions of the two genealogies while leaving the text intact.

As for the passing of one's Jewishness through the mother, this was
never an issue with Jesus. No one ever questioned his or Mary's
Jewishness.  The issue of the genealogies has to do with his paternal
line of descent from David, the king.

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21356
From: kene@acs.bu.edu (Kenneth Engel)
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell

|> Imagine the worst depth of despair you've
|> ever encountered, or the worst physical pain you've ever experienced.
|> Some people suffer such emotional, physical, and mental anguish
|> in their lives that their deaths seem to be merciful. But at least
|> the pain does end in death. What if you lived a hundred such lives,
|> at the conclusion of one you were instantly reborn into another?
|> What if you lived a million, a billion years in this state?
|> What if this kept going forever?


Did this happen to Jesus? I don't think so, not from what I heard. He lived
ONE DAY of suffering and died. If the wages of sin is the above paragraph, then
JESUS DIDN'T PAY FOR OUR SINS, DID HE?

I'd be surprised to see the moderator let this one through, but I seriously
want a reasonable explanation for this.

ken

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21357
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <May.6.00.35.17.1993.15441@geneva.rutgers.edu> loisc@microsoft.com (Lois Christiansen) writes:
>In article <Apr.30.03.11.27.1993.10101@geneva.rutgers.edu> FSSPR@acad3.alaska.edu wrote:

>You might visit some congregations of Christians, who happen to be homosexuals,
>that are spirit-filled believers, 

Gifts of the Spirit should not be seen as an endorsement of ones behavior.
A lot of people have suffered because of similar beliefs.  Jesus said
that people would come to Him saying "Lord, Lord," and proclaiming
the miraculous works they had done in His name.  Jesus would tell
them that they were workers of iniquity that do not know Him, and to
depart from Him.  

That is not to say that this will happen to everyone who commits a homosexual
sin.  If the Holy Spirit were only given to the morally perfect, He would
not be given to me, or any of us.  God can forgive any sin, if we repent.
But people should be careful not to think, "God has given me a gift of
the Spirit, it must be okay to be gay."  That is dangerous (see also hebrews
6 about those who have partaken of the Holy Spirit and of the powers of 
the world to come.)

>The Lord IS working in our community (the homosexual community, that is).  He's
>not asking us to change our sexual nature,

Jesus doesn't ask us to change our own nature.  We cannot lift ourselves
out of our own sin- but we must submit to His hand as He changes our
nature.  Practicing homosexual acts and homosexual lusts violates the
morality that God has set forth.  

If you don't believe that, and think those of us who do are just ignorant,
then at least consider us weak in the faith and be celebate for our sake's.
Is practicing homosexuality worth the cost of a soul, whether it be the
homosexual's or the one considered "ignorant?"

Link Hudson.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21358
From: saw8712@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Steve A. Ward)
Subject: Re: Mormon Temples

mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server) writes:

>One thing I don't understand is why being sacred should make the
>temple rituals secret.  

On of the attributes of being sacred in this case is that they
should not be spoken of in a "common manner" or "trampled under
feet" such as the Lords name is today.  The ceremonies are
performed in the temple because the temple has been set aside
as being as sacred/holy/uncommon place.  We believe that the 
ceremonies can only be interpreted correctly when they
are viewed with the right spirit- which in this case is in the
temple.  So from our point of view, when they are brought
out into the public, they are being trampled under feet,
because of misinterpretations and mocking, and it is therefore
offensive to us.

Please do not assume that because of my use of the words
'we' and 'our' that I'm an official spokesman for the LDS
church.  I am merely stating what I believe is the general
feeling among us.  Others feel free to disagree.

--
Steve Ward
saw8712@bcstec.ca.boeing.com 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21359
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: Re: What WAS the immaculate conception

maxwell c muir writes:

   Just a quick question. If Mary was Immaculately concieved, so she
   could be a pure vessel, does this mean that she was without sin
   and, therefore, the perfect (meaning sinless) female human being?
   Is this why she is held so highly in the Catholic Church despite
   it's basically patriarchical structure?

She was immaculately conceived, and so never subject to Original Sin,
but also never committed a personal sin in her whole life.  This was
possible because of the special degree of grace granted to her by God.

She is regarded so highly because of her special relationship to God,
and everything that flows from that relationship.

The Catholic Church sees her as the new Eve.  (The Fathers in the
early Church use this particular figure a lot.)

Eve is the mother of all the living in a genetic sense.  Mary is the
mother of all the living in the order of grace.  As sin came through
Eve, so Grace -- Jesus Christ -- came through Mary.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21360
From: jblanken@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (James R. Blankenship)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's e

The only reason for the death penalty is revenge?? If you are going to
try to refute a position, try to refute the whole position or acknosledge
that you are only speaking to small piece of the problem. Broad sweeping
"the only reason, " etc on as tough nut to crack as the death penalty
reallly doesn't help much.

Every year the FBI releases crime stats showing an overwhelming amount of
crime is committed by repeat offenders. People are killed by folks who
have killed (who knows how many times) before. How aobut folks who are for
the death penalty, not for revenge, but to cut down on recidivism?


Jim

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21361
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: Serbian genocide Work of God?

note: i am not the original poster, i am just answering because i
think this is important.

In article <May.5.02.50.17.1993.28624@athos.rutgers.edu> db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes:
>revdak@netcom.com writes:
[evil result of human sinfulness, rather than the will of God]
>In a certain sense yes.  But in the sense that God allows evil to
>happen, when obviously (He being God) He could have not had it happen,
>does in a certain sense mean that He wills it to happen.  God does not
>condone evil, but instead uses it for good, as you say, however, what
>God desires, must be seperated from what actually happens.  For example,
>"God desires that all should be saved" (1 Timothy 2.4), however, it is
>quite obvious that nowhere near all are saved.  Was God's will thwarted?
> No, because His will cannot be escaped, for even when it appears that
>it is your will doing something, it is actually the will of God which by
>His grace has disposed us to do as He wishes.  So we come to the age old
>question, why does evil occur?  To which we must answer that God allows
>evil to occur, though He does not condone it, so that His ultimate plan
>may be brought to sucess.  Personally, I suggest reading the parts of
>the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas that deal with the knowledge of God
>to get a good grasp on this whole idea.

whoo.  i'm going to have to be very careful with my language here.  i
think God is voluntarily giving up his omniscience in this world so
that we can decide on our own where we go -- free will.  in this sense
God allows evil to occur, and in this sense can be "held responsible"
as my chaplain says.  however, his will is, of course, that all be
saved.  he's not going to save us "by himself" -- we have to take a
step in his direction before he will save us.  read that last sentence
carefully -- i'm not saying we save ourselves.  i'm saying we have to
ACCEPT our salvation.  i do not believe in predestination -- it would
appear from what you say further down that you do.  

[stuff deleted]
>I am not saying that anyone deserves punishment more than someone else.
>I am simply pointing out that God could be using the Serbians and
>Croatians as instruments of His punishment, as he did with the
>Israelites against the Cannanites.

ok -- i have trouble with that, but i guess that's one of those things
that can't be resolved by argument.  i accept your interpretation.

[more deleted]
>>The issue is not questioning why God has made the world in the way God
>>so chooses, it is whether _I_ am discerning the world in the way God
>>intends it.  The debate is about whether we should not oppose the Serbians
>>in their "ethnic cleansing" because they might be "doing the will of God."
>
>And I said Christians should not be participants in such wars and
>slaughters. That does not mitigate the fact that God allows this evil to
>continue, for He is patient and willing that none should perish, so He
>waits for those whom He has foreknown to turn to Him from their evil.
			     ^^^^^^^^^
this is what indicates to me that you may believe in predestination.
am i correct?  i do not believe in predestination -- i believe we all
choose whether or not we will accept God's gift of salvation to us.
again, fundamental difference which can't really be resolved.

[yet more deleted]
>I am not saying that the evil befalling the Bosnians is justified by
>their guilt.  I am saying that it is possible that God is punishing them
>in this way. In no way is this evil justified, bu that does not mean
>that God cannot use evil to further His purposes.  I am not accusing the
>Bosnians, though they may very well be guilty of great sins, but that is
>up to God to judge.  We are all defendants when the time comes for our
>judgement by God.  Let us all sincerely hope and pray that we will have
>Jesus Christ as our advocate at that judgement.

yes, it is up to God to judge.  but he will only mete out that
punishment at the last judgement.  as for now, evil can be done by
human beings that is NOT God's will -- and the best we can do is see
taht some good comes out of it somehow.  the thing that most worries
me about the "it is the will of God" argument is that this will
convince people that we should not STOP the rape and killing when i
think that it is most christ-like to do just that.  if jesus stopped
the stoning of an adulterous woman (perhaps this is not a good
parallel, but i'm going to go with it anyway), why should we not stop
the murder and violation of people who may (or may not) be more
innocent?

>Andy Byler

vera
*******************************************************************************
I am your CLOCK!     |  I bind unto myself today    | Vera Noyes
I am your religion!  |  the strong name of the	    | noye@midway.uchicago.edu
I own you!	     |  Trinity....		    | no disclaimer -- what
	- Lard	     |	- St. Patrick's Breastplate | is there to disclaim?
*******************************************************************************

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21362
From: gchin@ssf.Eng.Sun.COM (Gary Chin)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's e

In article 28727@athos.rutgers.edu, 62johnson@cua.edu (Yusef Al-Tariq) writes:
>Who's law is it that a wedding has to happen in a church?  the only reqirement
>is that you and the bride agreee to marry each other.  How also can you say "
>"christian wedding" when the proces of marriage is nt really discussed in the
>bible.  why mus t a person get a civil marriage also?  The only standards i
>look to are those imposed upon me by god... not of society.

If you want to live with someone, you can.
If you don't want to have a civil marriage, don't.
If you don't want to have a wedding in a church, don't.
If you want to call that a marriage, go right ahead.

I hope that the young people that are around you, don't follow your example.


|-------------------|
| Gary Chin         |
| Staff Engineer    |
| Sun Microsystems  |
| Mt. View, CA      |
| gchin@Eng.Sun.Com |
|-------------------|

[If the original message claims that marriage is not discussed in the
Bible, I have to disagree.  Various aspects of marriage are discussed
in some of Paul's letters, Ephesians 5 sees marriage as a symbol of
God's relationship with the church.  If it means specifically that the
marriage ceremony isn't described, then that seems to be true.  But I
think what most people mean by Christian marriage is not so much that
it takes place in a church as that the parties undertake the various
commitments to each other that are associated with marriage in the
Bible.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21363
From: jwindley@cheap.cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Mormon temples

mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server) writes:
| One thing I don't understand is why being sacred should make the
| temple rituals secret.

The "so sacred it's secret" explanation is a bit misleading.  While
there is a profound reverence for the temple endowment, there is no
injunction against discussing the ceremony itself in public.  But
since public discussion is often irreverent, most Mormons would rather
keep silent than have a cherished practice maligned.

But there are certain elements of the ceremony which participants
explicitly covenant not to reveal except in conjunction with the
ceremony itself.

| Granted, the Gnostic "Christians"
| had their secret rituals, but these seem to have been taken entirely
| from pagan pre-Christian mystery religions.

There are other interpretations to Christian history in this matter.
One must recall that most of what we know about the Gnostics was
written by their enemies.  Eusebius claims that Jesus imparted secret
information to Peter, James, and John after His resurrection, and that
those apostles transmitted that information to the rest of the Twelve
(Eusebius, _Historia Ecclesiastica_ II 1:3-4).

Irenaeus claims this information was passed on to the priests and
bishops (_Against Heresies_ IV 33:8), but Eusebius disagrees.  He
claims the secret ceremonies of the Christian church perished with the
apostles.  Interestingly enough, Eusebius refers to the groups which
we today call Gnostics as promulgators of a false gnosis (Eusebius,
op. cit., III, 32:7-8).  His gripe was not that thay professed *a*
gnosis, but that they had the *wrong* one.

Writings dealing with Jesus' post-resurrection teachings emphasize
secrecy -- not so much a concealment as a policy of not teaching
certain things indiscriminately.  In one story, Simon Magus opens a
dialog with Peter on the nature of God.  Peter's response is "You seem
to me not to know what a father and a God is: But I could tell you
both whence souls are, and when and how they were made; but it is not
permitted to me now to disclose these things to you" (_Clementine
Recognitions_ II, 60).  If any one theme underlies the _Recognitions_
it is the idea that certain doctrines are not to be idly taught, but
can be had after a certain level of spiritual maturity is reached.

Now one can approach this and other such evidence in many ways.  I
don't intend that everyone interpret Christian history as I do, but I
believe that evidence exists (favorably interpreted, of course) of
early Christian rites analogous to those practiced by Mormons today.

| Neither New Testament
| Christianity nor Biblical Judaism made a secret of their practices.

But if Judaism and Christianity had such ceremonies, would you expect
to read about them in public documents?  One can search the Book of
Mormon and other Mormon scripture and find almost no information on
temple worship.  Yes, you could establish that Mormons worship in
temples, but you would probably be hard pressed to characterize that
worship.  On that basis, can we conclude that the Bible explains *all*
practices which might have taken place, and that absence of such
descriptions proves they did not exist?

Mormon scholar Dr. Hugh Nibley offers us a list of scriptures from
which I have taken a few:

1. "It is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of
heaven, but to them it is not given" (Matt. 13:11).

2. "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given"
(Matt. 19:11).

3. "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them
now" (John 16:12).

4. "The time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs,
but I shall shew you plainly of the Father" (John 16:25).

5. "... unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter"
(1 Cor. 3:1-2).

6. "Many things ... I would not write with paper and ink; but I ...
come unto you and speak face to face" (2 Jn. 1:12).

(Nibley, _Since Cumorah_, pp. 92-94)

Again, these can also be interpreted many different ways.  I believe
they serve to show that not all doctrines which could have been taught
were actually taught openly.

| I have heard that Joseph Smith took the entire
| practice (i.e. both the ritual and the secrecy surrounding the ritual)
| from the Freemasons.  Anybody in the know have any authoritative
| information on whether or not this claim is true?

Historically, Joseph Smith had been adiministering the temple
endowment ceremony for nearly a year before joining the Freemasons.
There is diary evidence which supports a claim that the rite did not
change after Smith became a Mason.  It can be argued that Smith had
ample exposure to Masonic proceedings through the burlesque of his
time and through his brother Hyrum (a Mason), though no specific
connection has yet been established.

My conversations with Masons (with respect to temple rite
transcriptions which have appeared on the net) have led me to believe
that the connection from Masonry to Mormonism is fairly tenuous.  As
our moderator notes, most of what was similar was removed in the
recent revisions to the temple ceremony.  I believe that critics who
charge that Mormon rites were lifted from Freemasonry do not have
adequate knowledge of the rites in question.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Jay Windley  *  University of Utah  *  Salt Lake City
                    jwindley@asylum.cs.utah.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21364
From: aidler@sol.uvic.ca (E Alan Idler)
Subject: Re: Mormon Temples

mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server) writes:

>saw8712@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Steve A. Ward) writes:

>>dan@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>[Dan's question about Mormon Temple rituals deleted for brevity]
>> 
>>Just thought I would interject this, and I believe you Dan when you say
>>that you don't mean to offend:  For us LDS temple goers, the temple
>>ceremonies are very sacred.  So much so that anyone who goes there
>>promises never to divulge them.  So how much can you trust someone
>>who is telling you about the cerermony? 

>One thing I don't understand is why being sacred should make the
>temple rituals secret.  There are lots of sacred things in
>Christianity, including the Sacred Scriptures themselves, but there is
>nothing secret about these things.  

Is it appropriate for the Lord not to reveal certain 
things before the world (i.e., publish them widely)?

These things sacred to Himself.  He may place any 
pre- or post-conditions He feels are necessary.

Moreover, there are precedents in scripture where
knowledge of sacred things is withheld:

1. After the Transfiguration Jesus instructed
Peter, James, and John to "tell the vision to no 
man, until the Son of man be risen again from 
the dead" (Matt. 17:9).  
If we were living at the time of Savior, there
would be no (public) record of this event.

2. A faithful friend of Paul experiences a vision 
of "paradise" when he "heard unspeakable words, 
which it is not lawful for a man to utter"
(2 Cor. 12:4).
This person heard something which Paul can not 
write to the Corinthians (and us).

3. There is an incident recorded in the Book of
Mormon where words uttered by "babes" were 
"forbidden that there should not any man write
them (3 Nephi 26:16, the entire text follows
for those of you without access to the BOM).

3 Nephi 26:16
Behold, it came to pass on the morrow that the 
multitude gathered themselves together, and they
both saw and heard these children; yea, even 
babes did open their mouths and utter marvelous
things; and the things which they did utter were
forbidden that there should not any man write them.

Some LDS scholars speculate that these words
which could not be written are the sacred
portions from temple we are to withhold from 
the world (but it could be something else).

>I
>can understand why Mormons would limit temple access to only faithful
>Mormons, but I have never understood the emphasis on shrouding temple
>ritual in mystery.  

There is much we can discuss about the temple 
ordinances.  We can discuss regarding baptisms
and other vicarious ordinances for the dead.
We can discuss certain concepts regarding the
endowment ("the ritual").
However, there are certain elements I can not
discuss with anyone (including other saints)
outside of the temple.
As a portion of the endowment, we receive the
tokens and signs that will permit us access
to Heaven.  I must keep this knowledge sacred 
and respect the conditions under which it is
revealed to me.

A IDLER

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21365
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

[4) "Nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]" (Rev. 21.27). Therefore,
babies are born in such a state that should they die, they are cuf off
from God and put in hell, which is exactly the doctrine of St. Augustine
and St. Thomas.  Of coures, having only original sins on thier souls,
they suffer the lightest punishment, the loss of the vision oand
presence of God, but that does not change the undeniable fact that they
cannot possibly come to a forgivenss of original sin, nor can they
inherit eternal life.  "That," as St. Augustine said, "Is what the
Pelagian heretics taught."  Which is why he said later, "If you want to
be a Christian, do not teach that unbaptized infants can come to a
forgivenss of original sin."]

Doesn't the Bible say that God is a fair god?  If this is true, how can this
possibly be fair to the infants?

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21366
From: mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary


	Two follow up's to Mark's last posting:

	1.  As far as current investigations, the Church recently declared the
	    crying statue and corresponding messages from Mary at Akita,
	    Japan as approved (I found this out about a month ago.)

	2.  Again in the proof department, start with the appearances of Mary
	    at Fatima.  Among other things, there were pictures taken of the
	    "miracle of the sun" that appeared in some major American newspaper
	    (The New York Times, I believe) as well as most of the major
	    European newspapers.  

	    I could talk (or post) for hours on this topic, but... 
		(I have a thesis to write).
						God Bless,
							- Mike Walker
							 
P.S.  Anyone want info, I have more.  mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21367
From: mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker)
Subject: Re: Portland earthquake

archau@saturn.wwc.edu (Austin C Archer) writes:

>I am interested in views about the non-event of May 3. Seriously, how can a 
>Christian discriminate between "messages from God" which are to be taken 
>seriously, and those which are spurious?  Is there a useful heuristic which 
>would help us avoid embracing messages which, by their non-fulfillment are 
>proven to be false, thus causing the name of Christ to be placed in 
>disrepute? Is this a problem at all?

>I believe that a careful understanding of scripture can help us here. It 
>seems to me that anytime we are proven by events to be mistaken, it points 
>to a serious failure in understanding God's will. It should result in a 
>reevaluation of what we accept as truth.

>I must hasten to add that I was always skeptical, even cynical, about 
>these "prophesies" as I tend to be concerning all such. But clearly, many 
>Christians put much stock in them. If the Church represents Christ in the 
>world, then Christians must avoid being made the laughing-stock of the 
>world, lest we dishonor Him. Further, the more often we cry "wolf", the 
>less seriously we tend to be taken.

>Any comments?


	Good point -- it is very true that these "false" predictions are
dangerous--we are warned (more than once) in scripture about false prophtets.

	However, as is often the case with other issues, one cannot let those
who falsly report such "visions" as a reason against believing in any of them
(I did not get the impression you were asserting this, by the way...I consider
my response not so much a response to your posting but a response to the topic
as a whole).

	Example:  The Appearances of Mary at Fatima, Portugal in 1917.

	Among other things, she predicted the conversion of Russia to Atheism
	(something that happened less than a year later w/ the Bolshevik
	revolution).  She also predicted the second world war (that is, predicte	predicted that it would occur during the papacy of a certain pope, who
	was not the current one.  It happened just like she said.)

	She warned there would be "fire in the sky" as a warning that the 
	second world war was about to start.  About a week before Germany
	invaded, weathermen (and women, I suppose) all over Europe, from
	England to Spain to Eastern Europe, reported the most spectacular
	reddish color in the sky ever recorded.  To this day some try to 
	explain it off as the northern lights, and the relation to Mary's
	prediction simply coincidence.  You all can decide for yourselves.

	Mary predicted that the Atheistic Russia would spread her evils all
	over the world and persecute religion.  

	She said many other things as well, too numerous to list here.  Every
	single one has been realized.  	One can only use the term "coincidence"
	so many times in the same explanation before its use becomes 
	ridiculous.  

	SO...yes, there are many false prophets and many false reports. There
	are true ones, too.  We must always remain open to that.  Fatima was
	one example.  There is another one, currently occuring--the 
	apparitions that have been taking place at Medjurgorje, Yugoslavia
	(or whatever its called now).  Mary has been appearing every day for
	eleven years now.  It's time the world started listening.

	More info available to any who want it.
						Peace in Christ Our Lord,
						- Mike Walker
						  mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21368
From: aaronc@athena.mit.edu (Aaron Bryce Cardenas)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

news@cbnewsk.att.com writes:
>Arrogance is arrogance.  It is not the result of religion, it is the result
>of people knowing or firmly believing in an idea and one's desire to show
>others of one's rightness.  I assume that God decided to be judge for our
>sake as much as his own, if we allow him who is kind and merciful be the 
>judge, we'll probably be better off than if others judged us or we judged 
>ourselves.               ^^^^^^ ^^^      ^^                     ^^ ^^^^^^
 ^^^^^^^^^
1 Cor 11:31-32 "But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 
When we are judged by the ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ Lord, we are being discipled so
that we will not be condemned with the world."

1 Cor 5:3 "Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit.
And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were
present."          ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^

1 Cor 2:15-16 "The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he
himself is not     ^^^^^^^^^ subject to any man's      ^^^ judgement:  'For
who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?'  But we have the
mind of Christ."

Jude :14-15 "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men:  'See,
the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge
everyone, and to   ^^^^ convict all the ungodly of  ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^ all
the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words
ungodly sinners have spoken against him.'"

Arrogance is a sin.  Although a desire to show others of one's rightness may
be a sign of arrogance in some cases,  it may be only a sign that they are
following the Bible in others:

Jude :22-23 "Be merciful to those who doubt; snatch others from the fire and
save them; to others show mercy, mixed with  ^^^^^^ fear -- hating  ^^^^ even
^^^^ the clothing stained by corrupted flesh."


>If I find someone arrogant, I typically don't have anything to do with them.  

I hope you don't find me arrogant, then.  This sounds like a bad practice --
ignoring what certain people say because you perceive them as arrogant.

James 1:19 "My dear brothers, take note of this:  Everyone should be quick to
listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry,"

- Aaron

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21369
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: Christianity and repeated lives


 > ...there is nothing in Christianity that precludes the idea of
 > repeated lives on earth.

There is a paragraph in the New Testament which in my opinion, clearly makes
a positive inference to reincarnation. I don't remember which one it is off of
the top of my head, but it basically goes like this: Jesus is talking with the
apostles and they ask him why the pharisees say that before the messiah can come,
Elijah must first come. Jesus replies that Elijah has come, but they did not 
recognize him. It then says that the apostles perceived that he was refering to
John the Baptist. This seems to me to clearly imply reincarnation. Can anyone
offer a reasonable alternative interpretation? I would be very interested to 
hear it.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21370
From: koberg@spot.Colorado.EDU (Allen Koberg)
Subject: Re: SATANIC TOUNGES

In article <May.6.00.34.49.1993.15418@geneva.rutgers.edu> marka@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley) writes:
>In article <May.2.09.50.21.1993.11782@geneva.rutgers.edu> mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>>I have seen the claims, but I don't know if there are any
>>authenticated cases of people making prolonged speeches in
>>real languages they don't know. From my observations, "speaking
>>in tongues" in practice has nothing at all do with this.
>
>I have a simple test. I take several people who can speak
>only one language (e.g. chinese, russian, german, english).
>Then I let the "gifted one" start "speaking in toungues".
>The audience should understand the "gifted one" clearly
>in their native language. However, the "gifted one" can
>only hear himself speaking in his own language.
>

There seem to be many points to the speaking in tongues thing which
are problematic.  It's use as prayer language seems especially troubling
to me.  I understand that when you pray in tongues, the spirit is doing
the talking.  And when you pray, you pray to God.  And the Spirit is
God.  So, the Spirit is talking to Himself.  Which is why I only go
by the Pentecost use where it's an actual language.

Moreover, the phrase "though I speak with the tongues of men and angels"
used by Paul in I Cor. is misleading out of context.   Some would then
assume that there is some angelic tongue, and if when they speak, it
is no KNOWN language, then it is an angelic tongue.

Hmmm...in the old testament story about the tower of Babel, we see how
God PUNISHED by giving us different language.  Can we assume then that
if angels have their own language at all, that they have the SAME one
amongst other angels?  After all, THEY were not punished in any manner.

So why do these supposed angelic tongues all sound different FROM ONE
ANOTHER?  It's disturbing to think that some people find ways to 
justify jabbering.

But I'll buy the idea that someone could talk in a language never learned.

Trouble is, while such stories abound, any and all attempts at
verification (and we are to test the spirit...) either show that
the witness had no real idea of the circumstances, or that outright
fabrication was involved.  The Brother Puka story in a previous post
seems like a "friend of a friend" thing.  And linguistically, a two
syllable word hardly qualifies as language, inflection or no.

Much as many faith healers have trouble proving their "victories" (since
most ailments "cured" are just plain unprovable) and modern day
ressurrections have never been validated, so is it true that no
modern day xenoglossolalia has been proved by clergy OR lay.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21371
From: dxf12@po.cwru.edu (Douglas Fowler)
Subject: Giving "spiritual gifts"


     I just thought I'd share a nice experience before my exam today.
I was walking down the streets on our campus, and a beggar came up and asked
me for any spare change I might have.  I had a dollar or so that I gave her,
and - not wanting to give away all my money to strangers (I generally give
a dollar as that will buy a little food at McDonalds or something) - I offered
her some "spiritual gifts," as I called them, rather than gifts of money.
I talked of how great I felt that God had made such a pretty day, and how
nice it was to give to people - she then said she was getting married soon.
She talked about how she and her husband had very little (they may not have
even had a house, for all I know), but that they felt a very special love in
the Lord, an unselfish kind of caring.  It warmed my heart to know that 2
people can have so little monetarily, and realize that spiritually they are
indeed very rich.  A good lesson for all of us who say we want more, more,
more; what we really need cannot be counted, or sold, or bought.
-- 
Doug Fowler: dxf12@po.CWRU.edu  Heaven is a great big hug that lasts forever
        "And when that One Great Scorer comes to mark against your name;
   He writes, not whether you've won or lost, but how you played the game"
                      --Grantland Rice

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21372
From: daniels@math.ufl.edu (TV's Big Dealer)
Subject: Re: Variants in the NT Text (cont.)


	I wish to echo what D. Andrew Kille wrote.  I know of no published form
in English of the D-type recension of "Acts".  Of course, Bezae is quite bizarre
in the gospels as well.  Only D-type texts share Bezae's strange readings.
	[By the way, "D" stands for Codex Claromontanus elsewhere.]
					Frank D

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21373
From: salaris@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrabbits)
Subject: Re: Satan kicked out of heaven: Biblical?

In article <May.7.01.09.04.1993.14501@athos.rutgers.edu>, easteee@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
> Hello all,
>      I have a question about Satan.  I was taught a long time ago
> that Satan was really an angel of God and was kicked out of heaven
> because he challenged God's authority.  The problem is, I cannot
> find this in the Bible.  Is it in the Bible?  If not, where did it
> originate?
> 
Satan was one of God's highest ranking angels, like Uriel, Raphael,
Michael, and Gabriel.  In fact, his name was Satanel.  He did challenge
God's authority and got kicked out of heaven.  A lot of the mythology
of Satan (he lost the -el suffix when he fell) comes from the
Book of Enoch and is not found in the bible.

Read the Book of Enoch, available thru bookstores, or get the book
called "Angels: an endangered species" (I think).


--
Steven C. Salaris                We're...a lot more dangerous than 2 Live Crew
salaris@carcs1.wustl.edu         and their stupid use of foul language because
				 we have ideas.  We have a philosophy.
					      Geoff Tate -- Queensryche

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21374
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

In article <May.7.01.09.59.1993.14571@athos.rutgers.edu> mayne@nu.cs.fsu.edu writes:
>In article <May.5.02.50.42.1993.28665@athos.rutgers.edu> Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu (Fil Sapienza) writes:
[why are atheists atheists/ believes it could be the result of
"brokenness"]

>This is condescending at best and a slightly disquised ad hominem
>attack. This attitude on the part of many theists, especially the
>vocal ones, is one reason for the hostility you sense. How do you
>like it when atheists say that people turn to religion out of
>immature emotionalism?

i agree -- if you are going to find out anything from people who don't
share your beliefs, do not attack them or condescend to them and hope
to get a neutral picture of them.  come to them with an open mind.

>I don't believe that atheists are generally any more "broken"
>than anybody else. Any cause and effect is likely to be the
>other way. There is an emotional price to pay for being different,
>hearing one's beliefs (or lack thereof) condemned, and one's
>motives and character attacked.

well, you do believe in something, as i see it, even if it is a sort
of "anti-belief" (no negative connotation meant; i mean simply that
you believe that God _does not_ exist).  christians can also feel that
sense of "difference", however, when they are associated with "those
weird televangelists who always talk about satan".  if you'll excuse
the cliched sound of this, everyone has to deal with his/ her
differences from other people.  i can understand how being an atheist
could be hard for you; being a christian is sometimes hard for me.

>I became an atheist when I got old enough to reason because there
>was just no good reason to believe the religion I had been taught.
>This was very painful because of the pressure I was placed under by
>my family and friends. I wanted to fit in, believe, and be accepted.
>I tried, but finally the cognitive dissonance was just too great.

you should not have to repress how you feel -- you should be able to
discuss it without fear.  i think there are admirable things to learn
from any belief, which can enrich your own -- by asking myself the
questions that atheists may ask me, i can learn the answers and become
stronger in my faith.  if my faith can't support knowing the answers
to those questions, it is weak and untrue. 

>I have sympathy for gays growing up in repressive environments and
>having to hide and sometimes at first try to deny a part of themselves
>because I've been there. Only in my case it was my rationality instead
>of sexuality which I was forced to try to repress.

in some way the pressures were different, of course, because you
"chose" your beliefs -- or are you saying that they were not your
choice, but born of necessity?  [please, no flames about whether or
not gay people "choose" their lifestyle -- that's elsewhere in this
newsgroup]

> I must say that I
>wasn't hurt by my experiences in church any more than some of my friends
>who didn't become atheists. I was just hurt differently.

i'm not sure i understand this sentence -- could you explain?

[moderator points out that many/ most atheists aren't "hostile", they
just cease believiing in xiantiy/ religion]

>True. Consider also that people like Pat Robertson and many of the
>Christian extremists in soc.religion.christianity naturally evoke
>hostility by their attacks on anyone who disagrees and their attempts
>to force their views on others. You are known by the company you keep.
>Christians trying to preach in alt.atheism should not be surprised by
>hostility.

ouch, yes.  part of being a christian is accepting _everyone_ with an
open heart -- including people of "our own camp" with whom we
completely disagree.  by the same token, i believe that accusation and
suspicion are not the best way to reach out to those not of our faith,
nor is it effective to try to browbeat people into accepting our
religion.  i have a different idea of mission: be what i am, a
christian who is happy in her faith, and if others see that and want
to know about either the happiness or the religion, i'll share what i
know without pressure and let them make their own decisions.  at some
point you just have to agree to disagree -- acceptance of diversity,
not uniformity, is the way to sow peace....

>Bill Mayne

vera noyes

*******************************************************************************
I am your CLOCK!     |  I bind unto myself today    | Vera Noyes
I am your religion!  |  the strong name of the	    | noye@midway.uchicago.edu
I own you!	     |  Trinity....		    | no disclaimer -- what
	- Lard	     |	- St. Patrick's Breastplate | is there to disclaim?
*******************************************************************************

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21375
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: Satan kicked out of heaven: Biblical?

In article <May.7.01.09.04.1993.14501@athos.rutgers.edu> easteee@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>Hello all,
>     I have a question about Satan.  I was taught a long time ago
>that Satan was really an angel of God and was kicked out of heaven
>because he challenged God's authority.  The problem is, I cannot
>find this in the Bible.  Is it in the Bible?  If not, where did it
>originate?

i did a workshop on this for an episcopalian student gathering a
couple months ago because i wanted to know the answer too.  as far as
i could tell, although that story was never specifically _told_ in the
bible, many references are made to it, primarily in the new testament.
in the old testament there is actually an entirely different view of
satan as a (excuse the pun) "devil's advocate" for yahweh.  see the
book of job.  getting back to the fallen angel story, there are _no_
references to "lucifer" in the bible except for a mistranslation of
"the morning star" in the king james version (isaiah 14:12), which
probably referred to a babylonian monarch much in the same was as "the
sun king" referred to louis xiv.  

all in all, i don't know where the story _came from_; it may have been
rolling around for a long time, or milton (_paradise lost_) may have
invented it.  sorry for the sketchiness of the rest of this, but i am
in a hurry and need to eat lunch!  feel free to email me about the
other stuff i found out....  (although a lot of it is just the result
of a bible concordance program called "quickverse" -- it's really
lousy, by the way -- don't buy it.) 

>Wondering,
>Eddie
>______ __   ___  ___           o  __   ___  |    Western  Kentucky    |
>  /   /__) /__  /__  /     )  /  /__) /__   |       University        |
> /   /  \ (___ (___ (__/__/  /  /  \ (___   |  EASTEEE@WKUVX1.BITNET  |

hope this helped!
vera
______
je cherche une ame, qui			of course i don't agree with  
pourra m'aider				mylene farmer's religious views;
je suis					i just think they're interesting.
d'une generation desenchantee		(vera noyes)
    - mylene farmer			noye@midway.uchicago.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21376
From: ejalbert@husc3.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: Monophysites and Mike Walker

In article <May.6.00.34.58.1993.15426@geneva.rutgers.edu>, db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes:
>>		- Mike Walker 
>> 
>>[If you are using the standard formula of fully God and fully human,
>>that I'm not sure why you object to saying that Jesus was human.  I
>>think the usual analysis would be that sin is not part of the basic
>>definition of humanity.  It's a consequence of the fall.  Jesus is
>>human, but not a fallen human.  --clh]
> 
I differ with our moderator on this.  I thought the whole idea of God coming
down to earth to live as one of us "subject to sin and death" (as one of
the consecration prayers in the Book of Common Prayer (1979) puts it) was
that Jesus was tempted, but did not succumb.  If sin is not part of the
basic definition of humanity, then Jesus "fully human" (Nicea) would not
be "subject to sin", but then the Resurrection loses some of its meaning,
because we encounter our humanity most powerfully when we sin.  To distinguish
between "human" and "fallen human" makes Jesus less like one of us at the
time we need him most.

> [These issues get mighty subtle.  When you see people saying different
> things it's often hard to tell whether they really mean seriously
> different things, or whether they are using different terminology.  I
> don't think there's any question that there is a problem with
> Nestorius, and I would agree that the saying Christ had a human form
> without a real human nature or will is heretical.  But I'd like to be
> a bit wary about the Copts, Armenians, etc.  Recent discussions
> suggest that their monophysite position may not be as far from
> orthodoxy as many had thought.  Nestorius was an extreme
> representative of one of the two major schools of thought.  More
> moderate representatives were regarded as orthodox, e.g. Theodore of
> Mopsuestia.  My impression is that the modern monophysite groups
> inherit the entire tradition, not just Nestorius' version, and that
> some of them may have a sufficient balanced position to be regarded as
> orthodox.  --clh]

First, the Monophysites inherited none of Nestorius's version -- they 
were on the opposite end of the spectrum from him.  Second, the historical
record suggests that the positions attributed to Nestorius were not as
extreme as his (successful) opponents (who wrote the conventional history)
claimed.  Mainly Nestorius opposed the term Theotokos for Mary, arguing
(I think correctly) that a human could not be called Mother of God.  I mean,
in the Athanasian Creed we talk about the Son "uncreate" -- surely even 
Arians would concede that Jesus existed long before Mary.  Anyway, Nestorius's
opponents claimed that by saying Mary was not Theotokos, that he claimed
that she only gave birth to the human nature of Jesus, which would require
two seperate and distinct natures.  The argument fails though, because
Mary simply gave birth to Jesus, who preexisted her either divinely,
if you accept "Nestorianism" as commonly defined, or both natures intertwined,
a la Chalcedon.

Second, I am not sure that "Nestorianism" is not a better alternative than
the orthodox view.  After all, I find it hard to believe that pre-Incarnation
that Jesus's human nature was in heaven; likewise post-Ascension.  I think
rather that God came to earth and took our nature upon him.  It was a seperate
nature, capable of being tempted as in Gethsemane (since I believe the divine
nature could never be tempted) but in its moments of weakness the divine nature
prevailed.

Comments on the above warmly appreciated.

Jason Albert

[There may be differences in what we mean by "subject to sin".  The
original complaint was from someone who didn't see how we could call
Jesus fully human, because he didn't sin.  I completely agree that
Jesus was subject to temptation.  I simply object to the idea that by
not succumbing, he is thereby not fully human.  I believe that you do
not have to sin in order to be human.

I again apologize for confusing Nestorianism and monophysitism.  I
agree with you, and have said elsewhere, that there's reason to think
that not everyone who is associated with heretical positions was in
fact heretical.  There are scholars who maintain that Nestorius was
not Nestorian.  I have to confess that the first time I read some of
the correspondence between Nestorius and his opponents, I thought he
got the better of them.

However, most scholars do believe that the work that eventually led to
Chalcedon was an advance, and that Nestorius was at the very least
"rash and dogmatic" (as the editor of "The Christological Controversy"
refers to him) in rejecting all approaches other than his own.  As
regular Usenet readers know, narrowness can be just as much an
impediment as being wrong.  Furthermore, he did say some things that I
think are problematical.  He responds to a rather mild letter from
Cyril with a flame worthy of Usenet.  In it he says "To attribute also
to [the Logos], in the name of [the incarnation] the characteristics
of the flesh that has been conjoined with him ... is, my brother,
either the work of a mind which truly errs in the fashion of the
Greeks or that of a mind diseased with the insane heresy of Arius and
Apollinaris and the others.  Those who are thus carried away with the
idea of this association are bound, because of it, to make the divine
Logos have a part in being fed with milk and participate to some
degree in growh and stand in need of angelic assistance because of his
fearfulness ...  These things are taken falsely when they are put off
on the deity and they become the occasion of just condemnation for us
who perpetrate the falsehood."

It's all well and good to maintain a proper distinction between
humanity and divinity.  But the whole concept of incarnation is based
on exactly the idea that the divine Logos does in fact have "to some
degree" a part in being born, growing up, and dying.  Of course it
must be understood that there's a certain indirectness in the Logos'
participation in these things.  But there must be some sort of
identification between the divine and human, or we don't have an
incarnation at all.  Nestorius seemed to think in black and white
terms, and missed the sorts of nuances one needs to deal with this
area.

You say "I find it hard to believe that pre-Incarnation that Jesus's
human nature was in heaven."  I don't think that's required by
orthodox doctrine.  It's the divine Logos that is eternal.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21377
From: ab4z@virginia.edu (Andi Beyer)
Subject: Translations

Which Version of the Bible do you consider to be the most
accurate translation?

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21378
From: salaris@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrabbits)
Subject: Satan and MTV

Somewhere, someone told me that Satan was the angel in charge of
music in heaven, and on top of that, he was the most beautiful
of the angels.  Isn't it funny that these days how MTV has become
the "bible" of music and beauty these days.  MTV controls what bands
are popular, no matter how bad they are.  In fact, it is better to
be politically correct - like U2, Madonna - than to have any
musical talent.  Then of course, you have this television station
that tells us all how to dress.  Think about it, who started the
retro-fashion craze??  MTV and Madonna.  Gag.

Anyway, just food for thought.  It is really my own wierd theory.

If Revelation was to come true today, I think MTV would the "ever
changing waters" (music and fashion world) that the beast would
arise from, and Madonna will be the whore of Babylon, riding the
beast and drinking the blood of the martyrs.

Hmmmm....great idea for a book/movie.....


--
Steven C. Salaris                We're...a lot more dangerous than 2 Live Crew
salaris@carcs1.wustl.edu         and their stupid use of foul language because
				 we have ideas.  We have a philosophy.
					      Geoff Tate -- Queensryche

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21379
From: kbanner@philae.sas.upenn.edu (Ken Banner)
Subject: Re: SATANIC TOUNGES

In article <May.5.02.53.10.1993.28880@athos.rutgers.edu> koberg@spot.Colorado.EDU (Allen Koberg) writes:

>.....................................................There is dis-
>crepancy even among charismatic organizations as to the proper use
>of tongues.  Be it revelatory with interpretation, for prayer use,
>or for signifying believers (which I doubt since any one can do it).
>Pentecostals (Assembly of God, Church of Christ), seem to espouse all
>three.  Neo-pentecostals tend to view prayer use and as a sign as the
>uses.  Speaking in tongues during a service is not usually done by
>neo-pentecostals because for the most part, they still attend Protestant
>churches.  Non-denominational churches seem to view the use as a sign
>as merely optional, but recommended.

Koberg,

	Just a couple of minor corrections here...

	1)  The Churches of Christ do not usually believe in speaking in
tongues, in fact many of them are known for being strongly opposed to
Pentecostal teaching.  You are probably thinking of Church of God in
Christ, the largest African-American Pentecostal denomination.

	2)  I'm not sure what you mean by "signifying believers"  but it
should be pointed out that the Assemblies of God does not now, nor has it
ever, held that speaking in tongues is the sign that one is a Christian. 
The doctrine that traditional Pentecostals (including the A/G) maintain is
that speaking in tongues is the sign of a second experience after becoming
a Christian in which one is "Baptized in the Holy Spirit"  That may be
what you were referring to, but I point this out because Pentecostals are
frequently labeled as believing that you have to speak in tongues in order
to be a Christian.  Such a position is only held by some groups and not the
majority of Pentecostals.   Many Pentecostals will quote the passage in
Mark 16 about "these signs following them that believe" but they generally
do not interpret this as meaning if you don't pactice the signs you aren't
"saved".

	3)  I know it's hard to summarize the beliefs of a movement that
has such diversity, but I think you've made some pretty big
generalizations here.  Do "Neo-Pentecostals" only believe in tongues as a
sign and tongues as prayer but NOT tongues as revelatory with a message? 
I've never heard of that before.  In fact I would have characterized them
as believing the same as Pentecostals except less likely to see tongues as
a sign of Spirit Baptism.  Also, while neo-Pentecostals may not be
inclined to speak in tongues in the non-Pentecostal churches they attend,
they do have their own meetings and, in many cases, a whole church will be
charismatic.

Ken Banner
Dept. of Religious Studies
University of Pennsylvania
kbanner@philae.sas.upenn.edu 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21380
From: BOCHERC@hartwick.edu (Carol A. Bocher)
Subject: Re:Major Views of the Trinity

Ann Jackson (ajackson@cs.ubc.ca) wrote on 5 May:

>In article <May 2.09.50.06.1993.11776@geneva.rutgers.edu>
>Jim Green writes:

>>Can't someone describe someone's Trinity in simple declarative
>>sentences with words that have common meaning?

>The answer to this question appears to be "no".

I would like to submit the following which helped me enormously.
If it has already been posted, I apologize.

It seems that during the Middle Ages, it was customary for pastors to 
explain the Trinity to their parishoners by analogy to water.
Water is water, but can exist in three forms--liquid, ice and vapor.
Thus it is possible for one essence to exist in three forms.

And recently, the pastor of my church drew an analogy, which I
also found useful--A woman is often percieved by others in three
ways, depending on their relationship to her--a mother, a wife and
an employee in a business.

Thus, it seems clear to me that the essence of God can subsist in
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit or, depending on one's particular
need for Him.

Carol Bocher

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21381
From: todd@nickel.laurentian.ca
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christiani

> Any one who thinks that Homosexuality and Christianity are compatible should 
> 
> ck       
> out:  
>         Romans 1:27
>         I Corinthians 6:9           
>         I Timothy 1:10
>         Jude 1:7        
>         II Peter 2:6-9
>         Gen. 19
>         Lev  18:22
> (to name a few of the verses that pertain to homosexuality)
> In Christ's Love,
> Bryan Whitsell

I was waiting for this. I think your question should be rephrased. The many
verses of the Bible which condem homosexuality (by our beliefs) have been
shoved down the throats of homosexuals for a long time by (well-meaning?)
Christians. The question is how do they interpret these verses. Any discussion
of any issue (this or any other issue) requires a proof of your case as well
as a disproof of the opposing view. We are already familiar with those verses
and many have proven to themselves that these condem homosexual behaviour. We
must now establish reasons for not believing this to be true based on the
interpretation of these scriptures given by someone who has come to grips with
them.

Todd...

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21382
From: moy@acf2.nyu.edu (moy)
Subject: Apology

I responded to a post last week and it carried somewhat of a hostile
tone for which I am apologizing for. It is not my intent to  create
contriversy or to piss people  off. To those who I offend, I'm sorry

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21383
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: "National repentance"

Concerning Christians praying for coporate forgiveness of national sins, 
Michael Covington claims the following of C.S. Lewis:

> C. S. Lewis made the same point in an essay after World War II,
> when some Christian leaders in Britain were urging "national repentance"
> for the horrors (sins???) of World War II.
> --
> :-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    *****
> :-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  *********
> :-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  *
> :-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **
<><

I was surprised when I heard this same kind of remark from a fellow grad. 
student I know, especially since he had seminary training.  I have read the 
same essay and do not find Lewis making any such claim.  Rather, Lewis is 
condemning the use of such coporate prayer efforts as platforms to make 
political jabs at opponents, feigned as confessions of guilt (ie., Lord please 
forgive us for allowing "insert political issue/idea/platform" to exist in our
country, it is wrong and we ask your forgiveness.).  I would be interested in
knowing what part of the essay you feel condemns national repentance (please
quote).

Jonathan Waugh
Graduate Research Associate, Pulmonary Medicine Div.
The Ohio State University
SAMP, Rm 431, 1583 Perry St.
Columbus, OH 43210
jwaugh@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21384
From: bfinnert@chaph.usc.edu (Brian Finnerty)
Subject: Mary's assumption

A few points about Mary's being taken into heaven at the end of her life on
earth:

One piece of evidence for Mary's assumption into heaven is the fact
that no Christian church ever claimed to be the sight where she was
buried. Some Christian churches claimed to be located at the final
resting places of Peter, Mark, and other saints, but no one ever
claimed to possess the body of Mary, the greatest of the saints. Why?
Because everyone knew that she had been taken up into heaven.

Although there is no definitive scriptural proof for the assumption of
Mary, some passages seem suggestive, like the passage in Revelation
that describes a woman giving birth to a Son and later being crowned
in the heavens. Of course, the woman in this passage has other
interpretations; she can also be taken a symbol for the Church.

The assumption of Mary makes sense because of her relationship to
Christ.  Jesus, perfect God and perfect man, fulfilled the
requirements of the law perfectly.  Under the law God gave to us, we
are to honor our mother and father, and Christ's act of taking his
mother into heaven is part of his fulfillment of that law. Also, he
took his flesh from her, so it seems appropriate that he decide not to
allow her flesh to rot in the grave.

One last point: an ex-Catholic attempted to explain Catholic doctrine
on the assumption by asserting it is connected to a belief that Mary
did not die. This is not a correct summary of what Catholics believe.
The dogma of the assumption was carefully phrased to avoid saying
whether Mary did or did not die. In fact, the consensus among Catholic
theologians seems to be that Mary in fact did die. This would make
sense: Christ died, and his Mother, who waited at the foot of the
cross, would want to share in his death.

Brian Finnerty

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21385
From: gideon@otago.ac.nz (Gideon King)
Subject: Should Christians fight? / Justifiable war

I posted this a couple of weeks ago, and it doesn't seem to have appeared  
on the newsgroup, and I haven't had a reply from the moderator. We were  
having intermittent problems with our mail at the time. Please excuse me  
if you have seen this before...

Should Christians fight?

Last week Alastair posted some questions about fighting, and whether there  
are such things as "justifiable wars". I have started looking into these  
things and have jotted down my findings as I go. I haven't answered all  
his questions yet, and I know what I have here is on a slightly different  
tack, but possibly I'll be able to get into it more deeply later, and post  
some more info soon.

Our duty to our neighbour:

Do good to all men (Gal 6:10)
Love our neighbour as ourselves (Matt 22:39)

Act the part of the good Samaritan (Luke 10) toward any who may be in  
trouble. We will therefore render every possible assistance to an injured  
man, and therefore should not be part of any organisation which causes  
people harm (even medical corps of the army etc).

Christians are by faith "citizens of the commonwealth of Israel"  
(Ephesians 2:11-12), and also recognise that "God rules in the kingdoms of  
men", and therefore we should not be taking part in any of the struggles  
of those nations which we are not part of due to our faith.

We are to be "strangers and pilgrims" amongst the nations, so we are just  
passing through, and not part of any nation or any national aspirations  
(this can also be applied to politics etc, but that's another story). We  
are not supposed to "strive" or "resist evil" (even "suffer yourselves to  
be defrauded") it is therefore incosistent for us to strive to assist in  
preserving a state which Christ will destroy when he returns to set up  
God's kingdom.

Our duty to the state.

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's and unto God  
the things which be God's" (Luke 20:25).
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power  
but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever resisteth  
the power, resisteth the ordinance of God" (Rom 13:1-2).
"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake; whether  
it be to king as supreme... for so is the will of God that with well doing  
ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men" (1 Pet 2:13-15)

These scriptures make it clear that submission to the powers that be is a  
divine command, but it is equally clear from Acts 5:19-29 that when any  
ordinance of man runs counter to God's law, we must refuse submission to  
it. The reason for this is that we are God's "bond servants" and His  
service is our life's task. An example of the type of thing is in Col  
3:22-23 where bondservants were to "work heartily as unto the Lord" - so  
also we should work as if our boss was God - i.e. "Pressed down, shaken  
together, and running over"... oops - a bit of a side track there...

In the contests between the nations, we are on God's side - a side that is  
not fighting in the battle, but is "testifying" to the truth.

When we believe in God and embrace His promises, we become "fellow  
citizens with the Saints and of the Household of God", and are no longer  
interested in associations of the world. Think of this in relation to  
unions etc as well. Paul tells us to "lay aside every weight" that we may  
run "the race that is set before us", and if we are wise, we will discard  
any association which would retard our progress - "Thou therefore endure  
hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. No man that warreth entangleth  
himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who hath  
chosen him to be a soldier" (2 Tim 2:3-4).

One of these entanglements he warns about is "be ye not unequally yoked  
together with unbelievers". One of the obvious applications of this is  
marriage with unbelievers, but it also covers things like business  
partnerships and any other position where we may form a close association  
with any person or persons not believing the truth about God (in this case  
the army). The principle comes from Deut 22:10 - remember that as well as  
them being different animals of different strengths, one was clean and one  
unclean under the law. These ideas are strongly stressed in 2 Cor 6:13-18  
- I suggest you read this. The yoking also has another aspect - that of  
servitude, and Jesus says "take my yoke upon you", so we are then yoked  
with Christ and cannot be yoked with unbelievers. We have already seen  
that we are bondservants of Christ, and Paul says "become not ye the  
bondservants of men (1 Cor 7:23 RV).

An example from the Old Testament: the question is asked in 2 Chr 19:2  
"Shouldest thou help the ungodly...?". The situation here is a good  
example of what happens when you are yoked together with unbelievers.  
Jehoshaphat was lucky to escape with his life. Here are the facts:
1. He had made an affinity with Ahab, who had "sold himself to work  
wickedness before the Lord" (1 Kings 21:25).
2. When asked by Ahab to form a military alliance, he had agreed and said  
"I am as thou art, my people as thy people" (1 Kings 22:4) - an unequal  
yoking.
3. He sttod firm in refusing the advice of the false prophets and insisted  
on hearing the prophet of the Lord (trying to do the right thing), he  
found that he was yoked and therefore couldn't break away from the evil  
association he had made.

God says to us "Come out from among them and be ye separate, and touch not  
the unclean thing, and I will receive you and ye shall be my sons and  
daughters" (2 Cor 6:17).

This is more or less what I have found out so far - I'm still looking into  
it, as I don't think I've answered all the questions raised by Alastair  
yet. Heres a summary and a few things to think about:

The Christian in under command. Obedience to this command is an essential  
factor in his relationship with Christ (John 15:10,14).

Total dedication to this course of action is required (Romans 12:1-2).

Disobedience compromises the close relationship between Christ and his  
followers (1 Pet 2:7-8).

We are to be separated to God (Rom 6:4). This involves a master-servant  
relationship (Rom 6:12,16).

No man can serve two masters (Matt 6:24,13,14).

All that is in the 'Kosmos' is lust and pride - quite opposed to Gos (1  
John 2:16). Christs kingdom is not of this world (i.e. not worldly in  
nature) - if it was, his servants would fight to deliver him. If Christ is  
our master and he was not delivered by his servants because his kingdom  
was not of this world, then his servants cannot possibly fight for another  
master.

Strangers and pilgrims have no rights, and we cannot swear allegiance to  
anyone but God.

The servant of the Lord must not war but be gentle to all (2 Tim 2:24) -  
this does not just apply to war, but also to avoiding strife throughout  
our lives. There is a war to be waged, not with man's weapons (2 Cor  
10:3-4), but with God's armour (Eph6:13-20).

I'll probably post some more when I've had time to look into things a bit  
further.

--
Gideon King                         | Phone +64-3-479 8347
University of Otago                 | Fax   +64-3-479 8529
Department of Computer Science      | e-mail gideon@farli.otago.ac.nz
P.O. Box 56                         |
Dunedin                             | NeXT mail preferred!
New Zealand                         |                         

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21386
From: simon@giaeb.cc.monash.edu.au
Subject: St. Maria Goretti

Heres the life of St. MAria Goretti, posted with kind permission of
the editor of the Australian Catholic Magazine "Morning Star".

Hope you like it.

    Put up with anything to prevent sin St. Maria Goretti



    Maria was born on October 16th 1890 to Luigi and Assunta Goretti,
    the  eldest  daughter  in the family of seven. She was a cheerful
    girl, always imitating her parents.  She had but one disire,  but
    one wish: to receive our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

    The date was finally set for little Maria to receive our Lord  on
    the feast of Corpus Christi. For Maria, time seemed like an eter-
    nity as she  slowly  neared  the  great  day.   When  it  finally
    arrived, Fr. Jerome( the priest who was to celebrate the Mass and
    give the children their First Holy Communion) delivered a  sermon
    on	the  immense love of Jesus Christ for them and the great love
    we should have in return for Him. He then warmly  urged  them  to
    die rather than commit a mortal sin.

    Maria humbly approached the Altar of God and  received  the  Holy
    Eucharist.	Her  only  sadness  was  the  thought of her father's
    absence, who died some time beforehand. As for the	rest  of  the
    day,  Maria remained under the spell of the divine visit; that is
    until

				   -4-







    her thoughts changed to when she could go next to Holy Communion.
    Thus ended the happiest day of Maria's life.

    Over the next twelve months, Maria had changed  from  a  giggling
    little girl into a quiet young lady with responsibilities. As her
    mother went out into the fields in place of  her  husband,	Maria
    took  on the ironing, cooking, washing and other motherly duties.
    She was doing this not only for her own family, but also for  the
    Serenellis, a father and son who lived with the Goretti's, owning
    a share in the farm. Although Maria was poorer than all the other
    children, she by far surpassed them in virtue. In all thi ngs she
    did the Holy Will of God.

    During the month of June,  Alessandro  Serenelli(the  son)	twice
    made advances upon Maria when he chanced to be alone with her. On
    both occasions Maria managed to  struggle  free  of  Alessandro's
    strong  grip, but on the second, he threatened to kill her if she
    even uttered a word to her mother. From this day on, Maria	lived
    in terror, fearing lest Alessandro attack again.


    On July 5th 1902, Alessandro left work in the fields  to  "get  a
    handkerchief,"  as	he  claimed. He went to the storeroom beneath
    the house where Maria, who was outside on the  landing  with  the
    baby,  could  hear him fumbling about in with tools. She wondered
    what he was doing. It was later learned that he was sharpening  a
    91/2"  blade. He went to the house and called for Maria. She told
    him she wouldn't go to him unless she knew why she was needed. He
    stormed out to the landing and dragged her up to her room. Mar ia
    instantly realized what he was up to. "No, No, No! Do  not	touch
    me!  It  is a sin, you will go to Hell!" At this point Alessandro
    held the knife over Maria's chest, who was now on the floor.

    "Will you or will you not?" Maria gathered all her energy.	"No I
    will  not,	Alessandro,  no!"   She had chosen her martyrdom over
    sin, God over Satan.  Overcome with rage, Alessandro plunged  the
    knife  into   Maria's  breast fourteen times.  Finally he came to
    his senses and thought Maria was dead.  Frantically he threw  the
    knife behind a closet and locked himself in his room.  The crying
    of the baby Teresa	on  the  landing  brought  the	attention  to
    Assunta  and the father of Alessandro. As the baby was unattended
    and was in danger of falling off, they ran to the house  to  find
    Maria,  who,  covered in blood, was dragging herself to the door.
    When asked what happened she said Alessandro  stabbed  her.   "He
    wanted to make me do wrong and I would not."

    The ambulance arrived, then the police who took Alessandro	away.
    As	the  ambulance	carried  Maria to the hospital, a large crowd
    followed on foot.  The doctors at the  hospital held no hope  for
    poor  little Maria.  The same Fr. Jerome who gave Maria her First
    Communion

				   -5-







    came to administer the last rites and to give her Holy  Viaticum.
    He asked Maria if she would forgive her murderer.  "Yes.  For the
    love of Jesus I forgive him.  I wish for him to one day  join  me
    in	Paradise.   May  God forgive him, for I alread y have." Maria
    died at about three o'clock.

    Alessandro was tried  and  found  guilty  of  Maria's  death  but
    because  of  his  age  he  was  sentenced to only thirty years in
    prison.  After eight  years of being a violent prisoner and show-
    ing  no regret for his crime, he saw in a dream, in the  midst of
    a field of flowers, Maria holding out a bunch of white lilies  to
    him.  Soon later he wrote to the local bishop, begging God's par-
    don for the grave sin he had committed.  He later gave  testimony
    in	Maria's  beatification in 1947.  Less than three years later,
    on Ju ne 24th 1950, Maria was canonised.  Assunta Goretti was the
    first mother ever to be present at her daughter's canonisation.

    May St. Maria Goretti help	us  to	be  pure  and  grant  us  the
    strength to die rather than commit a mortal sin.

    Saint Maria Goretti, pray for us.


    by Brendan Arthur

-- 
Internet: simon@giaeb.cc.monash.edu.au  
Viva Cristo Rey !! Long Live Christ the King.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21387
From: erh0362@tesla.njit.edu
Subject: Mormon beliefs about bastards


    Could anyone enlighten me on how the Mormon church views 
children born out of wedlock?  In particular I'm interested to know if any 
stigma is attached to the children as opposed to the parents.  I'm especially 
keen to learn if there is or is not any prohibition in the Mormon faith on 
bastards entering heaven or having their names entered in the big genealogical 
book the Mormons keep in Salt Lake City.  If this is an issue on which the 
"official" position has changed over time, I'm interested in learning both old 
and new beliefs.  E-mail or posting is fine.  All information or pointers are 
appreciated.

Elliotte Rusty Harold		Department of Mathematics
elharo@shiva.njit.edu		New Jersey Institute of Technology
erh0362@tesla.njit.edu		Newark, NJ 07102

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21388
From: mpaul@unl.edu (marxhausen paul)
Subject: Re: "National repentance"

mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:

>I heard on the radio today about a Christian student conference where
>Christians were called to "repent" of America's "national" sins, such
>as sexual promiscuity.

>How can I repent of _someone else's_ sin?   I can't.

>And when I claim to "repent" of someone else's sin, am I not in fact
>_judging_ him?  Jesus equipped us to judge activities but warned us
>not to judge people. "Judge not that ye be not judged."

Strictly speaking, you're right - we can't repent _for_ somebody else,
for what they've done.  I guess I don't think it's out of line to talk
about a generalized repentence for our contribution to or participation
in "The sins of society" , or for our tacit approval (by our silence) of
sinful attitudes or practices....it may be that we're also just plain
begging for mercy, hoping God will withhold his hand of judgement on
our whole country for the sake of a few, much as Abraham sought to do
for the sake of Lot.  (Hmmm, the results there were pretty cautionary...)

A few times lately when I've observed some either out-and-out sinful 
activity, or just some self-destructive activity, I've gotten a strong
impression that many folks really don't know any better.  Christ's pity
on the crowds as being "like sheep without a shepherd" rings true to me.
If these folks don't have a clue, do I bear _any_ responsibility for my
not having communicated a better way?  Worse still; have I expressed 
judgement and disgust at their doings, and thus alienated them from any 
positive relationship whereby I might pass along anything positive?  
I _know_ I've got something to repent about on that score.

Anyway, it's a real interesting question.  
--
paul marxhausen .... ....... ............. ............ ............ .......... 
 .. . .  . . . university of nebraska - lincoln .  . . .. . .  .. . . . . . . .
 .     .    .  .   .     .   .  .    .   .  .   .    .   .  grace .   .    .  . 
   .         .       .      .        .        .      .        .   happens .     

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21389
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

In article <May.7.01.09.44.1993.14556@athos.rutgers.edu> muirm@argon.gas.organpipe.uug.arizona.edu (maxwell c muir) writes:

>In all candor, I would be happy to be proven wrong [about believing  
>in atheism].  Problem is, I will have to be _proven_ wrong.

In mentioning some nonsense about psychology :) and atheism, Bob Muir asks
the following question.   

>	Do I sound "broken" to you?

I answer in the affirmative.  Now this answer might sound a little
intellectually dishonest to Bob, but I think I have been accused before
of that heinous crime and am man enough to take it.  !-)  What thinking
person has not at one time or other been accused of it?   Is it
politically correct for Christians to be the only besieged group
permitted the luxury of arrogance?   

Now I have a question for Bob.  Why in the world would any self-respecting
atheist want to subscribe to a Christian news group?  I have a 
difficult enough time keeping up with it, and I think I know something
about the subject.     

Bob reminds me of my roommate.  In order to disbelieve atheism, he says 
he will need to be proven wrong about it.  Well, I don't even waste 
my time trying.  I tell him that he'll just have to take my word for it. 
In response, he tells me he will say an "atheist's prayer" for me. 

Good luck, Bob.  And, best regards.
  
-- 
Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock 
Catechist
gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21390
From: mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker)
Subject: Re: Satan kicked out of heaven: Biblical?

easteee@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:

>Hello all,
>     I have a question about Satan.  I was taught a long time ago
>that Satan was really an angel of God and was kicked out of heaven
>because he challenged God's authority.  The problem is, I cannot
>find this in the Bible.  Is it in the Bible?  If not, where did it
>originate?

>Wondering,
>Eddie

	The quick answer:  Revelation 12:7-9

	"And there was war in heaven.  Michael and his angels fought against
	the dragon and his angels who fought back.  But he [the dragon] was
	not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven.  The great
	dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent, called the devil and
	Satan, who leads the whole world astray.  He was hurled down to the
	earth, and his angels with him."

	The earlier part of chapter 12 deals (very symbolically) with why
	Satan rose up in battle against Michael and the good angels in the
	first place.

	Hope this clears it up.  
						- Mike Walker

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21391
From: mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker)
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin


	

	Just a quick reminder:  

	The way you are interpreting those passages is your opinion.  You make
	it sound as if your opinion is somehow an undisputable fact.

	Many would interpret the passages you cite very differently.

	(Many have--several of the great theologians you mentioned do that 
	very thing.  These were people who had much more expertise in the
	interpretation of scripture than you or me or probably anyone reading
	this newsgroup.  To say that all of them are wrong and you are right
	is, in my opinion, (notice those last three words) coming pretty darn
	close to the sin of pride.  

	In the future I would suggest you not be so absolutist in your 
	interpretations, especially when contradicting highly respected
	doctors of Christianity.

					- Mike Walker
					  mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
					  (Univ. of Illinois)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21392
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In <May.7.01.08.16.1993.14381@athos.rutgers.edu> whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell) writes:

>Any one who thinks that Homosexuality and Christianity are compatible should check  
>out:
>	Romans 1:27
>	I Corinthians 6:9
>	I Timothy 1:10
>	Jude 1:7
>	II Peter 2:6-9
>	Gen. 19
>	Lev  18:22
>(to name a few of the verses that pertain to homosexuality)

Homosexual Christians have indeed "checked out" these verses.  Some of
them are used against us only through incredibly perverse interpretations.
Others simply do not address the issues.

You would seem to be more in need of a careful and Spirit-led course
in exegesis than most of the gay Christians I know.  I suggest that
you stop "proof-texting" about things you know nothing about.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		I say "You are gods, sons of the
mls@panix.com			Most High, all of you; nevertheless
    - or -			you shall die like men, and fall
mls@ulysses.att..com		like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21393
From: daveshao@leland.stanford.edu (David Shao)
Subject: Divorce

I deleted much of the following article in order to discuss the 
specific issue of whether it is acceptable to divorce.  

In article <May.7.01.10.03.1993.14583@athos.rutgers.edu> crs@carson.u.washington.edu (Cliff Slaughterbeck) writes:
>
>Along the way, she was married, happily, to a wonderful and
>supportive husband and gave birth to two sons.  Still, everything was not
>perfect for Jane, since she could never open up the deepest part of her
>soul to her husband.  She always found that she could be much closer to
>her women friends than to her husband, as good and loing as a husband as
>he might be.  She struggled very much with this until at the age of 38, she
>decided that she was a lesbian.  When she came home to announce this 
>understanding of herself, her husband told her that he had come to the same
>understanding several years before and was waiting for her to come to that
>realization in her own time.  Her children ages 9 and 11 at the time were
>also extremely supportive of her.  As the youngest put it, "that just 
>means that you love people very much."  Jane and her husband agreed to
>divorce but remain friends and still consider each other as part of the
>extended family to this day.

>One of the interesting things that Jane said in this whole discussion was
>"Homosexuality is not about what goes on in the bedroom."  She found that
>she was much more able to have a deep, committed relationship with a woman
>than a man.  Sex, in her mind, is only a part of the whole relationship.
>The key thing is how one interconnects with other people.  She made a
>specific point to say that it was not that she had never met a good man,
>since she was married to a wonderful man for a dozen years.  (Take a few
>seconds and honestly ponder that thought and it's implications!!!)

I have thought about the implications, and it is scary.  

We have a whole generation of families broken up because some men have 
decided that is is okay to leave their wives and children for the
thrill of a younger, more attractive woman.  If we accept that it is
legitimate for Jane to have divorced, how can we not accept anyone's
decision to divorce because he has found someone with whom he can
have a more "deep, committed relationship."

Marriage is not a state of being, it is a mutual journey in life.
Love is not a passive feeling, it must be actively willed.

Is it acceptable for an older executive to dump his wife of many 
years who stayed home to care for the children because he
can't be happy sexually unless he is with a beautiful
young blonde?  The real solution for both in the couple to
make a renewed effort.  

Hold fast to the faith.  Has not the Lord repeatedly compared His
relation to His people as a faithful and enduring husband?  We
learn something very deep and very mystical when we marry and
remain faithful through times of trial.

My spouse has a brain tumor that has left her partially paralyzed.
If it were to resume growing (it is in remission, thanks be to God!)
then perhaps the time would come when we could not have sexual
relations.  That's life...the Lord would certainly not give me
permission to seek someone else to satisfy my "needs."  

The idea that it is alright to divorce if a couple "grows apart"
seems to me to lead to such a monstrous destruction of the meaning
of marriage that I feel we must make every effort to avoid any hint
of compromise.  We have become so petty and small-minded that
some husbands are threatening to divorce their wives unless the
wives lose weight!

I praise the Lord for guiding me to marry my wife.  She married me
anyway despite the possibility that I could have a terrible illness.
And it turned out that she was the one with the brain tumor, but
had I known I wouldn't have cared either.  And maybe I'll be in
a car accident tomorrow and become paralyzed from the neck down.
A married couple should deal with these situations with the help
of the Lord, not divorce and run away from them.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21394
From: llcoolj@athena.mit.edu (Alfred Eaton)
Subject: Re: Mormon temples

I was wondering if anyone knew any changes to the temple
ceremony within the last fifty years....
Also, why do you think they were made (revelation, 
assimilation to mainstream Christianity, etc.)?
I know that the God Makers was published quite a while
ago.  Could rituals have been changed since then?

I am also very interested in the influence of Freemasonry
on early Mormonism, especially in the Smith family and 
in the Nauvoo settlement.  Info on any new studies would 
be appreciated.

Thanks, 

Freddie Eaton
llcoolj@athena.mit.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21395
From: muirm@argon.gas.organpipe.uug.arizona.edu (maxwell c muir)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

Can someone cite Biblical references to homosexuality being immoral, other
than Leviticus? So far, when I ask, around here, I get the verses from
Leviticus spouted at me, but the whole rest of that book tends to be
ignored by Christians (haven't seen any stonings in a _long_ time :-).

Later,
Max (Bob) Muir

[The list was posted not long ago, as I recall, aside from Lev, commonly
cited passages are:

the story of Sodom.  Note however that this was a homosexual rape, and
there's no disagreement that that is wrong.  I take an intermediate
position on this: note that Sodom is referred to elsewhere in the
Bible for its sinfulness.  It doesn't seem to have been known
specifically for homosexuality.  Rather, I think it was considered a
cesspool of all sins. However from what we know of Jewish attitudes,
homosexuality would have contributed to the horror of the action
described.  (It almost seems to have been contrived to combine about
as many forms of evil in one act as possible: homosexual rape of
guests, who were actually angels.)  But this story is not specifically
about homosexuality.

In the NT, the clear references are all from Paul's letters.  In Rom
1, there is a passage that presupposes that homosexuality is an evil.
Note that the passage isn't about homosexuality -- it's about
idolatry.  Homosexuality is visited on people as a punishment, or at
least result, of idolatry.  There are a number of arguments over this
passage.  It does not use the word "homosexuality", and it is referring
to people who are by nature heterosexual practicing homosexuality.
So it's not what I'd call an explicit teaching against all homosexuality.
But it does seem to support what would be a natural assumption anyway,
that Paul shares the general negative Jewish attitude towards 
homosexuality.

The other passages occur in lists of sins, in I Cor 6:9, and I Tim
1:10.  Unfortunately it's not entirely clear what the words used here
mean.  There have been suggestions that one has a broader meaning,
such as "wanton", and that another may be specifically "male
prostitute".  Again, we don't have here a precise teaching about
homosexuality, but it is at least weak supportive evidence that Paul
shared the OT's negative judgement on homosexuality.

Jude 1:7 is sometimes cited, however it's probably not relevant.  The
context in Jude involves angels.  Since those who were almost raped in
Sodom were angels, it seems likely that "strange flesh" refers to
intercourse with angels.

As you can see, the NT evidence is such that people's conclusion is
determined by their approach to the Bible.  Conservatives note that
the passages from Paul's letters imply that he accepted the OT
prohibition.  This is enough for them to regard it as having NT
endorsement.  Liberals note that there's no specific teaching, and no
clear definition of what is being prohibited or why (is the concern in
Rom 1 the connection of homosexuality to pagan worship?  what exactly
do the words in the lists of sins mean?).  Thus some believe it is
legitimate to regard this as a attitude Paul took with him from his
background and not a specific teaching of the Gospel.

This is an explosive topic, which tends to result in long
dissertations on the exact meaning of various Greek words.  But it's
clear to me that that's mostly irrelevant.  What it really comes down
to is whether people are looking to the Bible for law or whether they
believe that such as approach is inconsistent with the Gospel.  This
appears to depend upon one's reaction to the message of the Bible as a
whole, as well as one's perception of the needs of the church today.
This is a difference of approach at least as serious as the difference
between Protestant and Catholic in the 16th Cent, and one where both
sides believe that the Bible is so obviously on their side that they
keep thinking all they have to do is quote a few more passages and the
other side will finally come to their senses.  That makes things
very frustrating for a moderator, who realizes that such an optimistic
outcome is not very likely...

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21396
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: God, morality, and massacres

A listmember (D Andrew Killie, I think) wrote, in response to the
suggestion that genocide may sometimes be the will of God:

 > Any God who works that way is indescribably evil,
 > and unworthy of my worship or faith.

Nobuya "Higgy" Higashiyama replied (as, in substance, did others):

 > Where is your source of moral standards by which you judge God's
 > behavior?

It is often argued that we have no standing by which to judge God's
actions.  Who is the clay to talk back to the potter? But we find a
contrary view in Scripture. When God proposes to destroy the city of
Sodom (Genesis 18), Abraham says:

 + Suppose that there are some good men in the city.
 + Will you destroy the righteous along with the wicked?
 + Far be it from you, Lord, to do such a thing!
 + Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

I am told that the Hebrew is actually a bit stronger than this, and
can perhaps be better rendered (dynamic equivalence) as

 + Shame on you, Lord, if you do such a thing!

There are those who say that the definition of "good" is "whatever
God happens to want." But if that is so, then the statement that God
is good has no meaning.  It simply says that God does what He wants.
That being the case, no one can either love or obey God because He
is good. The only motive left for obeying Him is that He is
powerful. Just as it makes sense to obey a dictator, even when he
tells you to round up all Jews and exterminate them, because if you
defy him you might end up in the gas chamber yourself, so it makes
sense to obey God, because He has the power to punish you if you
don't. This ethical theory I take to be in radical contradiction to
Genesis 18 and to Christianity in general.

Any theory that makes our moral judgements worthless makes any
further discussion of morality (or of the goodness of God)
meaningless. However, it does not follow that our moral judgements
are always infallible in particular cases, still less our judgements
in particular cases about the course of action most likely to
achieve a good result.

When I read the Scriptural accounts of the actions of God in
history, those actions often seem to me very different from what I
might expect of a God who loves us and desires what is best for us.
Moreover, leaving the Scriptures aside, and considering the natural
world, I find that Nature is often very different from what I might
expect if it were the work of a benevolent deity.  (Origen said:
"Those who believe that the Author of Nature is also the Author of
the Scriptures must expect to find in the Scriptures the same sort
of difficulties that they find in Nature.")

Now, that some such difficulties should exist is not in itself an
argument against the existence, power, wisdom, and goodness of God.
On the contrary, their ABSENCE would be such an argument. Suppose
that I am watching Bobby Fisher play chess, and suppose that every
time he makes a move, I find myself nodding and saying: "Good move!
Just what I was expecting him to do.  Same move I would have made if
I were playing." That would be a sign that Fisher is no better a
chess player than myself. Given that he is better, I expect that at
least some of his moves will have me thinking, "Now, what do suppose
induced him to do that?" or even, "Boy, that was a real slip -- he's
just thrown the game away!" Similarly, if God understands the
workings of the universe better than I do, it is to be expected that
sometimes it will look to me as if He has made a mistake.

One difference between Fisher at the chessboard and God at the
controls of the universe is that I can see the end of the chess
game. If Fisher wins, I revise my earlier inference that it was
carelessness that made him lose his queen 23 moves earlier.
However, if he loses, and particularly if I can see that there was a
time when he had an opportunity for a checkmate in two moves and did
not take it, then I know that he is not as good a player as I had
thought.

With God, on the other hand, I shall not in this life see the total
result of some of His actions. Therefore, my grounds for judging
that I have seen a bad move on His part must always be far shakier
than my grounds for making a similar judgement about Fisher.

     *****     *****     *****     *****     *****

In the book of Genesis, we read that Joseph's ten older brothers,
who (with good reason) found  him insufferable, conspired to sell
him into slavery in Egypt. There he eventually became Viceroy, and
when there was a famine in Canaan, he was able to provide for his
family. When his brothers nervously apologized, he told them: "Do
not worry. You meant to do me evil, but God turned it into good."

I once heard a rabbi speak on this text. He said:

        The history of the Jews is largely a history of events
   that look like catastrophes that threaten the continued
   survival of the religion, or the people, or both. But,
   amazingly, those events turn out to be the saving of the Jews
   and of Judaism.
        The sale of Joseph by his brothers looked like the breakup
   of the family.  But in fact, it ended with a reconciliation of
   the quarrel between them. The famine that drove the family out
   of Canaan looked like a misfortune for them.  But in fact, if
   they had stayed in Canaan, they would almost certainly have
   intermarried with the Canaanites and been assimilated into
   their culture.  Their oppression by the Egyptians a few
   generations after their arrival in Egypt again looked like a
   disaster. But God used it to bring them out of Egypt, and into
   the Promised Land.
        Here the people built a Temple, and regularly offered
   sacrifices. But the Babylonians captured Jerusalem and Judea,
   destroyed Temple and city and countryside, and deported most of
   the people to Babylon. You might have thought that that would
   be the end of the people and the religion. But it was not.
   Living in Canaan, the people had been under constant danger of
   assimilation.  Again and again, they had turned from the
   worship of the LORD to the worship of the Canaanite fertility
   cults, with their ritual prostitution and ritual human
   sacrifice. The Babylonian captivity put a stop to that. Never
   again did the Jews show any interest in polytheism or idolatry.
   Neither the worship of the Canaanites mor that of the
   Babylonians ever again had a foothold among them.
        Nor is that all. Judaism had been in danger of becoming
   simply a system of sacrifices and Temple observances. The only
   prescribed acts of worship consisted of coming to Jerusalem
   every so often and offering a sacrifice. During the Captivity,
   with the Temple gone, the Jews invented the synagogue, a place
   of meeting for reading and study and discussion of the
   Scriptures. They came to realize clearly, what they were in
   danger of forgetting while they continued to live in Judea,
   that God is not simply a local or tribal deity, not just the
   controller of the land of Canaan, or the patron of the Jewish
   people, but the Creator of the world, and the Ruler and Judge
   of all humans everywhere.
        Time passed, and the Babylonian Empire was replaced by
   that of the Persians, and then that of the Greeks, or rather
   the Macedonians. The ruler, Antiochus Epiphanes, was determined
   to stamp out Judaism, and to this end he made the reading and
   the study of the Torah punishable by death. Again, one might
   think that this would be the end of Judaism. But it was not.
   The people met for worship, and instead of reading the Torah
   portion appointed for the day, they would read some passage
   from the prophets that had a similar theme, and then discuss
   that.  Before this time, the Torah, the so-called Five Books of
   Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy)
   were the only books read and studied in the synagogue.  If it
   had not been for Antiochus, the books of the prophets would
   probably have been forgotten altogether. His hatred for Judaism
   saved them.

        [Other examples here omitted for brevity's sake.]

        Some of you may remember that Julie Andrews first became
   famous as Eliza Doolittle in the stage production of MY FAIR
   LADY. When Warner Brothers undertook to make a movie of it,
   everyone expected that Julie, who had been so magnificent on
   stage, would play the same role in the movie. Instead, the
   studio decided to go with an established screen star, and cast
   Audrey Hepburn.  Julie Andrews was naturally crushed. But she
   later realized that if she had played the screen role, she
   would have been type-cast for life as an Elize Doolittle type.
   It would have been a disaster for her. As it was, Walt Disney
   offered her the role of Mary Poppins, and she won an Oscar for
   it.  At the presentation, she stood there, smiling, and looking
   at Walt Disney, she said, "And now, my special thanks to the
   man who made all this possible -- JACK WARNER!" It was the most
   memorable line of the evening.
        In a similar spirit, we Jews might thank the men who in
   the providence of God have preserved Judaism, and kept it alive
   to this day, beginning with Joseph's brothers, and continuing
   with two Pharaohs, with Nebuchadnezzar, with Antiochus
   Epiphanes....

After the formal meeting had broken up, one woman came up to him
privately and said, "You were talking about the Holocaust, weren't
you?" He answered, "If that is an example that came to your mind,
then you are right, I was talking about it to you. But I would not
talk about it to everyone, for not everyone can bear it." I assume
that he meant that, without the Holocaust, there would have been no
state of Israel.

Someone hearing the rabbi's lecture might leap to the conclusion
that God is dependent on the wickedness of men to accomplish His
purposes -- or at least that the rabbi thought so. He might then  go
on to suppose that the wickedness is in fact God's doing -- that He
stirred up Joseph's brothers to a murderous hate against him, and
that when the Israelites were in Egypt, God hardened Pharaoh's
heart, so that he oppressed the people, and would not let them go.
And this raises questions about how an action can be considered
wicked and at the same time be considered something that God has
brought about.

I suggest another way of looking at it. Consider a sculptor who has
a log of wood from which he proposes to carve a statue. But the log,
instead of having a smooth even grain throughout, has a large knot
that spoils the appearance of the surface. The sculptor considers
the wood for a while, and then carves a statue that features the
knot, that makes that particular interruption in the grain and color
of the wood correspond to some feature of the statue, so that
observers will say: "How fortunate the sculptor was in finding a
piece of wood with a knot like that in just the right place. Its
presence is the crowning touch, the thing that makes the statue a
great work of art." In reality, the knot, far from being what the sculptor was
looking for, was a challenge to his skill. If the wood had not
contained that flaw, he would still have made a great work of art,
but a different one. So, if Joseph's brothers had not sold him, God
would still have brought about His purposes for the Jewish people,
but He would have done so in another manner. If Judas had not
betrayed Jesus, if Caiaphas and his fellow leaders had not rejected
Jesus, but had rather acknowledged Him as the Annointed of God, if
Pilate had followed his conscience rather than his fears and had set
Jesus free, it might appear that there would have been no
Crucifixion, and therefore no Redemption, and therefore no
Salvation. Not so. God did not need Judas' sin to redeem us. If
Judas had done right, then God in Christ would still have reconciled
the world to Himself.  We do not know how, just as we do not know
how Michelangelo would have painted the Sistine Chapel if its
interior had instead been shaped like Grand Central Station, and
just as we do not know how Bobby Fisher would have won his fourth
game agianst Spassky if Spassky had refused the exchange of bishops
and had attacked Fisher's knight instead (don't bother to look up
the game in question--I am making up this example, but the point is
none the less valid).

Thus, we may say both (1) that God used, say, the cowardice of
Pilate to accomplish His purposes, and (2) that the said cowardice
was not God's doing, and that Pilate would not have thwarted God's
plans by behaving justly and courageously.

What, then, are we to make of the place where God says to Moses, "I
will harden Pharaoh's heart, so that he will not let the people go"?
Some Christians have taken this to mean that Pharaoh was a puppet
with God pulling the strings, and that his stubbornness and cruelty
were not his own work, but the work of God in him. I suppose rather
that what God was telling Moses was something like this: "If you see
that Pharaoh is not willing to let the people go, do not be
discouraged, or suppose that the situation is out of my control. My
purposes will not be thwarted. If Pharaoh chooses to hear you and
let the people go, well and good. If he does not, I will fit his
resistance into my plans, and fit it so perfectly that future
historians and theologians will suppose that I would have been
thrown for a loss if Pharaoh had obeyed me."

To return to the question that started this all off. Is it possible
that the Serbs, in slaughtering the Moslems of Bosnia, are
instruments of God's will?
     First point. What they are doing is wrong, just as what
Joseph's brothers did was wrong, just as what Judas did was wrong.
They intend it for evil. If God somehow brings good out of it, that
does not make them any less subject to just condemnation and
punishment.
     Second point. Of course, God will bring good out of it. But not
the same good that He would have brought if the Serbians had
refrained from the sins of robbery and rape and murder. Nor does the
good He purposes excuse us from the duty of doing what is right.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21397
From: tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard)
Subject: Re: Question from an agnostic

Hi Damon,  No matter what system or explanation of creation you wish
to accept, you always have to start with one of two premises, creation
from nothing, or creation from something.  There are no other
alternatives.  And if we accept one or the other of those two
premises, then again there are two alternatives, either creation was
random, or was according to some plan.
   If it was random, I am unable to accept that the complex nature of
our world with interrelated interdependent organisms and creatures
could exist as they do.  Therefore I am left with creation under the
control of an intelligence capable of devising such a scheme.  I call
that intelligence God.
   I also prefer the "Creatio ex nihilo" rather than from chaos, as it
is cleaner.
   There is obviously no way to prove either or neither.  We are and
we must have come from somewhere.  Choose whatever explanation you
feel most comfortable with, Damon.  You are the one who has to live
with your choice.
Shalom,                                  Len Howard

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21398
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Subject: Re: Christianity and repeated lives

In article <May.7.01.09.36.1993.14545@athos.rutgers.edu> danc@procom.com (Daniel Cossack) writes:
>JEK@cu.nih.gov writes:
>>The Apostle Paul (Romans 9:11) points out that God chose Jacob
>>rather than Esau... If we admit the possibility that they had lived previous
>>lives, and that (in accordance with the Asiatic idea of "karma")
>
>And following Romans to 9:13, "As it is written, Jacob have I loved,
>but Esau have I hated."  How could God have loved and hated (in the
>past tense) those that are not yet born, neither having done good
>or evil?

Woah...The context is about God's calling out a special people (the Jews) to
carry the "promise."  To read the meaning as literal people is to miss Paul's
entire point.  I'd be glad to send anyone more detailed explanations of this
passage if interested.

====================================          
Ted Kalivoda (tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu)
University of Georgia, Athens
Institute of Higher Ed. 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21399
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Deuterocanonicals, esp. Sirach

Dave Davis writes:

> Let my state my point as provocatively as possible. :-)
 
> After going through several study Bibles, I'm leaning heavily towards >the 
> assertion that _Sirach_ ('The Wisdom of Ben Sira' or 'Ecclesiasticus')
> is directly referenced by _James_ - in fact, I think 
> Sirach is more directly referenced by James than _Job_ or _Ruth_ is 
> referenced in any NT verse I've seen.

Good point.  The New Testament does not quote Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther,
Ruth, Job, Ecclesiastes, or Song of Songs, just as it does not quote
from the Deuterocanon.  But if the non-quotation of the former does not
disqualify them, neither does the non-quotation of the later.  And the
Wisodm of Solomon was quite clearly an influence on St. Paul, especially
in the letter to the Romans (cf especially Romans 1.18-32 and Wisdom
13-14).

[stuff deleted]

>I think everyone would agree that principles that cannot be 
>consistently applied are not very useful as principles. 
>So, if we are to exclude them (not accord them the authority of
> Scripture) we would appear to require other reasons. What might these 
> reasons be? Tradition (always a fav. with Episcop.) ? Tradition is >equivocal
> on this subject. Sirach, I believe, is in Vaticanus & Sinaiticus
> I don't know if it is listed in the Muratorian canon 
> (the oldest list I know of).  Sirach (and the others) are discussed 
> by the Fathers, as Scripture, but not unanimously.
 
True.  Not all accepted them as Scripture, though niether were all the
books of the New Testament so accepted, which puts to the lie the whole
argument of the books being excluded because they were debated and not
universally accepted.  Hebrews, the Apocalypse, 2 Peter, Esther, and
others were debated at various times, but eventually retained.  As for
the Codexes you mention, both Vaticanus and Sinaitcus include the
Deuterocanon, bothe of the New and Old Testaments, and Vaticanus (I
think) inlcudes 1 Clement, the Shepard of Hermas, and the Epistle of
Baranabas.  As for the Muratorian Canon, it deals with the New Testament
only, though it is very valuable in its witness to those books.

> My interim conclusion is that Protestant exclusion of 
> (at least one of) these writings is one of those 'traditions
> of men' one hears of so often. They were excluded during the
> Reformation, and that appears to be the reason many people
> continue to exclude them.

>Any takers?  I can be reasonable. (If all else fails :-)
>Show me where I'm wrong.

	You're not wrong!  It is a `tradition of men' to exlcude them, as I
will explain below.

"That nothing be read in the Church under the nmae of Divine Scripture,
except the canonical Scriptures, and the canoncial Scriptures are -
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth,
Four books of Kingdoms [being 1&2 Samuel and 1&2 Kings], Two books of
Paralpomenon [being 1&2 Chronicles], Job, the Psalter of David, the Five
books of Solomon [being Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of
Solomon, and [misatributed to him] the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach],
The books of the Twelve (Minor) Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah [being
Jeremiah, the Lamentations, Baruch, and the Letter, all of which were
formerly counted as one], Ezekiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Two
books of Ezra [being Ezra and Nehemiah], Two books of Maccabees.  And of
the New Testament: Four books of the Gospel, One book of the Acts of the
Apostles, Thirteen letters of Paul the Apostle, One Letter of the same
to the Hebrews, two of Peter the Apostle, Three of John, One of the
Apostle Jude, One of the Apostle James, One book of the Apocalypse of
John."
	-Council of Hippo, Statute 36, (393 AD)

	This same list was promulgated again at the Third Council of Carthage
(397 AD), and at the Sixth Council of Carthage (419 AD) - at which
council the same list was enumerated with the words "Because we have
recieved from the Fathers that these are the books to be read in the
Church."  Which ought to quiet those who assert "in the name of Holy
Scripture we do understand those books of whose authority there was
never any doubt in the Church," as the Episcopal Church does in removing
the Deuterocanon from the realm of Scripture.  (Though the Episcopalians
hold them in high regard and read them in the Church, they are not
counted as Scripture by them, and may not be used to prove dogma.  The
Lutherans hold out similarly.)
	Earlier mention of the so-called Apocrypha as divine scripture can also
be found, and below I inlcude only a portion of the quotes calling it
divine scripture that could be found among the writings of the Fathers.

"And this is the reason why the Law of the old Testament is reckoned as
consisting of twenty-two books: so that they may correspond to the
number of letters [in the Hebrew alphabet].... It is to be noted also
that by adding to these Tobias and Judith, there are twenty-four books,
corresponding to the number of letters used by the Greeks."
	-St. Hillary of Poitiers, "Commentaries on the Psalms," prologue, 15 (365 AD)

"The twenty-two books according to the Hebrews are .... Jeremiah, with
Lamentations and the Letter, reckoned as one .... and [also] there is
Maccabees."
	-Origen, "Commentaries on the Psalms," Psalm 1 (245 AD)

"Divine Scripture, addressing itself to those who love themselves and to
the boastful .... says most excellently [Baruch 3.16-19 follows]."
	-St. Clement of Alexandria, "The Instuctor of Children," 2, 3, 36, 3, (203 AD)

"....I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament ... Proverbs of
Solomon, and also Wisdom ..."
	-St. Melito of Sardes, fragment found in Eusebius' "History of the
Church," and dating from crica 177 AD, Book 4, 26, 14

"It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine
Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must
shun.  The list of the Old Testament .... Wisdom, one book;
Ecclesiasticus, one book .... Tobit, one book .... Judith, one book; of
Maccabees, two books."
	-St. Damasus I, Pope, "The Decree of Damsus," section 2 (382 AD)

	I would think this enough, though more can be shown, that the Church
has always accepted the deutero-canon, though parts have been disputed
by various persons.  For if disputes involving the New Testament
deutero-canon does not disqulaify those books (i.e. Hebrews, James, 2
Peter, 2&3 John, Jude, Revelation) in Protestant eyes, than neither
should it disqulaify the Old Testament books.  And I must point out that
the Jews only drew up their canon in 90 AD, 60 years after the founding
of the Christian Religion upon the Cross.  Why should we adhere to a
canon that was drawn up by the faithless, in reaction to the Chrsitian
use of the Greek Septuagint, which includes the deutero-canon?  As early
as 150 AD, St. Justin had already accused the Jews of mutilating the
Canon of Scripture by their removal of certain books.  Protestants
apparently prefer to think that God's revelation was limited by a decree
of the Jews in the ordering of their (the Jews') faithless canon, and
that he could not use other people, like the Apostles, in drawing up the
canon.  The Apostles were most certain users of the Septuagint, as some
80% of the Old Testament quotes use the wording of the Septuagint, and
not the Hebrew.  And the Septuagint includes the Deuterocanon.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21400
From: mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker)
Subject: Re: Deuterocanonicals, esp. Sirach

wagner@grace.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) writes:

>The deutero-canonical books were added much later in the church's
>history.  They do not have the same spiritual quality as the
>rest of Scripture.  I do not believe the church that added these
>books was guided by the Spirit in so doing.  And that is where
>this sort of discussion ultimately ends.

>David H. Wagner
>a confessional Lutheran		"Now thank we all our God


	Whoah  whoah  whoah  WHOAH!!!   What?!?

	That last paragraph just about killed me.  The Deuterocanonicals have
	ALWAYS been accepted as inspired scripture by the Catholic Church,
	which has existed much longer than any Protestant Church out there.
	It was Martin Luther who began hacking up the bible and deciding to
	REMOVE certain books--not the fact that the Catholic Church decided
	to add some much later--that is the reason for the difference between
	"Catholic" and "Protestant" bibles.  

	Sorry for the tone--but that comment really irked me.
					- Mike Walker
					  mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
					  (Univ. of Illinois)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21401
From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Subject: Re: Should Christians fight? / Justifiable war

In article gideon@otago.ac.nz (Gideon King) writes:

>I posted this a couple of weeks ago, and it doesn't seem to have appeared  
>on the newsgroup, and I haven't had a reply from the moderator. We were  
>having intermittent problems with our mail at the time. Please excuse me  
>if you have seen this before...
>
>Should Christians fight?
>
>Last week Alastair posted some questions about fighting, and whether there  
>are such things as "justifiable wars". I have started looking into these  
>things and have jotted down my findings as I go. I haven't answered all  
>his questions yet, and I know what I have here is on a slightly different  
>tack, but possibly I'll be able to get into it more deeply later, and post  
>some more info soon.

May I suggest the book: "Ethics" by Dr. Norm Geisler, of Dallas Theological
Seminary.  In it, he goes over all the arguments pro and con and in-between,
and comes up with a very reasonable answer.  If I have time, and there is
enough interest, I may post his position.

Jon Noring

-- 

Charter Member --->>>  INFJ Club.

If you're dying to know what INFJ means, be brave, e-mail me, I'll send info.
=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.com        |                          |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   | FRED'S GOURMET CHOCOLATE |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | CHIPS - World's Best!    |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 417-4101   |                          |
=============================================================================
Who are you?  Read alt.psychology.personality!  That's where the action is.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21402
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Is OT Valid????

Peir-Yuan Yeh asks:

>I wonder if the OT is not exactly like Jewish history.  Are they the
same >or part of them are the same?  How about Torah? Are the first five
books >of OT as the same as Torah?????

Yes, yes, and yes.  Jewish history as recorded in the Old Testament and
as shown by archaeology are the same.  Kings, revivals, Temples, and all.

The Torah, as far as I know, is the five books of Moses.  Then come the
Prophets (all the Prophets, plus Joshua, Judges, 1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings)
and the Writings (Psalms, Proverbs, Lamentations, Ruth, Esther, Ezra,
Nehemiah, Ecclesiates, Song of Songs, 1&2 Chronicles, Job).

And the veracity of Isaiah, which you quoted to your Moslem friend is
quite well known.  A complete manuscript exists that dates back to past
200 BC, and is kept in a Museum in Israel.  It was found among the Dead
Sea Scrolls, which greatly enhanced our knowledge of the veracity of the
Old Testament, as they date back to around the time of Christ, whereas
before, the oldest complete manuscript in Hebrew was from around 900 AD.

Your Moslem friend is sorely mistaken, but understandably so.  If Jesus
was crucified, and atoned for our sins, he must have been God, for only
the death of God could atone for the sins of all humanity.  And as
Isaiah predicts, the messiah will be called "the mighty God."  And if he
was God, then he must have rose, for as St. Paul wrote, it was not
possible that death could hold him.  And if Jesus rose from the dead,
your Moslem friend would have little reason to be a Moslem.  Which is
why he denies the authenticity of the Old Testament.

Andy Byler

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21403
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Revelations - BABYLON?

Rex (REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov) writes:

>It is also of interest to note that in 1825, on the occasion of a
jubilee, Pope >Leo the 12th had a medallion cast with his own image on
one side and on >the other side, the Church of Rome symbolized as a
"Woman, holding in >her left hand a cross, and in her right a cup with
legend around her, >'Sedet super universum',  'The whole world is her
seat."

	You read more into the medal than it is worth.  The Woman is the
Church.  Catholics have always called our Church "Holy Mother Church"
and our "Mother."  An example would be from St. Cyprian of Carthage, who
wrote in 251 AD, "Can anyone have God for his Father, who does not have
the Church for his mother?"
	Hence the image of the Church as a woman, holding a Cross and a Cup,
which tell of the Crucifxition of Our Lord, and of the power of His
Blood (the grail legend, but also, more significantly, it shows that
"This is the Cup of the New Covenant in my blood, which shall be shed
for you and for many." (Luke 22.20), the Cup represents the New Covenant
and holds the blood of redemption).  The fact that the woman is holding
both and is said to have the whole world for her seat, is that the
Catholic Church is catholic, that is universal, and is found throughout
the world, and the Church shows the Crucifixtion and applies the blood
of redemption to all mankind by this spread of hers, thorugh which the
Holy Sacrafice of the Mass, can be said and celebrated in all the
nations as Malachi predicted in Malachi 1.11, "From the rising of the
sun to its setting, my name is great among the gentiles, and everywhere
there is sacrafice, and there is offered to my Name a clean oblation,
for my Name is great among the gentiles, says the Lord of hosts."  And
so we acknowledge what St. Paul wrote "For as often as you eat this
bread and drink this cup, you show the Lord's death until he comes." (1
Corinthians 11.26)

	You are quite right about the identification of "Babylon the Great,
Mother of all Harlots" with Rome.  I think we simply disagree as to what
time period of Rome the Apostle John is talking about.

Andy Byler

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21404
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Revelations - BABYLON?

Hal Heydt writes:

>That was only the fall of the *Western* Empire.  The *Eastern* Empire
>continued for another 1000 years--and a key element in it's fall was
>the *Christian* sack of Constantinople.

Note that I said the fall of Rome, not of the Empire.  The Roman Empire
lasted until 1453, with its transfered capital in Constantinople.  The
main reason for it's fall was not so much the sack of Constantinople by
the men of the 4th Crusade (who were not Christians - they had been
excommunicated down to the last man after attacking the Christian city
of Zara in Croatia), but rather the disastorous defeat in the battle of
Mazinkert.  After the Turks breached the frontier, it was only a matter
of time before the Empire fell, the inability of the Empire to hold onto
the rim of Anatolia, with the Ottomans and Rum Seljuks in the middle
should be quite obvious to any student of history.  The sack of
Constantinople only hastened the inevitable along.  For if the Greeks
had wanted to save their empire, why would they not cooperate with the
Crusaders when they came to do battle with the Saracens in the 1st-3rd
Crusades?  Because of their obstinacy over cooperating with people they
considered heretics, even though those "heretics" were fighting for the
cause of the Empire and Christendom in doing battle with the Turkish
hordes in Anatolia, Edessa, Lebanon, Palastine, and Syria, the some
hordes who were to later sack Constantinople, and overrun a third of
Europe (the Balkans, Hungary, the Ukraine, the Caucasus, etc.)

Andy Byler

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21405
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: Translations

In article <May.9.05.41.02.1993.27540@athos.rutgers.edu> ab4z@virginia.edu (Andi Beyer) writes:
>Which Version of the Bible do you consider to be the most
>accurate translation?

Well, knowing Greek and Hebrew, I'm probably not as picky about translations
as I would be if English translations were my only source of information.
BUT...

(1) Any verse that comes out substantially different in different trans-
lations is almost certainly unclear in the original. 

(2) It is very bad practice to "shop" for a translation that fits your own
doctrinal positions.

Personally, I still like the RSV.  NRSV and NASV are also very good.

I have a strong preference for editions that do _not_ indent the beginning
of each verse as if verses were paragraphs.  The verse numbering is a
relatively modern addition and should not be given undue prominence.

-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21406
From: muddmj@wkuvx1.bitnet
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

> But, haven't "all sinned, and come short of the glory
> of God" (Romans 3:23)?
> Those that cite this scripture to claim that even
> babes require baptism neglect that "sin is not imputed
> when there is no law" (Romans 5:13).
>
> Therefore, until someone is capable of comprehending
> God's laws they are not accountable for living them.
> They are in the book of life and are not removed until
> they can make a conscious decision to disobey God.
>
> A IDLER

If babies are not supposed to be baptised then why doesn't the Bible
ever say so.  It never comes right and says "Only people that know
right from wrong or who are taught can be baptised."
        What Christ did say was :

        "I solemly assure you, NO ONE can enter God's kingdom without
         being born of water and Spirit ... Do not be surprised that I
         tell you you must ALL be begotten from above."

Could this be because everyone is born with original sin?



Mike

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21407
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Monophysites and Mike Walker

Nabil Ayoub writes:

>As a final note, the Oriental Orthodox and Eastren Orthodox did sign a
>common statement of Christology, in which the heresey of >Monophysitism
was condemned. So the Coptic Orthodox Church does not >believe in
Monophysitism.

Sorry!

What does the Coptic Church believe about the will and energy of Christ?
 Were there one or were there two (i.e. Human and Divine) wills and
energies in Him.

Also, what is the objection ot the Copts with the Pope of Rome (i.e. why
is there a Coptic Catholic Church)?  Do you reject the supreme
jurisdiction of the 263rd sucessor of St. Peter (who blessed St. John
Mark, Bishop of Alexandria was translator for) and his predecessors?  Or
his infallibility?  Or what other things perhaps?

Andy Byler

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21408
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Serbian genocide Work of God?

Vera Shanti Noyes writes;

>this is what indicates to me that you may believe in predestination.
>am i correct?  i do not believe in predestination -- i believe we all
>choose whether or not we will accept God's gift of salvation to us.
>again, fundamental difference which can't really be resolved.

Of course I believe in Predestination.  It's a very biblical doctrine as
Romans 8.28-30 shows (among other passages).  Furthermore, the Church
has always taught predestination, from the very beginning.  But to say
that I believe in Predestination does not mean I do not believe in free
will.  Men freely choose the course of their life, which is also
affected by the grace of God.  However, unlike the Calvinists and
Jansenists, I hold that grace is resistable, otherwise you end up with
the idiocy of denying the universal saving will of God (1 Timothy 2.4). 
For God must give enough grace to all to be saved.  But only the elect,
who he foreknew, are predestined and receive the grace of final
perserverance, which guarantees heaven.  This does not mean that those
without that grace can't be saved, it just means that god foreknew their
obstinacy and chose not to give it to them, knowing they would not need
it, as they had freely chosen hell.
							  ^^^^^^^^^^^
People who are saved are saved by the grace of God, and not by their own
effort, for it was God who disposed them to Himself, and predestined
them to become saints.  But those who perish in everlasting fire perish
because they hardened their heart and chose to perish.  Thus, they were
deserving of God;s punishment, as they had rejected their Creator, and
sinned against the working of the Holy Spirit.

>yes, it is up to God to judge.  but he will only mete out that
>punishment at the last judgement. 

Well, I would hold that as God most certainly gives everybody some
blessing for what good they have done (even if it was only a little),
for those He can't bless in the next life, He blesses in this one.  And
those He will not punish in the next life, will be chastised in this one
or in Purgatory for their sins.  Every sin incurs some temporal
punishment, thus, God will punish it unless satisfaction is made for it
(cf. 2 Samuel 12.13-14, David's sin of Adultery and Murder were
forgiven, but he was still punished with the death of his child.)  And I
need not point out the idea of punishment because of God's judgement is
quite prevelant in the Bible.  Sodom and Gommorrah, Moses barred from
the Holy Land, the slaughter of the Cannanites, Annias and Saphira,
Jerusalem in 70 AD, etc.

> if jesus stopped the stoning of an adulterous woman (perhaps this is
not a >good parallel, but i'm going to go with it anyway), why should we
not >stop the murder and violation of people who may (or may not) be more
>innocent?

We should stop the slaughter of the innocent (cf Proverbs 24.11-12), but
does that mean that Christians should support a war in Bosnia with the
U.S. or even the U.N. involved?  I do not think so, but I am an
isolationist, and disagree with foreign adventures in general.  But in
the case of Bosnia, I frankly see no excuse for us getting militarily
involved, it would not be a "just war."  "Blessed" after all, "are the
peacemakers" was what Our Lord said, not the interventionists.  Our
actions in Bosnia must be for peace, and not for a war which is
unrelated to anything to justify it for us.

Andy Byler

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21409
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

Eugene Bigelow writes:

>Doesn't the Bible say that God is a fair god [sic]?  If this is true,
how can >this possibly be fair to the infants?

What do you mean fair?  God is just, giving to everyone what they
deserve. As all infants are in sin from the time of conception (cf
Romans 5.12, Psalm 1.7), they cannot possibly merit heaven, and as
purgatory is for the purging of temporal punishment and venial sins, it
is impossible that origianl sin can be forgiven.  Hence, the unbaptized
infants are cut off from the God against whom they, with the whole of
the human race except Mary, have sinned.  Which is why Jesus said,
"Truly, truly I say to you, no one can enter the Kingdom of God unless
he is born of water and Spirit" which is the true meaning of born again
(John 3.5).  Thus, as infants are in sin, it is very fair for them to be
cut off from God and exlcuded from heaven.

As St. Augustine said, "I did not invent original sin, which the
Catholic faith holds from ancient time; but you, who deny it, without a
doubt are a follower of a new heresy."  (De nuptiis, lib. 11.c.12)

Andy Byler

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21410
From: lieuwen@allegra.att.com (Dan Lieuwen)
Subject: Re: The obvious isn't politically correct.

The last state church was in Massachusetts.  Sam Adams, the patriot-brewmaster,
during his tenure as governor after the Revolutionary War got it passed.
I believe it was eliminated around 1820.

dan

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21411
From: wjhovi01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

bruce@liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens) suggests different levels of acceptance of
homosexuality:
> 
> 1) Regard homosexual orientation as a sin (or evil, whatever)
> 2) Regard homosexual behaviour as a sin, but accept orientation
> (though presumably orientation is unfortunate) and dislike people who
> indulge
> 3) As 2, but "love the sinner"
> 4) Accept homosexuality altogether.

I would add 4': our churches should accept homosexual orientation but hold all
people to certain standards of sexual behavior.  Promiscuity, abuse of power
relationships, harrassment, compulsivity are equally out of place in the lives
of homosexual as of heterosexual people.

Of course, this would bring up the dread shibboleth of homosexual marriage,
and we couldn't have that! :-)

billh

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21412
From: aaronc@athena.mit.edu (Aaron Bryce Cardenas)
Subject: Re: Ethnicity in Worship

Jerryl Payne writes:
>To sublimate a culture for the sake of what you perceive as unity seems
>antithetical to the very message of inclusion that you preach.

I agree, with the exception that I don't preach ignoring our cultures.

> The body as a whole must be unified. The question is, shall we be a
>melting pot, boiling ourselves down to one "legitimate" expression, or
>shall we be more like a stew, maintaining the textural integrity of the
>expressed diversity while upholding the unity of thought?   It released
>all churches from the use of the Latin Mass (unity) to allow them to
>speak to the people in the common language (diversity). 

In Revelation 2-3, we see that in the first century church, there was one
congregation in each major city.  So there was one unified church.  Now in
each city, there were people of different cultures.  Naturally, they
formed something of a stew, with different members having different
heritages.  Nevertheless, they were ONE body.  They met together,
sometimes as smaller groups in their homes and sometimes in bigger groups
in places such as the temple courts.

Now in a particular city, then and now, you will find that there is a
common language associated with that region.  For instance, in Rome, Latin
was spoken.  In the United States today, English is spoken.  So it would
make sense that congregations in different cities would speak the common
language and not necessarily Latin.

Naturally, you would expect the lead evangelist to preach in the common
language.  In the first century church, there were probably many people
in the congregation who could speak a given tongue to translate the
message for people of foreign ethnic groups.  Today, however, you don't
see people speaking in tongues to translate sermons, even in so-called
Pentacostal churches.  We do have a modern day equivalent though --
bi-lingual speakers.  Now in the unified church of which I am a member -
sometimes called the International Churches of Christ, when we all meet
together on Sundays, there are headphones on people who don't speak
English from which they hear an ongoing translation of the sermon in their
native tongue.  Neat idea, huh?

Now, we meet in different size groups in a random sort of way on Sundays,
so sometimes there will be a meeting of only Haitians or of Spanish-
speaking people, for example, who will hear an evangelist preach in their
native language.  In addition, we meet in small groups a couple of times
during the week for Bible discussion groups and Devotionals.  So someone
who speaks a different language will almost always be with people who also
speak his language (assuming the congregation is large enough) for those
meetings.

As for the people who speak the common language, they can keep in touch
with their culture, if they want, but they will also have equally deep
friendships among their church relationships with people of many various
nationalities.  

>Has the purpose of the church been thwarted by this action?

The action of letting Catholics worship in a native language instead of
Latin?  Indeed not!  See my second paragraph in response to the second
clipping of your article.

However, if you mean the action of forming denominations based on a
culture, then the purpose of the church has been indeed thwarted.

I'll assume the second possiblility when answering your next clipping.

>Rather I believe it has been enhanced, for Paul exhorts us to become as
>one of them that we might reach them. Thus, if a person or group of
>people feel more comfortable "among their own", shall we not give them a
>place where they can feel comfortable [with their heritage] and still
>l[ove God?] {[my guess - Aaron]}

You have met some needs of people, certainly, by helping them to be proud
of their cultural heritages when most denominations didn't.  Yet you have
largely isolated yourselves from having quality "Christian" friendships
outside your nationality (and your denomination).

We shall certainly give people a place to feel comfortable with their
heritage.  However, we will do this in a way that does not destroy church
unity, but rather encourages friendships among all disciples.

>This is the approach of some of the groups that you cite. 

It sounds like these groups have wonderful intentions, but they are going
about things in the wrong way.  And names like the African Methodist
Episcopal Church still make me cringe, although not as much as before.

I understand that there was more racism in the past that caused such
groups to be formed, but now we should try to unite.  I know that it's
hard for many people on this newsgroup to imagine there being only one
body of people on earth, but it is quite possible, and I am working to
make it happen.  However, what might be a smaller step towards unity,
would be taking the word "African" out of your denomination's name.  Then
perhaps someday a long time off, you can also remove the "Methodist
Episcopal" part also, and simply be part of "the Church".

>With regard to inclusivity, I note tht your .sig emits from MIT. As you
>know, the 'tute is religiously and culturally diversified, and not
>everyone who comes there is immediately comfortable with English, much
>less American culture. What shall be the conduct of the campus churches
>then:  shall there be one church, for the sake of unity? Or shall the
>organizations like KCF be useful in helping students new to America make
>the transition in culture, language, and thought?

There shall be one church, for the sake of unity, AND it shall be useful
in helping students new to America make the transition in culture,
language, and thought.  We shouldn't make a new denomination to try to
solve problems.  The whole denominational mindset only causes more
problems, sadly.  

>In the AME church, we retain African cutlure at the root of our
>expression, but we are by no means exclusive. Since you live in
>Cambridge, I invite you to visit the local assembly there:

Thank you for the invitation.  That shows me that you indeed have the
heart to spread the gospel of Jesus as well as take part in your cultural
heritage.  Thank you also for responding to my post.  I know (all too well)
how they can be very time-consuming.

The whole idea of celebrating your culture is paved with good intentions,
but I still feel that you must restore and preserve unity at the same
time.  My own church, the Boston church, has the acapella singing that you
mentioned in your post, yet doesn't limit expression of my Mexican
culture, even though I am in the MIT Campus ministry and not the Spanish
(speaking) Zone.  I have made a commitment to God that I will go to the
Sunday services of my church, because I know that my brothers and sisters
here are fully devoted in love for God as his disciples.

I don't believe in tongues, as you may have already picked up on, because
of my understanding of Biblical Christianity.  However, I am certainly
willing to visit your congregation provided that it doesn't interfere with
my normal worship.  Since you also live in Cambridge, I also extend an
invitation to you to visit our services as often as you like.  You can
meet the MIT students at the Student Center (across from 77 Mass. Ave.) at
9AM on Sundays to leave for worship or simply call me after Wednesday
night to find out where the service will be held on a particular day.
My number is 225-7598, but will be 354-1357 in a few weeks from now and
for the rest of the summer.  Our service normally last from 10AM to noon,
but occasionally are later or earlier (1-3 times per year).  

>Let us always strive to reach all with the gospel by any means necessary.
>As we move from milk to meat, the petty things of the world that
>temporally separate us will dissolve away, and we shall stand with our
>naked realizations that God has shed His grace on all of us, His
>delightful creation.

Definitely!

Let's also strive to grow in obedience to the Lord through being men and
women after God's own heart.

+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
|  Aaron Bryce Cardenas           |  ___NET-net__(617)-225-7598___  |
|  MIT Undergraduate Student      |   U.S. :   Aaron B. Cardenas    |
|  Environmental Engineering - IE |  Snail :  290 Mass. Ave. #242   |
|    -- aaronc@athena.mit.edu     |   Mail :  Cambridge, MA 02139   |
+---------------------------------+-----------(Good for two weeks)--+
|  "Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs.    |
|    Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving   |
|    thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our    |
|    Lord Jesus Christ."   -- Ephesians 5:19-20                     |
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21413
From: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christiani

In article <May.9.05.41.18.1993.27552@athos.rutgers.edu> todd@nickel.laurentian.ca  
writes:
> The question is how do they interpret these verses. We
> must now establish reasons for not believing this to be true based on the
> interpretation of these scriptures given by someone who has come to grips with
> them.

I see no other way of interpreting them other than homosexuyality
being wrong.  Please tell me how these verses can be interpreted in
any other way.  I read them and the surrounding text.

In Christ's Love,
Bryan

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21414
From: rich0043@student.tc.umn.edu (Timothy Richardson)
Subject: Re: Mary's assumption

In article <May.9.05.41.32.1993.27562@athos.rutgers.edu> Brian Finnerty,
bfinnert@chaph.usc.edu writes:
> One last point: an ex-Catholic attempted to explain Catholic doctrine
> on the assumption by asserting it is connected to a belief that Mary
> did not die. This is not a correct summary of what Catholics believe.
> The dogma of the assumption was carefully phrased to avoid saying
> whether Mary did or did not die. In fact, the consensus among Catholic
> theologians seems to be that Mary in fact did die. This would make
> sense: Christ died, and his Mother, who waited at the foot of the
> cross, would want to share in his death.

The above article is a good short summary of traditional Christian
teaching concerning the death of Mary.  
Also very good is "Re: Question about the Virgin Mary" by Micheal D.
Walker.  He tells the story very well.
I would like to add that in the Eastern Orthodox Church we celebrate "The
Dormition (or falling asleep) of the Theotokos (the mother of God)".  The
Icon for this day shows Mary lying on a bed surrounded by the Apostles
who are weeping.  Christ, in his resurrected glory, is there holding what
seems to be a small child.  This is, in fact, Mary's soul already with
Christ in Heaven.  The Assumption of Mary is one more confirmation for us
as Christians that Christ did indeed conquer death.  It forshadows the
general resurrection on the last day.  The disciples were not surprised
to find Mary's body missing from the grave.  She was the Mother of the
Savior.  She was the first of all Christians.  She gave birth to the Word
of God.  If it were not for her we would not be saved.  This is why we
pray in the Orthodox Church, "Through the prayers of the Theotokos,
Savior save us."

Timothy Richardson
rich0043@student.tc.umn.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21415
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: If There Were No Hell

In article <May.7.01.07.10.1993.13776@athos.rutgers.edu> mdw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (mark.d.wuest) writes:
>In article <May.5.02.51.25.1993.28737@athos.rutgers.edu> shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker) writes:
>>Q: If you knew beyond all doubt that hell did not exist and that
>>   unbelievers simply remained dead, would you remain a Christian?

Interesting question, esp since I remember *wishing* with all
my heart that this *were* true so that I wouldn't have to be a 
"good Christian" anymore.  "Christianity" was terribly hard, the
only reward was Heaven and (maybe, sometimes, if I was really
good) acceptance; I wanted a way out.

>If you knew this "beyond all doubt", then you would be foolish to be
>a disciple of a man who claimed it did exist. The truth is, you can
>not be Jesus' disciple and disagree with him at the same time, not
>allowing him to be your "Lord".

What Jesus has done for me since I found Him (some 6 months ago) 
I do not want to lose.  Period.  

That said, I originally interpreted the What-If as "if Christ
never mentioned Sheol and weeping and gnashing of teeth, if
Christ preached that those who did not follow him died and stayed
dead and at that point forever ceased to exist...."

>>....Fear-based religion is not a faith-relationship with the
>>One Who made us all.  I follow Christ because it's a great way
>>to LIVE life.  And I could care less what really happens after
>>I die.  .....
>
>So is being a Buddhist a great way to live life. I'm not converting,
>though.

I believe that we can only be complete through Christ. 
Do you think that Buddhists can also be complete?

-jen

-- 

#include <stdisclaimer>  //  jenk@microsoft.com  // msdos testing

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21416
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary

In article <May.6.00.34.46.1993.15415@geneva.rutgers.edu>
 news@cbnewsk.att.com writes:
>Basically the teaching on infallibility
>holds that the pope is infallible in matters of faith and doctrine, the
>college of bishops is likewise infallible, and the laity is as well.

Not exactly correct, but nice try.  The Catholic doctrine of infallibility
refers to freedom from error in teaching of the universal Church in 
matters of faith or MORALS.  It is this teaching which is taken as 
doctrine. 


-- 
Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock 
Catechist
gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21417
From: flirt@camelot.bradley.edu (Karen Lauro)
Subject: Re: How I got saved...

>Well, I was certainly turned off by that first paragraph of oft-used
>platitudes. I can't count the times I've heard those common tactics
>anymore...'you may not believe it but that doesn't change the fact
>that it's true'...the old analogy about trusting your parents...sheesh.
>Need I point out how parents can show children that they are right?
>That difference in capability alone crushes that analogy, as any 'facts'
>about Christianity I have seen turned out to be beliefs. What I seek is
>fact--knowledge--if I can get it, and evidence for a belief if I can't.
>So far from Christians I have received neither...

Before becoming a Christian I too had problems when I asked one to explain
it to me...The actual evidence is not always what you see on a person's 
outside. It should be but is not always.
	A very specific, somewhat miraculous example of the truth of God
working to help His followers is soemthing that happened to me. For nearly
4 years after an accident I had severe complications from a triple 
fracture in my left leg and surgery--pins put in, then removed. The bone 
itself was perfectly healed. No infectoin that could be detected. Yet I 
was in constant pain and it my ankle and foot were always swollen and
bluish. More complicatios developed in my other leg, none of which could
be explained by the best specialists and most sophisticated tests in te
northern Illinois region. We went everywhere--no one could explain it.
Durin gthat summer (June 19, 1991 to be exact) I gave my life and heart
to Christ and vowed to relinquish control over my life (which i never
really had anyway) because of what he did for me on the cross and the 
fact that my whole life was screwed up by me trying to fix it. I was facing
the possibility of a lifetime in a wheelchair (I was confined to one in 
order to save my legs from any further damage since the cause of my problems
were unknown, had been in it for about 2 1/2 months before that day).
	I found it ore than coincidental that less than 2 weeks after
I put my faith where my mouth was, one more in the long line of doctors
and not even an orthopeodic specialist, diagnosed my problems with no
difficulty, set me on the path to an effective cure, and I was walking
and running again without the pain that had stopped me from that for
4 years. The diagnosis was something he felt the other doctors must have
"overlooked" because it was perfectly obvious from my test results.
	Maybe this doesn't hit you as miraculous. But to me it really
is. Imagine an active 17 year old being told she may not be able to
walk mcuh longer...and is now a happy 18 year old who can dance and run
knowing that the problem was there all along and was "revealed" just
after she did what she knew was right. As the song says...
	"Our God is an awesome God...."

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21418
From: Bjorn.B.Larsen@delab.sintef.no (Bjorn B. Larsen)
Subject: Re: SATANIC TOUNGES

In article <May.6.00.34.49.1993.15418@geneva.rutgers.edu>
marka@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley) writes:

> [ citing article <May.2.09.50.21.1993.11782@geneva.rutgers.edu>
> mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) }

> I have a simple test. I take several people who can speak
> only one language (e.g. chinese, russian, german, english).
> Then I let the "gifted one" start "speaking in toungues".
> The audience should understand the "gifted one" clearly
> in their native language. However, the "gifted one" can
> only hear himself speaking in his own language.
> Works everytime. 8-)

This thread si starting to get really silly. Such nonsense do not
belong in s.r.c and it really hurts me to read some of the posts on
this issue.

We chose to believe whetever we want, but we are not allowed to define
our own Christianity. we see in parts. If you see something that I do
not see, or vice versa, it does not give me the right to play jokes on
your belief!

There is no wonder that your "miracle" does not work. You designet it
yourself, and even if you were able to collect a group of people like
the one you describe, I see no reason why your "miracle" should really
happen. God is the one who does miracles, not humans!

After all we are all on the same way, or at least, we are all headed
for the same goal, following different paths. Remember that we are
going to spend eternity together. If I can not stand your view here on
earth, how can I possibly stand spending eternity together with you?

Tongues is a question of belief. Not wether you believe in Jesus, but
if you believe that He is able to give you this gift. Just as any
other of the gifts mentioned in the Bible. But there is no evidence in
the Bible that people who do not accept these gifts are in any way
better than others.

> Perhaps I would believe the "gifted ones" more if they were
> glorifying God rather than themselves. Then perhaps we'd
> witness a real miracle.

Maybe some of the people who have received spiritual gifts are more
interested in glorifying themselves than glorifying God, I don't know.
But if this is the case, it still does not suggest that the gifts are
faked.

In the Bible you will find that Jesus did not always do miracles. He
said that "I do nothing, except what my father tells me." Perhaps it
woulkd be for the best of all if we where all able to live by that
example!

In Him,
Bjorn
--
______________________________________________________________________
               s-mail:                 e-mail:
|   |   |      Bjorn B. Larsen         bjorn.b.larsen@delab.sintef.no
|__ |__ |      SINTEF DELAB
|  \|  \|      N-7034 TRONDHEIM        tel: +47-7-592682 / 592600
|__/|__/|_     NORWAY                  fax: +47-7-591039 / 594302
______________________________________________________________________

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21419
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: Re: What WAS the immaculate conception?

Marida Ignacio writes:

   STILL, the Angel Gabriel's greetings was:
   "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you.
   Blessed art thou amongst women".

   Even Mary was confused about this greeting.

There are various explanations for her reaction to the angel's
greeting.  One is that she grasped what the angel was getting at, that
she was to be the mother of the Messiah.  And knew what this entailed,
all the suffering.  This gave her a moment's pause.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21420
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

Regarding the consequences of the original sin:

Catholics believe that what Adam primarily lost by his sin, for
himself and the human race, was sanctifying grace.  This is basically
a share in the Divine life.  Take a rock and make it able to talk:
what God does to a human being through sanctifying grace is similar.
It makes such a one able to live on a plane that is above the powers
of any possible creature.  This is the "everlasting life" that the New
Testament speaks of.

What Christ did when he came was to restore this life of sanctifying
grace to the human race.  He instituted the Sacraments as the means by
which this life is given to people, and its increase fostered.

The absence of sanctifying grace at death means automatic exclusion
from Heaven.  The nature of Heaven is such that it's impossible for a
human being to have any part in it without the gift of sanctifying
grace.  To use my example, it would be like taking that rock and
attempting to hold a conversation with it: rocks cannot talk.  Neither
can human beings live in Heaven without sanctifying grace.

This all obviously applies equally well to infants or adults, since
both have souls.  Infants must be baptized, therefore, or they cannot
enter into Heaven.  They too need this form of life in them, or they
cannot enter into Heaven.

Turning it around, infant baptism is good supporting evidence for the
Catholic belief in sanctifying grace.  Unless Baptism causes some
change in an infant's soul, there is no particular reason to insist on
the practice.  Yet infant Baptism was probably practiced by the
Apostles themselves, and was *certainly* part of the Church shortly
thereafter.

There is evidence for infant Baptism in the New Testament itself: 1
Cor 1:16, Acts 16:15, 16:33, 18:8, also Acts 11:14.  It is known for
sure that at least one disciple of the Apostle John was baptized as an
infant: St. Polycarp (because of a remark he makes in the acts of his
martyrdom).  St. Justin Martyr mentions men and women baptized as
infants.  There is direct evidence in St.  Irenaeus's "Against
Heresies", and in Tertullian's "On Baptism".  All these so far
mentioned are in the first 170 years after our Lord's death.  After
that, there starts to be tons of evidence for the practice.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21421
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: the ancient canon of the Roman rite

The following is a juxtaposition of part of an ancient text known as
"de Sacramentis", usually attributed to St. Ambrose of Milan, and the
canon of the traditional Catholic Mass of the Roman rite.  The
conclusion from this comparison is that the central part of the
traditional Roman canon was already fairly well in place by sometime
in the late 4th century.

Taken from "The Mass of the Western Rites", by the Right Reverend Dom
Fernand Cabrol, Abbot of Farnborough, 1934, without permission.
Excerpted from Chapter VI: THE MASS AT ROME, FROM THE FIFTH TO THE
SEVENTH CENTURIES.  The paragraph at the end is from the book, not me.

Sorry about the long lines.

Joe Buehler

-----

TEXT OF DE SACRAMENTIS          ROMAN CANON                     ROMAN CANON
(about 400 AD)                  (1962 AD)                       (English translation)

                                Te igitur ...                   (omitted here)
                                Memento Domine ...
                                Communicantes ...
                                Hanc igitur oblationem ...

Fac nobis (inquit sacerdos),    Quam oblationem tu Deus, in     Do thou, O God, deign to
hanc oblationem ascriptam,      omnibus, quaesumus,             bless what we offer, and
ratam, rationabilem,            benedictam, adscriptam,         make it approved,
acceptabilem, quod figura       ratam, rationabilem,            effective, right, and
est corporis et sanguinis       acceptabilemque facere          wholly pleasing in every
Jesu Christi.                   digneris: ut nobis corpus et    way, that it may become
                                sanguis fiat dilectissimi       for our good, the Body
                                Filii tui Domini nostri Jesu    and Blood of Thy dearly
                                Christi.                        beloved Son, Jesus Christ
                                                                our Lord.

Qui pridie quam pateretur,      Qui pridie quam pateretur,      Who, the day before He
in sanctis manibus suis         accepit panem in sanctas ac     suffered, took bread into
accepit panem, respexit in      venerabiles manus suas: et      His holy and venerable
caelum ad te, sancte Pater      elevatis oculis in ccelum,      hands, and having raised
omnipotens, aeterne Deus,       ad Te Deum Patrem suum          His eyes to Heaven, unto
Gratias agens, benedixit,       omnipotentem, tibi gratias      Thee, O God, His Almighty
fregit, fractum quae            agens, benedixit, fregit,       Father, giving thanks to
apostolis suis et discipulis    deditque discipulis suis        Thee, He blessed it, broke
suis tradidit dicens:           dicens: accipite et             it, and gave it to His
accipite et edite ex hoc        manducate ex hoc omnes: hoc     disciples, saying: Take ye
omnes: hoc est enim corpus      est enim corpus meum.           all and eat of this:
meum, quod pro multis                                           For this is my Body.
confringetur.

Similiter etiam calicem         Simili modo postquam            In like manner, when the
postquam caenatum est,          caenatum est, accipiens et      supper was done, taking
pridie quam pateretur,          hunc praeclarum calicem in      also this goodly chalice
accepit, respexit in            sanctas ac venerabiles manus    into His holy and
caelum ad te, sancte pater      suas item tibi gratias          venerable hands, again
omnipotens, aeterne Deus,       agens, benedixit deditque       giving thanks to Thee,
gratias agens, benedixit,       discipulis suis, dicens:        He blessed it, and gave it
apostolis suis et discipulis    accipite et bibite ex eo        to His disciples, saying:
suis tradidit, dicens:          omnes: Hic est enim calix       Take ye all, and drink of
accipite et bibite ex hoc       sanguinis mei, novi et          this: For this is the
omnes: hic est enim sanguis     aeterni testamenti:             Chalice of my Blood of the
meus.                           mysterium fidei; qui pro        new and eternal covenant;
                                vobis et pro multis             the mystery of faith,
                                effundetur in remissionem       which shall be shed for
                                peccatorum.                     you and for many unto the
                                                                forgiveness of sins.

                                Haec quotiescumque feceritis    As often as you shall do
                                in mei memoriam facietis.       these things, in memory of
                                                                Me shall you do them.

Ergo memores gloriosissimae     Unde et memores, Domine, nos    Mindful, therefore, O
ejus passionis et ab inferis    servi tui, sed et plebs tua     Lord, not only of the
resurrectionis, in caelum       sancta, ejusdem Christi         blessed Passion of the
ascensionis, offerimus tibi     Filii tui Domini nostri, tam    same Christ, Thy Son, our
hanc immaculatam hostiam,       beatae passionis necnon et      Lord, but also of His
hunc panem sanctum et           ab inferis resurrectionis,      resurrection from the
calicem vitae aeternae;         sed et in caelos gloriosae      dead, and finally His
                                ascensionis: offerimus          glorious ascension into
                                praeclarae majestati tuae de    Heaven, we, Thy ministers,
                                tuis donis ac datis, hostiam    as also Thy holy people,
                                puram, hostiam sanctam,         offer unto Thy supreme
                                hostiam immaculatam, Panem      majesty, of the gifts
                                sanctum vitae aeternae, et      bestowed upon us, the
                                Calicem salutis perpetuae.      pure Victim, the holy
                                                                Victim, the all-perfect
                                                                Victim: the holy Bread of
                                                                life eternal and the
                                                                Chalice of unending
                                                                salvation.

et petimus et precamur, ut      Supra quae propitio ac          And this do Thou deign to
hanc oblationem suscipias in    sereno vultu respicere          regard with gracious and
sublimi altari tuo per manus    digneris: et accepta habere,    kindly attention and hold
angelorum tuorum sicut          sicuti accepta, habere          acceptable, as Thou didst
suscipere dignatus es munera    dignatus es munera pueri tui    deign to accept the
pueri tui justi Abel et         justi Abel, et sacrificium      offerings of Abel, Thy
sacrificium patriarchae         patriarchae nostri Abrahae,     just servant, and the
nostri Abrahae et quod tibi     et quod tibi obtulit summus     sacrifice of Abraham our
obtulit summus sacerdos         sacerdos tuus Melchisedech      patriarch, and that which
Melchisedech.                   sanctum sacrificium,            Thy chief priest
                                immaculatam hostiam.            Melchisedech offered unto
                                                                Thee, a holy sacrifice and
                                                                a spotless victim.

                                Supplices te rogamus,           Most humbly we implore
                                omnipotens Deus: jube haec      Thee, almighty God, bid
                                perferri per manus sancti       these offerings to be
                                Angeli tui in sublime altare    brought by the hands of
                                tuum in conspectu divinae       Thy holy angel unto Thy
                                majestatis tuae: etc.           altar above; before the
                                                                face of Thy Divine
                                                                Majesty; etc.

There is no doubt that we have here two editions of the same
text; and as that of De Sacramentis is localised in Upper Italy
and dated about the year 400, it is the most ancient witness we
possess as to the principal parts of the Roman canon, which only
appear in the Sacramentaries some time after the seventh
century. The question as to whether the Roman canon is not older
even than that of De Sacramentis is discussed by
liturgiologists.  Mgr. Batiffol is of this opinion, but we, on
the contrary, think that the former bears traces of closer
composition, of a more carefully guarded orthodoxy, and that
consequently it is a text corrected from De Sacramentis. We
shall see, in studying the list of names in the Memento of the
living and that of the dead, that Mgr. Batiffol argues with good
reason that he can date these fragments from the pontificate of
Symmachus (498-514). We thus have the state of the Roman Mass,
or at least of the chief parts of the canon, at the beginning of
the fourth century.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21422
From: tomault+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Galen Ault)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

In article <May.5.02.50.42.1993.28665@athos.rutgers.edu> Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu (Fil Sapienza) writes:
>I am interested in finding out why people become
>atheists after having believed in some god/God.
>In conversing with them on other groups, I've
>often sensed anger or hostility.   Though I don't
>mean to imply that all atheists are angry or hostile,
>it does seem to be one motivation for giving up
>faith.  Thus, some atheism might result from 
>broken-ness.

I'd like to field this one, if I may.  Although I am a believer in and follower
of Christ, my experiences with religion haven't been all that positive.  In
fact, there was one point in my life when, for about three days, I simply
_couldn't_ believe in the existence of God.  Anyway, when I look back upon the
troubles I've had, they seem to fall into two categories -- impulses to
unbelief that resulted from logical contradictions, and impulses to unbelief
that resulted from frustration with God.

The first category doesn't occur to me much anymore, as I have worked through
most of the arguments for the non-existence of God.  But way back when, these
would cause me some problems, and I would have to struggle with my faith to
continue to believe.  I can see where others less stubborn than I (and I do
mean stubborn.  Stubborness has often been the only thing standing between
me an atheism from time to time) would fail.

The second category arises out of some long-term personal difficulties and
the struggle to live my life as God would have me live it WITHOUT living my 
life as others would tell me how God would have me live it.  A good example of
this is my struggle with the more radical Christians I meet.  I am not, nor
have I ever been, "on fire for Chirst," and I don't think I ever want to be.
Nevertheless, I am not "lukewarm" about my faith, so I don't really
fit in with the mainstream either.  Quite naturally, I feel a lot of anxiety
about my dislocation within Christian society, and it can lead to a lot of
internal tension, when I want to do what I _know_ is right,
but when another part of me believes that what I want to do is wrong because
all the other Christians think so to.  Quite naturally, this tension has a
destructive effect on my relationship with God, and during all of this internal
strife, there's atheism sitting there like the promised land -- no rules, no
responsibilities, no need to live up to anyone's expectations but my own.
Complete freedom.  Of course, it's all an illusion, but nevertheless, it's a
very appealing illusion, especially when the so-called "people of God" are
behaving like total twits.  I can easily understand why someone would go
that route, and would be hostile to ever coming back.

IMHO, many of the former-Christians-turned-atheists-who-are-now-actively-
hostile-to-Christianity are so because their experience with Christ and God
wasn't a very peaceful one, but one of mind-control and "shut-up-and-do-what-
you're-told-because-we-know-what's-best-for-you-because-it's-God's-will-and-
you're-to-young-to-know-what-God's-will-is-yet" courtesy of some of Christ's
more overzealous followers.  

A final reason why people become atheists is because Christians do not have a
very good reputation right now.  One of the things that attracted people to
Christianity in the ancient days was the love that Christians obviously had
for one another and the world around them.  Unlike the rest of the world,
Christian communities actively cared for their poor, and the Christian rich
did not trod on the backs of their poorer brothers, but bent down to help
them.  Christians were known for living exemplary lives, even if they were
thought to be traitors to the state because they wouldn't sacrifice to the
emporer.  Nowadays, courtesy of the media and some Christian leaders who lost
Christ on their way to power, people see Christians as sexually-repressed
hippocritical busibodies who want to remake society into a facist version of 
their own moral view.

There are a lot more reasons why people become atheists, but I don't have time
to go into them right now.



Tom Ault

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21423
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: God, morality, and massacres


 JEK@cu.nih.gov ()  James Kiefer  writes:

  (stuff deleted)

    [First point. What they are doing is wrong, just as what
Joseph's brothers did was wrong, just as what Judas did was wrong.
They intend it for evil. If God somehow brings good out of it, that
does not make them any less subject to just condemnation and
punishment.
     Second point. Of course, God will bring good out of it. But not
the same good that He would have brought if the Serbians had
refrained from the sins of robbery and rape and murder. Nor does the
good He purposes excuse us from the duty of doing what is right.]


So what you're saying then, is that God exercises direct control, or
influence upon humanity. He doesn't control our every thought or action,
but takes what we do, whether it be intended for evil or not, and turns
it into something good. It seems to me, that this idea conflicts with
the belief that God gave humans FREE WILL. As far as I can determine,
it is impossible to reconcile these two different ideas. If God were to
exert his influence upon anyone or anything at anytime, he would be 
impeding upon someone's free will. Unless, of course, you believe that
God did not give us complete and unabated free will, but rather, some sort
of conditional free will. Something that allows us to make our own choices
and control our own lives except when God wants to use us to fulfill some
good purpose of his own by "hardening our heart" or controlling us in some
other way. I hear alot of people who look at various events, mostly 
catastrophies or things like the AIDS epidemic and make comments about
God's will. I have a very difficult time understanding why people believe
that God controls anything that happens on this planet. Except, possibly
when being asked to through someone's prayer. According to the Bible,
Pharoah was going to let Moses' people go after one or two plagues, but
God kept hardening his heart so Moses could cast all 7 plagues upon the
Egyptians, the last plague causing the death of many innocent children.
So then, God impeded upon Pharoah's free will and used him as a puppet.
God did this not just to free the Hebrews, but to free them in some sort
of a grand fashion. I suppose from the Hebrew's point of view, this could
be seen as turning something bad into good, but I'm sure the Egyptians didn't
see it this way. All of your examples of how God turned something bad into
something good are based upon showing favortism to one group of people over
another. After all, it's only good based upon your point of view. Why does
God, who is supposed to be the god of all of humanity, play favorites?    

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21424
From: jcj@tellabs.com (jcj)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

In article <May.7.01.09.44.1993.14556@athos.rutgers.edu> muirm@argon.gas.organpipe.uug.arizona.edu (maxwell c muir) writes:
>
>I think you should give up the amatuer psysochology :).
>...
>	In all candor, I would be happy to be proven wrong. Problem is,
>I will have to be _proven_ wrong.
>	Do I sound "broken" to you?

Absolutely not.  I went through a "journey" of lukewarm Christianity,
agnosticism, atheism, agnosticism, and now (although I know my faith
is less than what it should be) Christianity again.  I think it's a path
many of us take.

Jeff Johnson
jcj@tellabs.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21425
From: tony@minster.york.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Revelations - BABYLON?

Woo! So far, we've had the following interpretations of the figure of
the `Whore of Babylon' in Rev 17 & 18:

a) The United States of America
b) MHO dB) which was as a figure of the fallen spiritual powers who
   corrupt and oppress human society
c) Historical Jerusalem
d) Historical Rome

Dare I suggest that the passage might be many layered in meaning? How
about * The prophecy reveals God's judgement on the corrupt & idolatrous
state oppressing his chosen people (d) * That God's judgement extends
_especially_ to his once chosen city (c) because, despite that City's
special call, it still rejected God's grace at the decisive time (Rev
11:8? - also isn't Rev19:24 equally suggestive of Rome as Jerusalem?) *
That the USofA is guilty of many of the crimes of Rome/Babylon (a) and
is equally subject to God's judgement * That the Good Book(TM) actually
encompasses _all_ these viewpoints by revealing the corrupting spiritual
powers warring against mankind through the very society that we've
created. (b)

Clever, huh? (<-- Flame here!) No need to argue at all! 

I think Mary's view has a lot of sense because there seems to be a
deliberate contrast between Rev 17/18 and Rev 21/22 - the mortal
Jerusalem chosen by God but never (historically) fulfilling its vocation
and the new Jerusalem perfected (outside of history) purely by God's
grace. eg Details like Rev 17:1 `.. who sits on many waters' cf Rev 22
the single stream in the new Jersualem `the river of life flowing from
the throne of God and of the Lamb.'

Rex - didn't understand your post - what's the relevance of Babylonian
mystery religions to all this? Please elaborate your ideas about OT &
the Book of Rev? Why do you freak at the idea of a primarily `spiritual'
interpretation of Rev? I'd mail, but I can't get thru:
	unknown or illegal user: REFLEX@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
Something you're not telling us?

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21426
From: wytten@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dale Wyttenbach)
Subject: Question about hell

What is the basis of the idea of hell being a place of eternal
suffering?  If it is Biblical, please reference.

Here's my train of thought: If God is using the Earth to manufacture
heavenly beings, then it is logical that there would be a certain
yield, and a certain amount of waste.  The yield goes to Heaven, and
the waste is burned (destroyed) in Hell.  Why is it necessary to
punish the waste, rather than just destroy it?

Peace and joy,

Dale Wyttenbach

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21427
From: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes)
Subject: Re: Monophysites and Mike Walker

In article <May.9.05.38.52.1993.27378@athos.rutgers.edu> nabil@cae.wisc.edu (Nabil Ayoub) writes:

>As a final note, the Oriental Orthodox and Eastren Orthodox did sign
>a common statement of Christology, in which the heresey of Monophysitism
>was condemned. So the Coptic Orthodox Church does not believe in
>Monophysitism.

This is a point that seems to have been overlooked by many. The ending of a 
1600 year old schism seems to be in sight.

The theologians said that the differences between them were fundamentally 
ones or terminology, and that the Christological faith of both groups was 
the same.

Some parishes have concelebrated the Eucharist, and here in Southern Africa 
we are running a joint theological training course for Coptic and Byzantine 
Orthodox. 

There are still several things to be sorted out, however. As far as the 
Copts are concerned, there were three ecumenical councils, whily the 
Byzantine Orthodox acknowledge seven.

============================================================
Steve Hayes, Department of Missiology & Editorial Department
Univ. of South Africa, P.O. Box 392, Pretoria, 0001 South Africa
Internet: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za         Fidonet: 5:7101/20
          steve.hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
FAQ: Missiology is the study of Christian mission and is part of
     the Faculty of Theology at Unisa

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21428
From: news@cbnewsk.att.com
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <May.7.01.08.16.1993.14381@athos.rutgers.edu> whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu writes:
>Any one who thinks that Homosexuality and Christianity are compatible should check  
>out:
>	Romans 1:27
>	I Corinthians 6:9
>	I Timothy 1:10
>	Jude 1:7
>	II Peter 2:6-9
>	Gen. 19
>	Lev  18:22
>(to name a few of the verses that pertain to homosexuality)
>
But wouldn't that go for any sin.  My father told me when he was growing
up Catholics were not allowed to associate with anyone who was divorced.
There are a few verses prohibitting divorce.  Somehow, divorce became
acceptable (even in Catholicism anullments).  Certainly it is no longer
a sin to associate with a divorced person.  The point is that each person
has their own temptations to deal with.  Paul repeatedly talks about the
"thorn" in his side, some think it refers to lust, others pride, but
who knows.  Whatever the thorn was, apparently it was not "compatible"
with Christianity, yet does that make his epistles any less?  The Bible
warns us against judging, greed, anxiety, impure thoughts, bearing grudges,
etc., etc.  I suppose we should seek out all the so-called Christians
who have entertained impure thoughts and oust them.  All those who have
given in to greed, get 'em outta here.  Jesus pointed out that he
was the physician for the sinners.  Any attempts to make homosexuals
feel unwelcome because of our discomfort with homosexuality is incompatible
with Christianity.  Is our hatred so deep that rather than see someone
try to become closer to Jesus, we need to keep them away.  Does Jesus need
us to screen out those guilty of a particular sin.  Do we really mistrust 
Jesus when he says he can forgive any sin?

Think about it.  Among the people Jesus encountered were sinners and
the Pharisees.  The sinners he embraced and forgave.  The Pharisees,
hypocritcal, unmerciful, self-righteous, pointed out others sins and
did not seek and thus did not gain forgiveness of their own sins.  What
I take from this and other verses is that if we do not admit our sins,
those sins will not be forgiven.  And since those guilty of even one sin
are guilty of the whole law, those not repenting the judging of others
are guilty, as guilty as if they committed the same sin they judged others
of.

The poor in spirit, meek, humble, merciful, pure of heart, peacemakers, 
those who thirst for justice, those who suffer for His sake are blessed.

Joe Moore

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21429
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: Re: Mormon temples

In article <May.9.05.40.06.1993.27468@athos.rutgers.edu>, 
jwindley@cheap.cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes...

[...]

>There are other interpretations to Christian history in this matter.
>One must recall that most of what we know about the Gnostics was
>written by their enemies.  Eusebius claims that Jesus imparted secret
>information to Peter, James, and John after His resurrection, and that
>those apostles transmitted that information to the rest of the Twelve
>(Eusebius, _Historia Ecclesiastica_ II 1:3-4).

This is curious. I read in _EH_...

"The Lord imparted the gift of knowledge to James the Just, to John 
and Peter after his resurrection, these delivered it to the rest of 
the apostles, and they to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one."
			 
			--- Eusebius, _Ecclesiastical History_

It seems that the Lord imparted the gift of knowledge, not that the
Lord imparted secret information.

[...]

>apostles.  Interestingly enough, Eusebius refers to the groups which
>we today call Gnostics as promulgators of a false gnosis (Eusebius,
>op. cit., III, 32:7-8).  His gripe was not that thay professed *a*
>gnosis, but that they had the *wrong* one.

I'm afraid that I cannot find this portrayal in _EH_. 
I don't see anywhere in 3:32:7-8 where Eusebius mentions that certain 
gnostics had the wrong gnosis.

The closest is when Eusebius summarizes Hegesippus' statements, 
"...whilst if there were any at all, that attempted to pervert 
the sound doctrine of the saving gospel, they were yet skulking 
in dark retreats..."

>Now one can approach this and other such evidence in many ways.  I
>don't intend that everyone interpret Christian history as I do, but I
>believe that evidence exists (favorably interpreted, of course) of
>early Christian rites analogous to those practiced by Mormons today.

"Favorably interpreted?" Just in looking at two of the four 
references that you gave (I have the _EH_ handy, Irenaeus and the 
_Clemetine Recognitions_ I will have to look for) I see no room for 
such 'interpretations.'

And any such 'interpretation' still falls short of an equivalence to 
the Temple Ceremonies. 

The links for Jay's using _EH_ for support are: "imparting the gift 
of knowledge" = "imparted secret information" = "being given secret 
signs and tokens to gain entrance to heaven."  But there is not
enough equivalence between the the ideas for us to be able to call 
this "favorable interpretation."  It appears to be closer to 
"fabrication."

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21430
From: pages!bwebster@uunet.uu.net (Bruce F. Webster)
Subject: Re: Mormon beliefs about bastards

In article <May.9.05.41.46.1993.27571@athos.rutgers.edu> erh0362@tesla.njit.edu  
writes:
> 
>     Could anyone enlighten me on how the Mormon church views 
> children born out of wedlock?  In particular I'm interested to know if any 
> stigma is attached to the children as opposed to the parents.  I'm especially 
> keen to learn if there is or is not any prohibition in the Mormon faith on 
> bastards entering heaven or having their names entered in the big  
genealogical 
> book the Mormons keep in Salt Lake City.  If this is an issue on which the 
> "official" position has changed over time, I'm interested in learning both  
old 
> and new beliefs.  E-mail or posting is fine.  All information or pointers are 
> appreciated.
> 

Well, since my wife is (in your gentle term) a "bastard", I can
probably speak with a bit of authority on this. Any "stigma"
associated with children conceived and/or born out of wedlock rests
solely upon the parents--they've committed a sexual transgression for
which they should repent. The child itself has no a priori limitations
on him or her; indeed, the concept of blaming the child for the
parents' sins is one most Mormons would find appalling; note that LDS
theology rejects original sin, as the term is usually defined, and the
subsequent need for infant baptism (cf. Moroni 8 in the Book of
Mormon).  Indeed, LDS doctrine goes one step further and in some cases
holds parents responsible for their children's sins if they have
failed to bring them up properly (cf. D&C 68:25-28; note that this
passage applies it only to members of the LDS Church).

Also note that there is no "big genealogical book in Salt Lake City".
The LDS Church has a massive storage facility in the nearby mountains
containing (on microfilm) vital statistic records (birth, christening,
baptism, marriage, death) gathered from all over the entire world. I
may be misremembering, but I believe they have records for some 2
billion people in that vault. At the same time, the LDS Church is
building up an on-line genealogical database. In neither case is there
some kind of "worthiness screening" as to whether someone can be
entered in. The only potential issue is that of establishing who the
parents were, and that would apply only in the case of the database.
..bruce..

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce F. Webster             |  I love the Constitution of this land,
CTO, Pages Software Inc      |  but I hate the damned rascals that
bwebster@pages.com           |  administer it. 
#import <pages/disclaimer.h> |            -- attributed to Brigham Young
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[The following arrived as a separate posting --clh]

A follow-up to my own follow-up--lest anyone misunderstand, the term
"bastard" is one which I have never in 25 years of LDS Church
membership heard applied, formally or informally, to a child born out
of wedlock, and indeed would (rightly) be considered a vulgar,
offensive term. I would not have echoed the expression in my reply,
except in hopes that the poster would recognize the offensive nature
of the word in the given context. Unfortunately, after posting my
reply, I remembered that subtle points are often lost on the 'net, and
figured I'd better spell it out.  ..bruce..

Bruce F. Webster
bwebster@pages.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21431
From: dps@nasa.kodak.com (Dan Schaertel,,,)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article 15441@geneva.rutgers.edu, loisc@microsoft.com (Lois Christiansen) writes:

|>You might visit some congregations of Christians, who happen to be homosexuals,
|>that are spirit-filled believers, not MCC'rs; before you go lumping us all
|>together with Troy Perry.  
|>

Gee, I think there are some real criminals (robbers, muderers, drug
addicts) who appear to be fun loving caring people too.  So what's
your point?  Is it OK. just because the people are nice?

|>Isn't Satan having a hayday pitting Christian against Christian over any issue
|>he can, especially homosexuality.  Let's reach the homosexuals for Christ. 
|>Let's not try to change them, just need to bring them to Christ.  If He
|>doesn't want them to be gay, He can change that.  If they are living a moral
|>life, committed to someone of the same sex, and God is moving in their lives,
|>who are we to tell them they have to change?
|>

I think the old saying " hate the sin and not the sinner" is
appropriate here.  Many who belive homosexuality is wrong probably
don't hate the people.  I don't.  I don't hate my kids when they do
wrong either.  But I tell them what is right, and if they lie or don't
admit they are wrong, or just don't make an effort to improve or
repent, they get punished.  I think this is quite appropriate.  You
may want to be careful about how you think satan is working here.
Maybe he is trying to destroy our sense of right and wrong through
feel goodism.  Maybe he is trying to convince you that you know more
than God.  Kind of like the Adam and Eve story.  Read it and compare
it to today's mentality.  You may be suprised.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21432
From: biz@soil.princeton.edu (Dave Bisignano)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

Ken,
Then what happens when you die?
Why are you here?
What is the purpose of Your life, do you think it's 
just by chance you're in the family you are in and have the
friends you have?
Why do you think your searching?  To fill the void that
exists in your life.  Who do you think can fill that void

--Dave--

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21433
From: biz@soil.princeton.edu (Dave Bisignano)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

In article <May.9.05.41.56.1993.27583@athos.rutgers.edu>, gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock) writes:
| Bob reminds me of my roommate.  In order to disbelieve atheism, he says 
| he will need to be proven wrong about it.  Well, I don't even waste 
| my time trying.  I tell him that he'll just have to take my word for it. 
| In response, he tells me he will say an "atheist's prayer" for me. 



Who is the "atheist's prayer" being said to?

 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21434
From: ptrei@bistromath.mitre.org (Peter Trei)
Subject: Re: Athiests and Hell

In article <May.9.05.38.49.1993.27375@athos.rutgers.edu> REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov writes:
[much deleted] 
>point today might be the Masons.  (Just a note, that they too worshipped 
>Osiris in Egypt...)
[much deleted] 

     It bugs me when I see this kind of nonsense.

     First, there is no reasonable evidence linking Masonry to ancient
Egypt, or even that it existed prior to the late 14th century (and
there's nothing definitive before the 17th).

     Second, worship of Osiris is not, nor has it ever been, a part of
Masonic practice (we are strictly non-denominational).

>tangents, never ending tangents,

     You said it!

>Rex

							Peter Trei
							ptrei@mitre.org
							Editor: Masonic Digest

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21435
From: mayne@pipe.cs.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

In article <May.9.05.40.51.1993.27526@athos.rutgers.edu> noye@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>christians can also feel that
>sense of "difference", however, when they are associated with "those
>weird televangelists who always talk about satan".  if you'll excuse
>the cliched sound of this, everyone has to deal with his/ her
>differences from other people. i can understand how being an atheist
>could be hard for you; being a christian is sometimes hard for me.

This is not at all comparable. Christianity is the main stream in
western culture. You are trivializing the experiences of others.

I remember what it was like being "different" as a Christian. We
were told all the time that we were different, and in fact that
only members of the our church were really Christians (though others
who believed in God weren't as bad as atheists), so we were a small
minority. That was nothing compared to being an atheist.

The only thing comparable would be a young child being Christian
being surrounded by staunch atheists, including parents, who
actively persecute any religious tendancies - both actual punishments
and, even worse, emotional blackmail. They would also have
to have the whole mainstream society on their side. Maybe these
conditions could have occured in the old Soviet Union* not in a
country with "under God" in its pledge of allegiance.

* I doubt it even then, because children have to be taught to be
Christians and hence must have support somewhere.

>>I have sympathy for gays growing up in repressive environments and
>>having to hide and sometimes at first try to deny a part of themselves
>>because I've been there. Only in my case it was my rationality instead
>>of sexuality which I was forced to try to repress.
>
>in some way the pressures were different, of course, because you
>"chose" your beliefs -- or are you saying that they were not your
>choice, but born of necessity?  [please, no flames about whether or
>not gay people "choose" their lifestyle -- that's elsewhere in this
>newsgroup]

Yes. My atheism was "born of necessity." For an intellectually honest
person belief is mostly a response to evidence. Will or wishes have
nothing to do with it. I could choose to lie, or to be silent about
my true beliefs. I could no more choose to believe in the God of
Christianity than I could decide that the ordinary sky looks red to
me. Still I should be clear that I'm not equating what I went through
with what gays go through. However it is a mistake to assume that
everyone who goes through painful experiences are broken by them.
Happily some are made stronger, once we get past it.

>> I must say that I
>>wasn't hurt by my experiences in church any more than some of my friends
>>who didn't become atheists. I was just hurt differently.
>
>i'm not sure i understand this sentence -- could you explain?

Not without going to details and violating the confidences of some of my
childhood friends. Suffice it say to that religion does not guarantee
that a person will be happy and strong emotionally, and a repressive
upbringing can leave its scars even, or especially, on those who don't
get free of it. I doubt that any sane and sincere person doubts that and
I feel no need to defend it.

By the way I am much happier and stronger being out of the closet. In
the end it has been, as someone eloquently put it in private email, an
experience of liberation rather than disillusion.

Bill Mayne

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21436
From: mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server)
Subject: Re: homosexual issues in Christianity

mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:
>In <May.7.01.08.16.1993.14381@athos.rutgers.edu> 
>whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell) writes:
> 
>>Any one who thinks that Homosexuality and Christianity are compatible should 
>check  
>>out:
>>       Romans 1:27
>>       I Corinthians 6:9
>>       I Timothy 1:10
>>       Jude 1:7
>>       II Peter 2:6-9
>>       Gen. 19
>>       Lev  18:22
>>(to name a few of the verses that pertain to homosexuality)
> 
>Homosexual Christians have indeed "checked out" these verses.  Some of
>them are used against us only through incredibly perverse interpretations.
>Others simply do not address the issues.

I can see that some of the above verses do not clearly address the issues, 
however, a couple of them seem as though they do not require "incredibly 
perverse interpretations" in order to be seen as condemning homosexuality.

"... Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, 
nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, 
nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom  of God.  And such were 
some of you..."  I Cor. 6:9-11.

Would someone care to comment on the fact that the above seems to say
fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of God?  How does this apply
to homosexuals?  I understand "fornication" to be sex outside of
marriage.  Is this an accurate definition?  Is there any such thing as
same-sex marriage in the Bible?  My understanding has always been that
the New Testament blesses sexual intercourse only between a husband
and his wife.  I am, however, willing to listen to Scriptural evidence
to the contrary.

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an
abomination.  Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to
be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate
with it; it is a perversion."  Lev. 18:22-23.

I notice that the verse forbidding bestiality immediately follows the
verse prohibiting what appears to be homosexual intercourse.  I know
of no New Testament passages that clearly condemn, or even mention,
intercourse with animals.  Do those who argue for the legitimacy of
homosexual intercourse believe that the Bible condemns bestiality as a
perversion, and if so, why?  That is, what verses would you cite to
prove that bestiality was perverted and sinful?  Could the verses you
cite be refuted by interpreting them differently?  Can one be a
Christian zoophile?

By the way, I myself am subject to sexual desires that I did not
choose to have and that many people would regard as perverted and
sinful, so please understand that I am not asking these questions out
of an antipathy towards my fellow "people of alternative
orientations".  I do believe, however, that one should read the Bible
with an attitude of "what is the Bible trying to say" and not "what do
I WANT the Bible to say."  I choose not to give in to my "perverted"
sexual desires because I believe the Bible tries to tell me, whether I
like it or not, that such things are sin.  It is frustrating at times,
and I have had days where it really got me down, but I don't blame God
for this, I blame the sin itself.

- Mark

[There's some ambiguity about the meaning of the words in the passage
you quote.  Both liberal and conservative sources seem to agree that
"homosexual" is not the general term for homosexuals, but is likely to
have a meaning like homosexual prostitute.  That doesn't meant that I
think all the Biblical evidence vanishes, but the nature of the
evidence is such that you can't just quote one verse and solve things.

I think your argument from fornication is circular.  Why is
homosexuality wrong?  Because it's fornication.  Why is it
fornication?  Because they're not married.  Why aren't they married?
Because the church refuses to do a marriage ceremony.  Why does the
church refuse to do a marriage ceremony?  Because homosexuality is
wrong.  In order to break the circle there's got to be some other
reason to think homosexuality is wrong.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21437
From: todd@nickel.laurentian.ca
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christiani

whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell) writes,

> I see no other way of interpreting them other than homosexuyality
> being wrong.  Please tell me how these verses can be interpreted in
> any other way.  I read them and the surrounding text.

But that is exactly what I was asking. If the Homosexual community (is that
the proper term?) has decided that Christianity is not against Homosexual 
behaviour but rather condones it then how do they interpret these verses. I
guess what I am really looking for is a "homosexual" response.

Todd...
 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21438
From: fsela1@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

In article <May.5.02.50.42.1993.28665@athos.rutgers.edu>, Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu (Fil Sapienza) writes:
> I am interested in finding out why people become
> atheists after having believed in some god/God.
> In conversing with them on other groups, I've
> often sensed anger or hostility.   Though I don't
> mean to imply that all atheists are angry or hostile,
> it does seem to be one motivation for giving up
> faith.  Thus, some atheism might result from 
> broken-ness.


i'm atheist
just because
there is no supreme being
there is the world as we know it
and it's wonderful and incredible
and there is love between people
and these things are everything
i don't believe in a god that made this all
i believe in the amazing and beautiful
teaming with life world i live in

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21439
From: dps@nasa.kodak.com (Dan Schaertel,,,)
Subject: Re: War  - should Christians fight?

In article 28827@athos.rutgers.edu, david-s@hsr.no (David A. Sjoen) writes:
|>Personally, I think that Christians shouldn't fight.

|>2) As Christians, we are not supposed to defend ourselves
|>	Matt 5:38-48, Heb 10:33-34
|>3) War is a result of sin. Defense may be a necessary reaction to an
|>attack, but I don't think that we as Christians should take part in
|>this.


What if you are trying to defend someone else.  Should you allow killing and
oppression to continiue, or is it our obligation to protect the innocent?

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21440
From: lsvedin@worf (Lynn Svedin)
Subject: Re: Mormon Temples

[On secrecy in LDS ceremonies.  --clh]

I think christ summed it up quite nicely when he said something about
"casting pearls before swine."  Why tell people things that are most
sacred to you when all they will do with it is belittle it.  You have
to be little to belittle.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21441
From: mpaul@unl.edu (marxhausen paul)
Subject: Re: Mary's assumption

I hate to sound flippant, having shot off my mouth badly on the net
before, but I'm afraid that much of this material only adds to my
feeling that "the assumption of Mary" would be better phrased "our
assumptions _about_ Mary."  In all the time I've been reading about
Mary on this group, I can not recall reading much about Mary that
did not sound like wishful veneration with scant, if any, Scriptural
foundation.  

I find in the New Testament a very real portrait of Christ's parents
as compellingly human persons; to be honored and admired for their
humility and submission to God's working, beyond doubt.  But the almalga-
mation of theories and dogma that has accreted around them gives me
an image of alien and inhuman creatures, untouched by sin or human
desire.  Only Christ himself was so truly sanctified, and even He knew
temptation, albeit without submitting to it.

I also don't see the _necessity_ of saying the Holy Parents were some-
how sanctified beyond normal humanity: it sounds like our own inability
to grasp the immensity of God's grace in being incarnated through an or-
dinary human being.  

I won't start yelling about how people are "worshipping" Mary, etc.,
since folks have told me otherwise about that, but I do think we
lose part of the wonder of God's Incarnation in Christ when we make
his parents out to be sinless, sexless, deathless, otherworldly beings.
  
--
paul marxhausen .... ....... ............. ............ ............ .......... 
 .. . .  . . . university of nebraska - lincoln .  . . .. . .  .. . . . . . . .
 .     .    .  .   .     .   .  .    .   .  .   .    .   .  grace .   .    .  . 
   .         .       .      .        .        .      .        .   happens .     

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21442
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: Serbian genocide Work of God?

In article <May.10.05.08.05.1993.3614@athos.rutgers.edu> db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes:
[does he believe in predestination]
>Of course I believe in Predestination.  It's a very biblical doctrine as
>Romans 8.28-30 shows (among other passages).  Furthermore, the Church
>has always taught predestination, from the very beginning. 

really?  you may be right, but i'd like proof.  as far as i know (and
i am not a div school student!) the catholic church does not seem to
accept predestination.  my chaplain told me "beware of greeks bearing
gifts" with reference to this doctrine: it seems to have the curious
result that human beings are not held responsible for their own
actions!  i'll answer how you deal with this in a minute.

>But to say
>that I believe in Predestination does not mean I do not believe in free
>will.  Men freely choose the course of their life, which is also
>affected by the grace of God.  However, unlike the Calvinists and
>Jansenists, I hold that grace is resistable, otherwise you end up with
>the idiocy of denying the universal saving will of God (1 Timothy 2.4). 

right.  that doesn't really seem like predestination to me, but i'll
continue with what you're saying....

>For God must give enough grace to all to be saved.  But only the elect,
>who he foreknew, are predestined and receive the grace of final
>perserverance, which guarantees heaven.  This does not mean that those
>without that grace can't be saved, it just means that god foreknew their
>obstinacy and chose not to give it to them, knowing they would not need
>it, as they had freely chosen hell.

this is really confusing to me, especially since i still believe that
christ jesus died for ALL of us.  preknowledge of obstinacy seems
like an awfully convoluted way to account for a couple of verses.  but
then, i am not really biblically supported in this opinion -- or am i?
others?

>People who are saved are saved by the grace of God, and not by their own
>effort, for it was God who disposed them to Himself, and predestined
>them to become saints.  But those who perish in everlasting fire perish
>because they hardened their heart and chose to perish.  Thus, they were
>deserving of God;s punishment, as they had rejected their Creator, and
>sinned against the working of the Holy Spirit.

so God uses grace like margarine: he only spreads it where it's needed
and not where it isn't?  and so there are the saved and the not-saved,
and nothing in between.  hmmmm.

>>yes, it is up to God to judge.  but he will only mete out that
>>punishment at the last judgement. 
>
>Well, I would hold that as God most certainly gives everybody some
>blessing for what good they have done (even if it was only a little),
>for those He can't bless in the next life, He blesses in this one.  

although i realize this doctrine was not originally intended to cause
social problems, it ends up doing just that -- if there is supposed to
be some sort of "sign" that someone is elect, like lots of children or
success at work, then those who have a good life on earth will go
around thinking that those who don't are doomed to hell.

in a way, though, this sounds like the opposite idea -- those doomed
to hell will have a great life on earth.  that's almost like the
converse of what i believe -- responsibility for what we do now will
be punished after we die.  you're saying what we get after we die has
a direct bearing on how we live now?  strange....
 
>And
>those He will not punish in the next life, will be chastised in this one
>or in Purgatory for their sins.  Every sin incurs some temporal
>punishment, thus, God will punish it unless satisfaction is made for it
>(cf. 2 Samuel 12.13-14, David's sin of Adultery and Murder were
>forgiven, but he was still punished with the death of his child.)  And I
>need not point out the idea of punishment because of God's judgement is
>quite prevelant in the Bible.  Sodom and Gommorrah, Moses barred from
>the Holy Land, the slaughter of the Cannanites, Annias and Saphira,
>Jerusalem in 70 AD, etc.

so sin is either punished now or later -- and not both?  what if it's
 sort of half-punished?  are there any grey areas in this doctrine?

 [my stuff deleted]
 >We should stop the slaughter of the innocent (cf Proverbs 24.11-12), but
 >does that mean that Christians should support a war in Bosnia with the
 >U.S. or even the U.N. involved?  I do not think so, but I am an
 >isolationist, and disagree with foreign adventures in general.  But in
 >the case of Bosnia, I frankly see no excuse for us getting militarily
 >involved, it would not be a "just war."  "Blessed" after all, "are the
 >peacemakers" was what Our Lord said, not the interventionists.  Our
 >actions in Bosnia must be for peace, and not for a war which is
 >unrelated to anything to justify it for us.

 the idea (well, my idea) would be that you would intervene to
 establish peace and stop the atrocities.  i'm not suggesting wwIII.  i
 don't really understand what you mean by a "just war".  of course i am
 not an isolationist, although i see some merit in not jumping in at
 the first opportunity (can you say kuwait?).  we happen to be a big
 country with a lot of resources (as well as a lot of debt), and this
 gives us some responsibility in the world, whether we like it or not.
 flashbacks of wwII, as well as vietnam, should be haunting us.

 yet another difference of opinion.  so be it.

 >Andy Byler

 thank you for answering; i hope you don't take any of my comments as
 flames, but instead as expressions of interest.

 vera
*******************************************************************************
I am your CLOCK!     |  I bind unto myself today    | Vera Noyes
I am your religion!  |  the strong name of the	    | noye@midway.uchicago.edu
I own you!	     |  Trinity....		    | no disclaimer -- what
	- Lard	     |	- St. Patrick's Breastplate | is there to disclaim?
*******************************************************************************

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21443
From: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary

In article <May.9.05.39.11.1993.27394@athos.rutgers.edu> db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes:

>And it should be noted that the Monophysite Chruches of Egypt and Syria
>also hold to this belief as part of divine revelation, even though they
>broke away from the unity of the Chruch in 451 AD by rejecting the
>Council of Chalcedon.  It might be argued by some Protestants that the
>Catholics and Orthodox made this belief up, but the Monophysites, put a
>big hole in that notion, as they also hold the belief, and they split
>from the Chruch before the belief was first annunciated in writing (as
>far as is known, much has been lost from the time of the Fathers).

The belief that the churches of Egypt and Syria were (or are) monophysite is 
false, as is the belief that they often held that the Council of Chalcedon 
was Nestorian.

These misunderstandings were exacerbated by political factors, and thus led 
to schism - a schism that is on its way to being healed.

============================================================
Steve Hayes, Department of Missiology & Editorial Department
Univ. of South Africa, P.O. Box 392, Pretoria, 0001 South Africa
Internet: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za         Fidonet: 5:7101/20
          steve.hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
FAQ: Missiology is the study of Christian mission and is part of
     the Faculty of Theology at Unisa

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21444
From: dan@ingres.com (a Rose arose)
Subject: SJ Mercury's reference to Fundamentalist Christian parents

In the Monday, May 10 morning edition of the San Jose Mercury News an
article by Sandra Gonzales at the top of page 12A explained convicted
killer David Edwin Mason's troubled childhood saying,

	"Raised in Oakland and San Lorenzo by strict fundamentalist
	Christian parents, Mason was beaten as a child.  He once was
	tied to a workbench and gagged with a cloth after he accidently
	urinated on his mother when she walked under his bedroom window,
	court records show."

Were the San Jose Mercury news to come out with an article starting with
"Raised in Oakland by Mexican parents, Mason was beaten...", my face would
be red with anger over the injustice done to my Mexican family members and
the Mexican community as a whole.  I'm sure Sandra Gonzales would be equally
upset.

Why is it that open biggotry like this is practiced and encouraged by the
San Jose Mercury News when it is pointed at the christian community?

Can a good christian continue to purchase newspapers and buy advertising in
this kind of a newspaper?  This is really bad journalism.

I'm upset.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21445
From: danc@procom.com (Daniel Cossack)
Subject: Re: Christianity and repeated lives

smayo@world.std.com (Scott A Mayo) writes:

>>Gerry Palo writes:
>> > ...there is nothing in Christianity that precludes the idea of
>> > repeated lives on earth.

>Doesn't it say somewhere "It is appointed to man once to die,
>and then judgement?" I don't have a concordance here but I have
>some dim memory that this appears *somewhere* in the Bible.
>Given a fairly specific context for what judgement is, I'd say
>that more or less decides the issue.
>[Heb 9:27 --clh]

That depends on how this verse is read.  There are at least two
meanings of the word "once".  1) only one time, and 2) at some
other time (i.e. once upon a time).  Note that in the previous
verse, the word "once" is used with the second meaning, and also
in the following verse, "once" is again used with the second meaning.
The Greek, I am sure, uses different words for each of the two meanings
for the English word "once".  I am not a Greek scholar, but I'm sure
someone here can verify which Greek word is used here for this meaning.
If the second meaning is being used, that verse can be interpreted as:

  - for it was once given for men to die (beginning with Adam), but 
    after this [gift of atonement offered by Jesus Christ] the judgement
    [is made available], for now there is no longer death, but life
    with Christ.
-- 
===========================================================================
Daniel Cossack                |  danc@procom.com, 71333.2102@compuserve.com
Senior Software Engineer      |  2181 Dupont Drive, Irvine, CA 92715
Procom Technology, Inc.       |  +1 714 852 1000

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21446
From: revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary

D. Andrew Byler (db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu) wrote:
: However greatly we extoll Mary, it is quite obvious that she is in no
: way God or even part of God or equal to God.  The Assumption of our
: Blessed Mother, meant that because of her close identification with the
: redemptive work of Christ, she was Assumed (note that she did not
: ASCEND) body and soul into Heaven, and is thus one of the few, along
: with Elijah, Enoch, Moses (maybe????) who are already perfected in
: Heaven.  Obviously, the Virgin Mary is far superior in glorification to
: any of the previously mentioned personages.


As I said, it is a provocative thought.

From "Answer to Job":

	The logical consistency of the papal declaration cannot be surpassed
	and it leaves Protestantism with the odium of being nothing but a
	_man's religion_ which allows no metaphysical representation of woman.
	...Protestantism has obviously not given sufficient attention to the
	signs of the times which point to the equality of women.  But this
	equality requires to be metaphysically anchored in the figure of a
	"divine" woman, the bride of Christ.  Just as the person of Christ
	cannot be replaced by an organization, so the bride cannot be re-
	placed by the Church.  The feminine, like the masculine, demands an
	equally personal representation.
		The dogmatizing of the Assumption does not, however, according
	to the dogmatic view, mean that Mary has attained the status of a
	goddess, although, as mistress of heaven...and mediatrix, she is 
	functionally on a par with Christ, the king and mediator. At any
	rate, her position satisfies the need of the archetype. [par. 753-4]


: Jung should stick to Psychology rather than getting into Theology.

Jung made it clear that he was talking about psychology, not theology.  His
comments had to do with the psychological _image_ of God and its function
in the human psyche, not about the actual existence or nature of God.

revdak@netcom.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21447
From: swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com (Stan Friesen)
Subject: Re: MAJOR VIEWS OF THE TRINITY

In article <May.5.02.52.59.1993.28865@athos.rutgers.edu>, you write:
|> 
|> [Yes.  My comments were long enough that I don't want to repeat
|> them here, but I'll send them via email back to the author.
|> Certainly it was not intended to be a description of three similar
|> deities, though I certainly see why it would look that way.
|> 
Thanks for the letter, your comments helped some.

As to the last comment, I certainly realize that it was not intended to
sound that way.  I am still trying to understand *how* a spiritual being
colud truly be one and three at the same time.  All of the descriptions
of this are either Platonic or sound like special pleading (sort of,
"they appear to be three seperate beings in all ways, but really they are
one, trust me").

Neither of these is acceptible to me.

The fact is, so far the only descriptions of the trinity that makes any
*sense* to me are the modalistic ones, such as Modalistic Monarchianism
or "Economic Trinitarianism".  [I can accept that the three aspects are
intrinsic to the nature of God, so I perhaps lean more towards the latter].

I am trying, here, to see if anybody can come up with another description
that is both orthodox and believable.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com

[I fear orthodox theologians have been overly in love with paradox, to
the extent that well-meaning people think they've just flat-out
confused.  There's no problem with things being both 3 and 1, e.g.  if
the 3 are different parts of the 1.  Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
aren't exactly parts of God, because parts are things distinguished by
physical separation.  All three Persons are omnipresent, so they are
obviously aren't physically separate.  But they're in some way
different aspects, modes, or whatever, of one God.  If you accept
economic trinitarianism, it's possible that you don't have any
substantive difference with the standard view.  Is it possible that
you just don't find the neo-Platonic explanation illuminating?
--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21448
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse


   For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the
barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 
Ephesians 2:14

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21449
From: nabil@cae.wisc.edu (Nabil Ayoub)
Subject: Re: Monophysites and Mike Walker

In article <May.10.05.08.01.1993.3602@athos.rutgers.edu> db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes:
>Nabil Ayoub writes:
>
>>As a final note, the Oriental Orthodox and Eastren Orthodox did sign a
>>common statement of Christology, in which the heresey of >Monophysitism
>>was condemned. So the Coptic Orthodox Church does not believe in
>>Monophysitism.
>
>Sorry!
>
>What does the Coptic Church believe about the will and energy of Christ?
> Were there one or were there two (i.e. Human and Divine) wills and
>energies in Him.
>
>Also, what is the objection ot the Copts with the Pope of Rome (i.e. why
>is there a Coptic Catholic Church)?  Do you reject the supreme
>jurisdiction of the 263rd sucessor of St. Peter (who blessed St. John
>Mark, Bishop of Alexandria was translator for) and his predecessors?  Or
>his infallibility?  Or what other things perhaps?

For your first set of questions (regarding the energy and will of Christ)
I quote to you the relevant part of the Statement signed by both Eastern
(Chalcedonian) and Oriental (non-Chalcedonian) Orthodox scholars a few
years ago (Both families = both Orthodox churches) :

1. Both  families  agreed in  condemning  the Eutychian heresy. Both  families
confess that the Logos, the Second Person  of the Holy  Trinity, only begotten
of the Father before the ages  and consubstantial with  Him, was incarnate and
was born from the Virgin Mary Theotokos; fully consubstantial with us, perfect
man with soul, body and mind  ($  \nu o  \upsilon \zeta $); He  was crucified,
died, was  buried and rose  from the dead on  the third day, ascended   to the
Heavenly Father, where He sits on the right hand of the Father as  Lord of all
creation. At  Pentecost, by the coming of  the  Holy Spirit He  manifested the
Church as His Body. We look forward to His coming again in the fullness of His
glory, according to the Scriptures.

2. Both  families condemn the  Nestorian heresy and the crypto-Nestorianism of
Theodoret of  Cyrus. They agree that it  is not sufficient merely  to say that
Christ is consubstantial both with His Father  and with us, by  nature God and
by nature man; it is necessary to affirm also that the Logos, Who is by nature
God,  became by  nature   man, by His  incarnation  in the fullness  of  time.

3. Both families agree  that the Hypostasis of the  Logos became  composite by
uniting to His divine uncreated nature with its natural will and energy, which
He has  in common with  the Father and  the Holy Spirit, created human nature,
which He assumed  at the Incarnation  and made  His own, with its natural will
and energy.

4. Both families agree  that the natures  with their proper energies and wills
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
are united hypostatically and  naturally   without confusion, without  change,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
without  division and without separation,  and that they are distinguished  in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
thought alone.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^

5. Both families agree that He who wills and acts is always the one Hypostasis
of the Logos Incarnate.

[...]

I guess that adresses your question adequately.

As for your second set of questions, I am afraid they are irrelevant to the
discussion (at least from my point of view) of Monophysitism. I do not see
how they relate to the topic we are discussing (other than to start an
endless Orthodox-RC debate which I do not plan to engage into). As a brief
answer to your questions, the position of the Coptic Orthodox Church 
regarding the Roman pontiff, his jurisdiction, his infalability, etc.
is exactly the same as all the other Orthodox churches.

Peace,

Nabil

          .-------------------------------------------------------------.
         /  Nabil Ayoub                        ____/   __  /    ____/  /
        /  Engine Research Center             /       /   /    /      /
       /  Dept. of Mechanical Engineering    ___/    __  /    /      /
      /  University of Wisconsin-Madison    /       /   |    /      /
     /  Email:ayoub@erctitan.me.wisc.edu  _____/ __/   _|  _____/  /
    '-------------------------------------------------------------'

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21450
From: revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille)
Subject: Re: God, morality, and massacres

Without quoting at length from the preceeding post, I'd just like
to say that I find it a much more appropriate way of dealing with
issues like the Holocaust and Bosnia that asserting that "God is
punishing them."

The activity of God is always _redemptive_, which means "restoring
what has been lost, broken, or distorted."  So, God does not _will_
the brokenness, lostness, distortion, genocide, poverty, etc, but
is nonetheless capable, willing, and active to restore, heal, mend,
and redeeem.

revdak@netcom.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21451
From: nabil@cae.wisc.edu (Nabil Ayoub)
Subject: Re: Monophysites and Mike Walker

In article <May.9.05.38.52.1993.27378@athos.rutgers.edu> our moderator
comments :

>Chalcedon was a compromise between two groups, the Alexandrians and
>Antiochenes.  It adopted language that was intended to be acceptable
>to moderates in both camps, while ruling out the extremes.  I agree
>that there were extremes that were heretical.  However in the course
>of the complex politics of the time, it appears that some people got
>rejected who didn't intend heresy, but simply used language that was
>not understood or even was mispresented.  And some seem not to have
>jointed in the compromise for reasons other than doctrine.  There are
							     ^^^^^^^^^
>groups descended from both of the supposedly heretical camps.  This
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>posting discussed the descendants of the Alexandrians.  There are also
>a remaining Nestorians.  Like some of the current so-called
>monophysites, there is reason to believe that the current so-called
>Nestorians are not heretical either.  They sheltered Nestorius from
>what they saw as unfair treatment, but claim they did not adopt his
>heresies, and in fact seem to follow more moderate representatives of
>the Antiochene tradition.
>
>--clh]

There is a BIG difference between the status of what you refer to as
Alexandrians (actually, this includes all Oriental Orthodox Churches
and not only Copts) and that of Nestorians. The Oriental Orthodox
Churches never even "shelter" Eutyches (the advocator of Monophysitism)
but on the contrary, it condemned (and still does condemn) him and his
heresy. That is why the Eastren (Chalcedonian) Orthodox Church held
talks with the Oriental (non-Chalcedonian) that started 30 years ago
and still continueing till today, but they have converged on many
issues the most imporatant of which is Christology (I have more 
details of the inter-Orthodox dialogue, in case anyone is interested).
So I do not see how the "Alexandrians" and the Nestorians are in a
similar position.

Peace,

Nabil
          .-------------------------------------------------------------.
         /  Nabil Ayoub                        ____/   __  /    ____/  /
        /  Engine Research Center             /       /   /    /      /
       /  Dept. of Mechanical Engineering    ___/    __  /    /      /
      /  University of Wisconsin-Madison    /       /   |    /      /
     /  Email:ayoub@erctitan.me.wisc.edu  _____/ __/   _|  _____/  /
    '-------------------------------------------------------------'

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21452
From: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes)
Subject: Re: The Nicene Creed (was Re: MAJOR VIEWS OF THE TRINITY)

In article <May.9.05.39.19.1993.27401@athos.rutgers.edu> db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes:

>>The so-called Creed of Athanasius, however, has always been a Western
>>creed, and has always had the filioque.  The Orthodox have said that
>>they accept all that it says, with the exception of the filioque, but
>>it is not "in use."
...
>	Of course the Orthodox did not delete the Filioque from the Nicene
>Creed (it wasn't there to begin with), but they certainly did from the
>Athanasian Creed, which did have it from the beginning.

The so-called Athanasian Creed has never been a recognized standard of faith 
in the Orthodox Church. It was introduced (without the Filioque) in certain 
service-books in the 17th and 18th centuries at a time when there was a 
strong Western influence on Orhtodoxy.

============================================================
Steve Hayes, Department of Missiology & Editorial Department
Univ. of South Africa, P.O. Box 392, Pretoria, 0001 South Africa
Internet: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za         Fidonet: 5:7101/20
          steve.hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
FAQ: Missiology is the study of Christian mission and is part of
     the Faculty of Theology at Unisa

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21453
From: dan@ingres.com (a Rose arose)
Subject: Re: earthquake prediction

mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server) writes:
: Ok, a few days back, the below-included message was posted stating: 
: 
: >     I believe with everything in my heart that on May 3, 1993, the city of
: >Portland, Oregon in the country of the United States of America will be hit
: >with a catastrophic and disastrous earthquake...
: 
: By now, we know that this did not come to pass....
: 
: ...I don't think it's particularly 
: glorifying to God to say things like "Well, I THINK the Lord is telling me...", 
: ..Such statements seem to me to be an attempt to get a spiritual thrill should 
: the guess happen to come true, without risking the guilt of false prophecy 
: should it fail to come to pass.  I do not believe genuine prophecy was ever 
: like this.  Comments?
: 

I agree.   People should not be misled to believe "thus sayeth the Lord" by
innuendo or opinion or speculation.

Speak directly.  If the Lord has given you something to say, say it.
But, before I declare "thus sayeth the Lord", I'd better know for certain
without a shadow of a doubt that I am in the correct spiritual condition
and relationship with the Lord to receive such a prophecy and be absolutely
certain, again, without the tiniest shadow of a doubt that there is no
possibility of my being misled by my own imaginations or by my hope of gaining
recognition or of being misled by the wiles of the devil and his followers.

Mistakes in this area are costly and dangerous.  For me, my greatest fears
in this area would be the following:

1--that the people would be misled
2--that people would lose respect for christianity
3--that true prophecy would be clouded by all the false prophecies
4--were God to call me to be a prophet and I were to misrepresent God's Word,
   my calling would be lost forever.  God's Word would command the people
   never to listen to or fear my words as I would be a false prophet.  My
   bridges would be burnt forever.  Perhaps I could repent and be saved, but
   I could never again be a prophet of God.

In the light of this, it is critical that we speak when the Lord says speak
and that we be silent when the Lord says to be silent lest we deprive the
world of God's Word and hide it under a bushel either by our inappropriate,
cowardly silence or by our false statements.  And because of this, it
is critically important that we remain close to the Lord, in His Word, and
in prayer, and filled with the Spirit of God so that we know the difference.

In this day and age, sinners spout off their mouths left and right judging
one another, claiming "rights" that are not theirs, denying rights that do
indeed belong to others, demanding equal respect for all the "gods" of this
world, and uttering every form of falseness that promises to make one feel
good.

It's time that we christians give an example of honesty that stands out in
contrast against this backdrop of falsehood.  When we say, "thus sayeth the
Lord", it happens.  When we pray, prayer is answered because we prayed right.
When we say we're christians, we really mean it.

           Dan

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
	"I deplore the horrible crime of child murder...
	 We want prevention, not merely punishment.
	 We must reach the root of the evil...
	 It is practiced by those whose inmost souls revolt
	 from the dreadful deed...
	 No mater what the motive, love of ease,
		or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent,
		the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed...
	 but oh! thrice guilty is he who drove her
		to the desperation which impelled her to the crime."

		- Susan B. Anthony,
		  The Revolution July 8, 1869

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21454
From: shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker)
Subject: Re: MAJOR VIEWS OF THE TRINITY (and filioque)

In article <May.6.00.35.38.1993.15459@geneva.rutgers.edu> Steve.Hayes@f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org writes:
>04 May 93, D. Andrew Byler writes to All:
>
> [On The Athanasian Creed]
...
>Do you have any evidence that it is used by the Orthodox Churches?
>
>As far as I know it is purely Western, like the "Apostles' Creed". The
>Orthodox Churches use the "Symbol of Faith", commonly called "The
>Nicene Creed".

I have seen it used in an Orthodox church once, although I can't recall why.
I found it odd, to say the least.  Also, I object to the statement that the
Orthodox DELETE the filioque from the original form of the Creed.

The creed originally did NOT contain that phrase, and it is not present
in the Greek original, which hangs by my desk.  Not intending to start a
flame war.  We didn't need to delete what wasn't there.

Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com)
-- 
-------
Lawrence Overacker
Shell Oil Company, Information Center    Houston, TX            (713) 245-2965
llo@shell.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21455
From: shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker)
Subject: Re: If There Were No Hell

OFM Comments:

>[The only problem with this is that Jesus does use hell as a threat.
>He doesn't sound like some of the more extreme fire and brimstone
>preachers, and I don't think he wants people to live in abject fear.
>But he talks a lot about people being found unworthy, and mentions
>hell a number of times.  I agree that it might be more pleasant to
>think that it doesn't exist.  I certainly don't agree that God is some
>sort of sadist who tortures people forever.  But I am very much afraid
>that there really is a life and death spiritual struggle going on, and
>that it is possible for people to lose in a serious way.  --clh]

No disagreement at all that there is a VERY serious struggle going on.
But Jesus more typically uses consequences as a threat.  That's quite
different from Hell Classic (TM). :-) Jesus doesn't sound like the
usual hell-fire type of preacher.  He attracts people through what he
does. And the stongest example in Jesus preaching is in the parable of 
Lazarus and Dives, which is a parable!  In any case, my point is that
a fear-based response to Christ is not a freeing, life-affirming choice
and isn't Good News in a meaningful sense.  There are plenty of good 
reasons to follow Jesus that have nothing to do with fear or a literal 
hell, that still pertain to overcoming in the present struggle between 
God and the Disloyal Opposition.  A faith based in fear is not built
on Rock, as we should found our faith, but on ice.  If the fear were
removed, there would BE no foundation.  

That's basically why it matters to me.  I think we have many Christians 
that DON'T have a solid basis for relating to the living Incarnate God.
I cannot be fully open to the working of God in and through my life if
my response to God is motivated on fear.  

Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com)

-- 
-------
Lawrence Overacker
Shell Oil Company, Information Center    Houston, TX            (713) 245-2965
llo@shell.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21456
From: revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille)
Subject: Re: Serbian genocide Work of God?

: You might want to re-think your attitude about the Holocaust after
: reading Deuteronomy chapter 28.

On the contrary, after the Holocaust, I would be _very_ cautious about my
interpretatoin of Deuteronomy 28.  Not everything that happens is in
accordance with God's will.  (You might guess which side of the
predestination issue I am on.)  I will never _assume_ that evil is 
punishment by God, especially when I am speaking of the evil that falls on
_someone else_.  For my own life, I will work to discern the hand of God
in the evil that befalls _me_.

See the discussion earlier on Luke 13.

revdak@netcom.com
(unreconstructed arminian)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21457
From: dt4%cs@hub.ucsb.edu (David E. Goggin)
Subject: Dreams and out of body incidents

hey folks,

I'm fairly new to these groups, tho' some have heard from me before.

I'd like to get your comments on a question that has been on my mind a
lot:  What morals/ethics apply to dreams and out-of-body incidents?
In normal dreams, you can't control anything, so obviously
you aren't morally responsible for your actions.  But if you can contrive
to control the action in dreams or do an OOBE, it seems like a morality applies.

Now, there seem to be 3 alternatives:

1) Dreams and OOBEs are totally mental phenomena.  In this case no morality
applies beyond what might be called 'mental hygiene', that is, not trying
to think about anything evil, or indulgining in overly sexy or violent
thoughts.

2) Dreams and OOBEs have a reality of their own (i.e. are 'another plane')
Evidence for this is that often dreams and OOBEs are sometimes done in
common by more than one person.  A
mark of objective fact is that >1 people report the same objective experience.
In this case, the same interpersonal morality/ethics applies in dreams and
OOBEs as does in waking life.

3) Like (2), but here we assume that though the dreeam and OOBE environs have a
real existence, a different moral/ethics apply there, and no (or maybe 
different) moral laws apply there.

So... There it is.  Is one of these cases the truth, or does anyone know
of another alternative?  respond by post or email.

thanks very much

*dt*

========================================================

.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21458
From: muirm@argon.gas.organpipe.uug.arizona.edu (maxwell c muir)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

In article <May.9.05.41.56.1993.27583@athos.rutgers.edu> gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock) writes:
>In article <May.7.01.09.44.1993.14556@athos.rutgers.edu> muirm@argon.gas.organpipe.uug.arizona.edu (maxwell c muir) writes:
>
>>In all candor, I would be happy to be proven wrong [about believing  
>>in atheism].  Problem is, I will have to be _proven_ wrong.
>
>In mentioning some nonsense about psychology :) and atheism, Bob Muir asks
>the following question.   

No smiley on the part about atheism, I see. Do you realize that your
statement says that I was mentioning "nonsense" about atheism? This is
hard for me to defend against if this is the claim you are making, as you
have only included the last two sentences of my post and mentioned the
first. Please address the substance of my post rather than rejecting it
out of hand. 
But, because of the sometimes ambiguous nature of English, I may be
misinterpreting your wording here. Please clarify: did you or did you not
mean to call my statements about atheism "nonsense"? If so, care to back
up that claim?

>>	Do I sound "broken" to you?
>
>I answer in the affirmative.

OK, then. Start up the amatuer psycology again. How am I "broken"?

>Is it politically correct for Christians to be the only besieged group
>permitted the luxury of arrogance?   

*YAWN* Excuse me, I don't recall any portion of my post in which I called
Christians arrogant quote me, if I did. I do remember calling Christianity
"silly" and then following that up with information that I was nine years
old when I thought that. I also said that I find faith to be intellectually
dishonest and I would like to see some sort of proof of your god's
existence. I define "faith" as "belief in the absense of any proof", BTW.

Also, I subscribe to a.a as I mentioned and we see fundies of all types
there, so in answer to your question: "no."

Finally, I'd hardly call Christianity "beseiged" in this country. I seldom
see Christians ridiculed for merely practising their religion or wearing
crosses or having Christian bumper stickers. I don't know for sure, of
course, I only say I haven't seen it happening. What I have seen happening
is my homosexual and/or friends being beat up, or preached at by people
who claim to be Christ's followers. I know that this sort of thing isn't
practiced by the majority of Christians, but it is a very vocal minority
who are doing it and I don't see comperable victimization of Christians. 

>Now I have a question for Bob.  Why in the world would any self-respecting
>atheist want to subscribe to a Christian news group?  

The implication being that I am not self-respecting, of course. I'm not a
student of psychology, BTW, but I am a student of Creative Writing and
Linguistics, so literary analysis _is_ my forte. Also, if the implications
I see are improper, please let me know.
I'm here because I'm not sequestered in my own little atheist cubbyhole as
you seem to think atheists should be. Did it occur to you that I _don't_
think I know everything and that maybe someone will say something that
will change my life? Have you read my other posts here or did you see
"atheist" and decide it was time to poke at someone who doesn't deserve
your respect?
Aw, geez. I'm sorry, I probably am getting my back up a little too high,
here. It's just that the "nonsense" thing really annoys me. I figure you
should see my first reactions, though, since they are my true reactions to
your question.
Now, the smoothed feather version:
I seek all sorts of knowledge. That's why I came to my university. Yes, I
am looking at your religion (well, sorta, I have no idea what *kind* of
Christian you are) from the outside, and hopefully with an objective view.
I've been trying to ask reasoned questions here, because I genuinely don't
know the answers to them, but when I saw the question directed at atheists
I figured I would answer. After all, you can speculate about atheist
motives here all you want (hence the "amatuer" psychology crack), but
without an atheist, you can't be sure of even one atheist's motive.       
I'm hoping people really
want to know and I was trying to show that I actually checked out several
religions and I actually read all the pamphlets people have to offer and I
actually think about these things. Instead, I'm still faced with the
implication that atheism is some kind of aberration and that only "broken"
people are atheist.
	Try it from the flip side: I posit that atheism is the natural
state and only broken people are theists. I offer as proof that so many
people witness from horrible lives which picked up as soon as they 
discovered their religion, that religion is regional (if people didn't
follow the religion of their areas, there would be a more homogenous
mix), so many terrorists claim theistic motives, and that theists tend
to be so pushy and angry when challenged on alt.atheism. Why are religions
so successful? Because there is so much suffering in the world, which 
"breaks" people.
It's an uncomfortable situation whichever way you look at it, which is another
reason I'm here, to try to see the flip side of my thinking (and also as 
a watchdog for logical fallacies :).
>I have a 
>difficult enough time keeping up with it, and I think I know something
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>about the subject.     
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The implication here being that atheists can't possibly know anything
about Christianity. Probably jumping at shadows again, but I think my
reaction is somewhat justified. After all, the first post suggested that
atheists are "broken", hostile people. This post confirms that someone
else believes it. 

>
>Bob reminds me of my roommate.  In order to disbelieve atheism, he says 
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^
>he will need to be proven wrong about it. 

Well, he got me there. I am a strong atheist, because I feel that lack of
evidence, especially about something like an omnipotent being, implies
lack of existence. However, I haven't met the strong atheist yet who said
that nothing could ever persuade him. Call me a "seeker" if you like, I
don't. 
_Weak_ atheism is being ignore here, though. Some atheists simply say "I
don't believe in any god" rather than my position: "I believe that no
god(s) exist." For the weak atheist, the is no atheism to disbelieve,
because they don't actively believe in atheism. (If you think this is
confusing, try figuring out the difference between Protestants and
Methodists from an atheist point of view :).
This is another fallacy many theists seem to have, that everyone believes in
something (followed up by "everyone has faith in something"). Guess what?
My atheism ends the moment I'm shown a proof of some god's existence. Is
that really too much to ask?


>Well, I don't even waste my time trying. 

Well, I guess you won't succeed in converting him or me. Why the
supposition that you will fail to convince him? (amatuer psycology on) Is
it because you yourself are unconvinced? :) 

> I tell him that he'll just have to take my word for it.
And I told you that I find faith to be intellectually dishonest. Note that
I can only speak for myself. If you find faith to be honest, show me how.
I have been unable to reconcile it so far. Maybe that's how I'm "broken"?
I tell you that I have invisible fairies living in my garden and that
you should just take my word for it. If you accept that, you are of a
fundamentally different mind than I and I really would like to know how you
think. All I ask for is proof of the assertion "God exists". Logical or
physical proofs only, please. Then we'll discuss the nature of "God".

>In response, he tells me he will say an "atheist's prayer" for me. 
Prayer?! Uh, oh, we'll have to revoke his atheist club card and beanie! :)

>Good luck, Bob.  And, best regards.

Good luck to you, as well. And, again, I apologize if the inferences I
made were inaccurate. 

>-- 
>Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock 
>Catechist
>gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu 

Muppets and garlic toast forever,
Max (Bob) Muir


[Note that abbreviation of quoted pasages is not always the fault
of the poster.  I sometimes do it in order to get a posting by
the 50% rule in inews.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21459
From: mussack@austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell

In article <May.2.09.50.29.1993.11787@geneva.rutgers.edu>, trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:
> > In article <Apr.20.03.01.40.1993.3769@geneva.rutgers.edu> trajan@cwis.
> > unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:
> 
> > >     ... Besides, I would
> > >     rather spend an eternity in Hell than be beside God in Heaven
> > >     knowing even one man would spend his "eternal life" being
> > >     scorched for his wrongdoings...
> This "display of bravado" is no bluff.  I've no fear any God or
>      His punishment. ...

That was my point. If I play poker with Monopoly money I can bet 
anything I want.

> > ...
> But I shan't go to heaven-- it would be against my sense of
>      humanity and compassion for my fellow man.

This is exactly why Christianity is missionary in nature,
not just out of a need to irritate. 8-)
 
> > ...
> The God of both Testaments are one and the same, and in
>      neither is there evidence God is strictly love.  

To the people who wrote the Bible and to whom the Bible is written,
there is evidence of love, but that is a cultural bias. This is
a poor answer which you needn't rebut.

I will now pull the old bait and switch.

I think you should use the Bible to judge man, not God.
By that I mean, if your moral intuition doesn't like what
is described in the Bible, realize that such things are going on
now. I will avoid the semantic arguments about the cause of evil
and ask what are you doing to fight it? Not you specifically,
but everyone, including myself. If I don't like the genocide
in the Bible, what about the genocide that goes on right now?
To move beyond the question of a hell, realize that many people
right now are suffering. If you think hell isn't fair and are
willing to sacrifice everything just to deny its existence,
what about how life isn't fair? Right now there is a young mother
with three little kids who doesn't know how she will get through
the day. Right now there is a sixth grader who is a junkie.
Right now there is an old man with no friends and no money to
fix his TV. Instead of why doesn't God help them ask why don't
we help them. I think you are correct to challenge any Christian
who doesn't live his life with the compassion you seem to possess.

You want evidence of God. Find someone who is making a difference,
someone you admire, someone who has been through some tough times
and has come out with his head up. Ask the person how he does it. Ask 
the Vietnam vet who was battle medic how he kept his mind. Ask the 
woman who was pregnant at 15, kept the baby and now is a successful
business woman. Ask the doctor who has operated on a 1-1/2 pound
baby. They won't all be Christians, or even what you might
call religious, but there will be something in common.

God is not defined in the Bible, God is defined by what is
in those people's hearts. It doesn't matter if you can't give
intellectual assent to any description you've heard, they're
all wrong anyway. The compassion you already feel in your heart 
is a step in the right direction. Follow that instead.
Then come back and read the Bible and you'll see that same
thing described there.

> > If nothing else makes sense, hang on to that idea, that God is love.
> 
> I would say something similar, but in reverse order: love
>      is god.

Good, I guess we only have to work on your grammar. 8-)

Chris Mussack

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21460
From: mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's e

In article <May.7.01.08.49.1993.14485@athos.rutgers.edu> gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock) writes:
>I am not against capital punishment.  I feel this way because God is not
>only a God of love, but a God of justice.  As we Christians are the
>instruments of His will here on earth, we are expected to be true to the
>mandate given us by the Lord to judge the actions of our fellow man.
>
>My favorite Scriptural reference in this regard is Romans 13:1-7.
>
>       Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for
>       there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have
>       been established by God.   Therefore, whoever resists authority
>       opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will
>       bring judgment upon themselves.
>
>My views reflect the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.
>
I would say only to the extent that the Roman Catholic Church
neither approves nor disapproves of capital punishment, as
confirmed in the recent catechism, though there are many RCs
who were rather surprised and upset that capital punishment was
not explicitly condemned.

For myself, as a Catholic, I see my own opposition to capital
punishment as much the same as my opposition to abortion - a
reverence for life. Here in the UK, the anti-abortion case is
often let down by the explicit link which those on the
political left make with anti-abortionists and
pro-executionists. There is a tendency to condemn people who
hold both views as hypocrites. I feel that if there were many
more anti-abortionists who were also vocal in their opposition
to capital punishment on a pro-life line, it would end this
kneejerk association of anti-abortion as a right-wing thing,
and get many to think seriously about the issue (there are
plenty who are pro-abortion equally for a kneejerk left-wing
reason).

I do not think your biblical quote can automatically be taken
as support for capital punishment. I take it that as a Roman
Catholic you are opposed to abortion, and would still onsider
it wrong, and something to be objected to even if legalised by
"authority".

Matthew Huntbach

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21461
From: shimeall@cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christiani

The cited passages are covered IN DEPTH in a FAQ for this group.
That particular FAQ (I've forgotten the author) discusses the
traditional vs. pro-homosexual interpretations of the passages and
indicates which points have strong textual support.

Perhaps the moderator might give again the instructions for
retrieving the FAQ on this topic?

BTW, this issue, while dealt with before, is VERY timely.  One
of the major Presbyterian churches in California (St. Andrews -- a 
MegaChurch in a rich neighborhood) is withholding their support of 
Synod (amounts to about 10% of the budget of the Synod, which 
covers all of Southern CA and Hawaii) until support for a 
pro-homosexual lobbying group (the Lazarus Project) is terminated.
[This came from a news report on CNN yesterday -- corrections welcome.]
					Tim

[I think it's time for me to post the FAQ.  

This is an issue throughout the Presbyterian Church.  On the other
side, one of the major churches in Cincinnati has been ordaining
homosexual elders, and has ignored Presbytery instructions not to do
so.  And the church in Rochester where the judicial commission said
they couldn't install a homosexual pastor has made her an
"evangelist".  These situations, as well as the one you describe, do
not appear to be stable.  This will certainly be a major topic for the
General Assembly next month.  If the church can't come up with a
solution that will let people live with each other, I think we're end
up with a split.  Clearly neither side wants that, but I think we'll
get pushed into it by actions of both sides.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21462
From: creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary

In article <May.5.02.52.03.1993.28782@athos.rutgers.edu> revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille) writes:
>Just an observation- although the bodily assumption has no basis in
>the Bible, Carl Jung declared it to be one of the most important pronouncements
>of the church in recent years, in that it implied the inclusion of the 
>feminine into the Godhead.

   Jung may have said that, but he was in no way speaking for the
Catholic Church.  The dogma of the Assumption in no way means Mary is
considered to be God or part of "the Godhead."  Therefore it implies no
such thing about the feminine in general.

   Also Jung's statement makes it sound as though the dogma was
announced "out of the blue."  This also is incorrect, as dogma is only
the formulation of what has always been part of Tradition.  This dogma
has always been believed, but was not formally defined until the
Assumption was declared as an _ex cathedra_ statement.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21463
From: shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker)
Subject: Re: If There Were No Hell

In article <May.7.01.08.07.1993.14306@athos.rutgers.edu> smayo@world.std.com (Scott A Mayo) writes:
>
>Granting that, I think Christianity, as a relationship with Jesus and
>a love for God and one's own soul, stands just fine without hell. I
>don't believe, or see any evidence in scripture, that hell is presented
>as a stick with which to beat people towards heaven.

I certainly agree with the last paragraph.  Also, Jesus;s statements on
hell can be treated as totally symbolic, allegorical or as parables, as
was much of his other teaching.  There's more than enough hell here on earth
that we are freed from by following Jesus that the rest just doesn't mattter
to me.  And the fact that we can be free of the hell here is the best gift
God offers.  Eternal life begins for us now and we do not wait to start
partaking of the divine nature and journeying on the path to deification.

Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com)
-- 
-------
Lawrence Overacker
Shell Oil Company, Information Center    Houston, TX            (713) 245-2965
llo@shell.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21464
From: eggertj@moses.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41)
Subject: Re: Robin Lane Fox's _The Unauthorized Version_?

In article <May.7.01.09.39.1993.14550@athos.rutgers.edu> iscleekk@nuscc.nus.sg (LEE KOK KIONG JAMES) writes:
|   mpaul@unl.edu (marxhausen paul) writes:
|   > My mom passed along a lengthy review she clipped regarding Robin Lane
|   > Fox's book _The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible_,
|...
|   I've read the book. Some parts were quite typical regarding its
|   criticism of the bible as an inaccurate historical document,
|   alt.altheism, etc carries typical responses, but not as vociferous as
|   a.a. It does give an insight into how these historian (is he one... I 
|   don't have any biodata on him) work. I've not been able to understand/
|   appreciate some of the arguments, something like, it mentions certain 
|   events, so it has to be after that event, and so on. 

Robin Lane Fox is a historian and a gardener.  He has written several
history books, perhaps a recent one you might remember is "The Search
for Alexander".  He has also written or edited several books on
gardening.
--
=Jim  eggertj@ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21465
From: mussack@austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell

>> [ To summarize:
>> While questioning the sagacity of someone who said they would 
>> "rather spend an eternity in Hell than be beside God in Heaven
>> knowing even one man would spend his "eternal life" being
>> scorched for his wrongdoings..." I described how horrible hell
>> is and compared the above statement with Jesus'
>> suffering on the cross in order to prevent people going to hell.]

which Kenneth Engel challenges:
> Did this happen to Jesus? I don't think so, not from what I heard. 
> He lived ONE DAY of suffering and died. If the wages of sin is 
> the above paragraph, then JESUS DIDN'T PAY FOR OUR SINS, DID HE?

I will wimp out and admit that I never liked the metaphor of
Jesus "paying" for our sins in the sense that many Christians
accept as literal. The point is that God understands the suffering
we go through, not just intellectually like when we watch
the Somalians on TV, but _really_ understands, He can "feel" 
our pain. This fact is manifested by Jesus' life. We can argue
that someone in history might have suffered more than Jesus,
we can think of more horrible torture than crucifixion, we can
think of cases of betrayal and fruitless effort leading to
worse despair, but the main point is that Jesus is in the
trenches with us, He is in everyone, whatever I do to the least
of humanity I do to Him, and whatever I do for the least of
humanity I do for Him.

Now, to reconcile this with the existence of hell is beyond my
capabilities, but that wasn't my goal.

> I'd be surprised to see the moderator let this one through, 

Thankfully our moderator is surprising.

> but I seriously want a reasonable explanation for this.

As I re-read this I must admit that this is more of a description
of my faith than an explanation, but perhaps that's all
I can do, hopefully that's all I have to do.

Chris Mussack

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21466
From: mussack@austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Subject: Re:Major Views of the Trinity

>>Can't someone describe someone's Trinity in simple declarative
>>sentences with words that have common meaning?

When I need a kick-butt God, or when I need assurance of the reality
of truth, I pray to God the Father.

When I need a friend, someone to put his arm around me and
cry with me, I pray to Jesus.

When I need strength or wisdom to get through a difficult situation,
I pray for the Holy Spirit.

I realize that the above will probably make some people cringe,
but what can I say? I think the doctrine of the trinity is
an attempt to reconcile Jesus being God and being distinct from
God, as described in the Bible.

I wonder if Jesus had been a Hindu how different the wording would be.

Chris Mussack

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21467
From: creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary

In article <May.5.02.53.08.1993.28877@athos.rutgers.edu> ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis) writes:
>	Since Mary was free from 'original sin' she 
>	did not exactly die: 'at the end of her life'
>	(as the dogmatic prounouncement says) she 
>	was assumed into heaven.

   The dogma of the Assumption does not state whether or not Mary died a
physical death before being taken into Heaven.  Catholics are free to
believe what they wish, whether it be that she was taken still alive, or
after having died.  I lean somewhat toward the latter myself.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21468
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

In article <May.9.05.41.56.1993.27583@athos.rutgers.edu> gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock) writes:

[much stuff deleted]
>Now I have a question for Bob.  Why in the world would any self-respecting
>atheist want to subscribe to a Christian news group?  I have a 
>difficult enough time keeping up with it, and I think I know something
>about the subject.     

excuse me, but what makes you think that just because he's atheist he
doesn't know anything about christianity????  in my (albeit limited)
experience atheists are often the ones who know _more_ about the
bible, having searched it from end to end for answers.  i myself am a
christian, but that doesn't mean i consider myself more of an
authority on my religion -- i just have a different perspective on it
(more biased in favor, naturally :) ).

it seems quite obvious why he is subscribed, if i may infer from what
he says: he is looking for an explanation.  who are we to question his
motives anyway -- at the very least (although i dislike this kind of
logic), one could hope that he will "see the light".  critcism will, i
fear, not give him a very positive picture of christians....

>Bob reminds me of my roommate.  In order to disbelieve atheism, he says 
>he will need to be proven wrong about it.  Well, I don't even waste 
>my time trying.  I tell him that he'll just have to take my word for it. 
>In response, he tells me he will say an "atheist's prayer" for me. 

with regard to this, i guess i don't really feel sentiments of this
order can be proven -- faith has a lot to do with it.  this is why
those who search the bible from cover to cover for answers won't
necessarily get what they're looking for.  of course that doesn't help
anyone who doesn't already have faith -- what a big catch 22.  i
discovered this quite recently when i ran into an agnostic looking for an
explanation of my faith and i quickly discovered that i could give him
nothing more than my life story and a description of my nature.  faith
is a very personal thing -- any attempt to "prove" the "facts" behind
it must be questioned.

>Good luck, Bob.  And, best regards.

likewise -- no matter what you believe.

>-- 
>Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock 
>Catechist
>gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu 

*******************************************************************************
I am your CLOCK!     |  I bind unto myself today    | Vera Noyes
I am your religion!  |  the strong name of the	    | noye@midway.uchicago.edu
I own you!	     |  Trinity....		    | no disclaimer -- what
	- Lard	     |	- St. Patrick's Breastplate | is there to disclaim?
*******************************************************************************

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21469
From: shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker)
Subject: Re: If There Were No Hell

In article <May.9.05.38.07.1993.27316@athos.rutgers.edu> u0mrm@csc.liv.ac.uk (M.R. Mellodew) writes:
>In article <May.5.02.51.25.1993.28737@athos.rutgers.edu>, shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker) writes:
>
>>            Fear-based religion is not a faith-relationship with the
>> One Who made us all.
>
>So does that mean that anyone who is a Christian to avoid Hell isn't really
>a Christian at all? It sounds like it to me.

If that's the ONLY reason, I'd be inclined to doubt whether or not what
they profess is Christianity.  The relationship of faith is based upon
trust.  Fear and trust are generally incompatible.  If my only motivation
is fear, is there room for trust?  If so, there's room for faith.  
If fear precludes trust, then there can't be faith.

Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com)
-- 
-------
Lawrence Overacker
Shell Oil Company, Information Center    Houston, TX            (713) 245-2965
llo@shell.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21470
From: shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker)
Subject: Re: Deuterocanonicals, esp. Sirach

>ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis)
>
>The deutero-canonical books were added much later in the church's
>history.  They do not have the same spiritual quality as the
>rest of Scripture.  I do not believe the church that added these
>books was guided by the Spirit in so doing.  And that is where
>this sort of discussion ultimately ends.

The Apocryphal books that are in the Septuagint were part of the canon 
used by the Greek-speaking churches from the inception of the church.
They were not added later (or much later).  This is a common misconception.

The preference of the Hebrew canon over the Greek canon is a later
innovation.   The church did not need to be guided to "add" the books
since they were part of the faith once received by the apostles and
passed to the Church.

Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com)
-- 
-------
Lawrence Overacker
Shell Oil Company, Information Center    Houston, TX            (713) 245-2965
llo@shell.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21471
From: poram@ihlpb.att.com
Subject: Re: Deuterocanonicals, esp. Sirach

In article <May.7.01.09.00.1993.14498@athos.rutgers.edu> revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille) writes:
>Dave Davis (ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com) wrote:
>
>[lots deleted, with which I generally agree; there is no inherently
>defensible argument for the inclusion or exclusion of the Deuterocanonical
>books]

>:  I think everyone would agree that principles that cannot be 
>:  consistently applied are not very useful as principles. 
>:  So, if we are to exclude them (not accord them the authority of
>:  Scripture) we would appear to require other reasons. What might these 
>:  reasons be?

Lets talk about principles. If we accept that God sets the
standards for what ought to be included in Scripture - then we
can ask:
1. Is it authoritative?
2. Is it prophetic?
3. Is it authentic?
4. Is it dynamic?
5. Is it received, collected, read and used?

On these counts, the apocrapha falls short of the glory of God.
To quote Unger's Bible Dictionary on the Apocrapha:
1. They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and
anachronisms.
2. They teach doctrines which are false and foster practices
which are at variance with sacred Scripture.
3. They resort to literary types and display an artificiality of
subject matter and styling out of keeping with sacred Scripture.
4. They lack the distinctive elements which give genuine
Scripture their divine character, such as prophetic power and
poetic and religious feeling.

>:  
>:  My interim conclusion is that Protestant exclusion of 
>:  (at least one of) these writings is one of those 'traditions
>:  of men' one hears of so often. They were excluded during the
>:  Reformation, and that appears to be the reason many people
>:  continue to exclude them.

But the problem with this argument lies in the assumption that
the Hebrew canon included the Apocrapha in the first place, and
it wasn't until the sixteenth century that Luther and co. threw
them out. The Jewish council you mentioned previously didn't
accept them, so the reformation protestants had good historical
precedence for their actions. Jerome only translated the
apocrapha under protest, and it was literally 'over his dead
body' that it was included in the catholic canon.

>The simple fact is that Protestant exclusion, Roman inclusion, Orthodox
>inclusion of still other books, or any other definition of a closed canon
>is the decision of a community of faith about what the standard collection
>of scripture shall be for that community.  They _all_ are "traditions of
>men."  Whether one considers that to be a problem or not depends on which
>community happens to be yours, and how you accept/ define authority within
>it.  I personally believe that the concept of a closed canon, whether
>Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox is one that developed rather late in the
>history of the church, and which has not served the church well.

How do you then view the words: "I warn everyone who  hears the
words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to
them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
And if anyone takes away from this book the prophecy, God will
take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the
holy city" (Rev 22.18-9)
Surely this sets the standard and not just man-made traditions.

It is also noteworthy to consider Jesus' attitude. He had no
argument with the pharisees over any of the OT canon (John
10.31-6), and explained to his followers on the road to Emmaus 
that in the law, prophets and psalms which referred to him - the 
OT division of Scripture (Luke 24.44), as well as in Luke 11.51
taking Genesis to Chronicles (the jewish order - we would say
Genesis to Malachi) as Scripture.

>See Dr. Lee MacDonald's _The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon_
>(Abingdon, 1988) for a clear and faithful examination of the origins and
>issues of the canon.

I am not familiar with the book. 
Some other arguments you might like to consider are found in
Chapter 3 of Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands A Verdict.

Barney Resson
"Many shall run to and fro, & knowledge shall increase" (Daniel)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21472
From: sun075!Gerry.Palo@uunet.uu.net (Gerry Palo)
Subject: Re: Christianity and repeated lives

In article <May.7.01.08.04.1993.14301@athos.rutgers.edu> smayo@world.std.com (Sc
ott A Mayo) writes:
>>Gerry Palo writes:
>> > ...there is nothing in Christianity that precludes the idea of
>> > repeated lives on earth.
>
>Doesn't it say somewhere "It is appointed to man once to die,
>and then judgement?" I don't have a concordance here but I have
>some dim memory that this appears *somewhere* in the Bible.
>Given a fairly specific context for what judgement is, I'd say
>that more or less decides the issue.
>
>[Heb 9:27 --clh]

Indeed, the immediate context [NASB] is:

  26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often
  since the foundation of the world; but now once at
  the consummation He has been manifested to put away 
  sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

  27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die
  once, and after this comes judgement;

  28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear
  the sins of many, shall appear a second time, not to
  bear sin, tro those who eagerly await him.


The first point is that this verse is part of an even larger
context, the subject of which is not the destiny of the
individual human soul but rather the singular nature of Christ's
sacrifice, "once", and the fulfillment of the law for all of fallen 
mankind.  Rudolf Frieling elaborates this in detail in his 
"Christianity and Reincarnation".  The thrust of the passage
in its context is to liken the one time incarnation and 
sacrifice of Christ for all mankind to the individual 
experience of the human being after death.  The "once" 
is repeated and emphasized, and it highlights the singularity 
of Christ's deed.  One thing for certain it does is to 
refute the claims of some that Christ incarnates more than 
once.  But the comparison to the human experience - die 
once, then judgement (note: not "the judgement", but just 
"judgement".  The word for judgement is "krisis".

Hebrews 9:27 is the one passage most often quoted in defense
of the doctrine that the Bible denies reincarnation.  At this
point, I would just emphasize again that the  passages 
that (arguably) speak against it are few, and that invariably
they are talking about something eles, and the apparent denial
of reincarnation is either inferred, or, as in the case of
Hebrews, taken literally and deposited into an implied context,
namely a doctrine of the destiny of the human being after
death.

What should be considered seriously is that the Bible is essentially
silent about the fate of the individual human being between death
and the Last Day.  If you take the few passages that could possibly
be interpreted to mean a single earth life, they are arguable.  And
there are other passages that point, arguably, in the other direc-
tion. such as Matthew 11:14 and John 9:2.

We can continue to debate the individual scraps of scripture that
might have a bearinig on this, and indeed we should discuss them.
But what I wanted to introduce into the discussion was an approach
to the idea of repeated earth lives that, unlike Hindu, Buddhist
and "new age" teachings, takes full cognizance of the divinity, singular
incarnation, death, burial, resurrection, and second coming of Christ
as the savior of mankind; the accountability of each individual for
his deeds and the reality of the Fall and of sin and its consequences;
the redemption of man from sin through Christ; the resurrection of
the body, and the Last Judgement.

Taken in this larger sense, many serious questions take on an entirely
different perspective.  E.g. the destiny of those who died in their
sins before Christ came. the relationship of faith and grace to 
works, the meaning of "deathbed conversion", the meaning of the
sacraments, and many other things.  Not that I propose to answer all
those questions by a simple doctrine of convenience, but only that
the discussion takes on a different dimension, and in my opinion
one that is truly worthy of both man, the earth, and their Creator and 
Redeemer. There are many deep questions that continue to be deep, such 
as the meaning of the second death, and how the whole of Christian
doctrine would apply to this larger perspective of human existence.

There are those who deeply believe that the things of which the Bible 
does not speak are not things we should be concerned with.  But Christ
also indicated that there were other things that we would come to know
in the future, including things that his disciples (and therefore others) 
could not bear yet.  This idea that the human capacity for growth in
knowledge, not only of the individual in one lifetime, but of the whole
of humanity, also takes on great meaning when we realize that our growth
in the spirit is a long term process.  The Bible was not meant to codify
all spiritual knowledge in one place forever, but to proclaim the gospel
of the incarnation and redeeming deed of Christ - taking the gospel in the
greater context, from Genesis to Revelation.  Now, salvation (healing) becomes, 
not the end of man's sojourn but its beginning.  And the Last Judgement and
the New Heaven and Earth that follow it become its fulfullment.

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21473
From: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell)
Subject: Re: Divorce

In article <May.9.05.42.10.1993.27614@athos.rutgers.edu>  
daveshao@leland.stanford.edu (David Shao) writes:
> In article <May.7.01.10.03.1993.14583@athos.rutgers.edu>  
crs@carson.u.washington.edu (Cliff Slaughterbeck) writes:
> >
> >Along the way, she was married, happily, to a wonderful and
> >supportive husband and gave birth to two sons.  Still, everything was not
> >perfect for Jane, since she could never open up the deepest part of her
> >soul to her husband.  
..
> >One of the interesting things that Jane said in this whole discussion was
> >"Homosexuality is not about what goes on in the bedroom."  She found that
> >she was much more able to have a deep, committed relationship with a woman
> >than a man.  Sex, in her mind, is only a part of the whole relationship.
...

It sounds like she has a problem.  She has a problem opening up to her
husband so she is lesbian.  WHAT? In a marrige, a couple is supposed
to open up to each other.  Because she didn't feel comfortable opening
up to her husband she gets a divorce and comes to the conclusion that
she is lesbian.  Before anyone gets maried they should make sure that
they would feel comfortable "open up the deepest part of her soul to
her husband".  "Sex, in her mind, is only a part of the whole
relationship."  Did she think it was diffrent with a man. That might
be her problem.

In Christ's Love,
Bryan

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21474
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

>Eugene Bigelow writes:

>>Doesn't the Bible say that God is a fair god [sic]?  If this is true,
>how can >this possibly be fair to the infants?

Andrew Byler writes:

>[What do you mean fair?  God is just, giving to everyone what they
>deserve. As all infants are in sin from the time of conception (cf
>Romans 5.12, Psalm 1.7), they cannot possibly merit heaven, and as
>purgatory is for the purging of temporal punishment and venial sins, it
>is impossible that origianl sin can be forgiven....

As St. Augustine said, "I did not invent original sin, which the
Catholic faith holds from ancient time; but you, who deny it, without a
doubt are a follower of a new heresy."  (De nuptiis, lib. 11.c.12)]

Why is it fair to punish you, me and the rest of humanity because of
what Adam and Eve did? Suppose your parents committed some crime before
you were born and one day the cops come to your door and throw you in
jail for it. Would you really think that is fair? I know I wouldn't.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21475
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

Joseph H. Buehler writes:

>This all obviously applies equally well to infants or adults, since
>both have souls.  Infants must be baptized, therefore, or they cannot
>enter into Heaven.  They too need this form of life in them, or they
>cannot enter into Heaven.

Are you saying that baptism has nothing to do with asking Jesus to come into
your heart and accepting him as your savior, but is just a ritual that we
must go through to enable us to enter Heaven?

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21476
From: carlson@ab24.larc.nasa.gov (Ann Carlson)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <May.7.01.08.16.1993.14381@athos.rutgers.edu>, whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell) writes:
|> Any one who thinks that Homosexuality and Christianity are compatible should check  
|> out:
|> 	Romans 1:27
|> 	I Corinthians 6:9
|> 	I Timothy 1:10
|> 	Jude 1:7
|> 	II Peter 2:6-9
|> 	Gen. 19
|> 	Lev  18:22
|> (to name a few of the verses that pertain to homosexuality)

Anyone who thinks being gay and Christianity are not compatible should 
check out Dignity, Integrity, More Light Presbyterian churches, Affirmation,
MCC churches, etc.  Meet some gay Christians, find out who they are, pray
with them, discuss scripture with them, and only *then* form your opinion.
-- 



*************************************************      
*Dr. Ann B. Carlson (a.b.carlson@larc.nasa.gov) *       O .
*MS 366                                         *         o  _///_ //
*NASA Langley Research Center                   *          <`)=  _<<
*Hampton, VA 23681-0001                         *             \\\  \\
*************************************************

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21477
From: mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server)
Subject: Re: Mormon temples

jwindley@cheap.cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
[material deleted] 
>Some object to the idea that Christianity should involve secrets of
>any kind.  Mormon scholars have provided historical evidence of early
>Christian practices which parallel Mormon temple ceremonies.
>Obviously one can choose whether or not to subscribe to such a
>historical interpretation, but Mormon practice is not without
>precedent in Christianity.
[deletions]


I don't necessarily object to the secrecy but I do question it, since I see no 
Biblical reason why any aspect of Christian worship should involve secrecy.  
But I am interested in your claim that early Christian practices "parallel" 
Mormon temple ceremonies.  Could you give an example?  Also, why do they only 
parallel Mormon ceremonies?  Why don't Mormon ceremonies restore the original 
Christian practices?  Wasn't that the whole point of Joseph Smith's stated 
mission?

- Mark

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21478
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's e

jblanken@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (James R. Blankenship) writes:

[The only reason for the death penalty is revenge?? If you are going to
try to refute a position, try to refute the whole position or acknosledge
that you are only speaking to small piece of the problem. Broad sweeping
"the only reason, " etc on as tough nut to crack as the death penalty
reallly doesn't help much.

Every year the FBI releases crime stats showing an overwhelming amount of
crime is committed by repeat offenders. People are killed by folks who
have killed (who knows how many times) before. How aobut folks who are for
the death penalty, not for revenge, but to cut down on recidivism?]

  Your point is well taken. I acknowledge the fact that there are some who
take this position. Sorry about that. Of course, I still believe that the
vast majority of those who favor the death penalty, do so for reason of
seeking vengeance. I'm curious, if you favor the death penalty to keep
killers from killing again, what do you think we should do with people who
commit other crimes, such as rape or robbery? Isn't it the Muslims who
cut your hand off if you're caught stealing?

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21479
From: Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu (Fil Sapienza)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

In article <May.7.01.09.44.1993.14556@athos.rutgers.edu> maxwell c muir,
muirm@argon.gas.organpipe.uug.arizona.edu writes:
>of Faith (if you want to know, I feel that faith is intellectually
>dishonest). 

I'd appreciate some support for this statement.  I'm not sure
it really makes sense to me.

>The ambiguity of religious beliefs, an unwillingness to take
>Pascal's Wager, 

I've heard this frequently - what exactly is Pascal's wager?

>	Do I sound "broken" to you?

I don't know.  You point out that your mother's treatment upset you,
and see inconsistencies in various religions.  I'm not sure if that
constitutes broken-ness or not.   It certainly consititutes 
disillusionment.
--
Filipp Sapienza
Department of Technology Services
University of Michigan Hospitals - Surgery
Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21480
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: Deuterocanonicals, esp. Sirach

In <May.10.05.07.27.1993.3488@athos.rutgers.edu> mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker) writes:

>	That last paragraph just about killed me.  The Deuterocanonicals have
>	ALWAYS been accepted as inspired scripture by the Catholic Church,
>	which has existed much longer than any Protestant Church out there.
>	It was Martin Luther who began hacking up the bible and deciding to
>	REMOVE certain books--not the fact that the Catholic Church decided
>	to add some much later--that is the reason for the difference between
>	"Catholic" and "Protestant" bibles.  

This is misleading, at best.  The question, really, has to do with the
status of the Greek Septuagint versus Hebrew scripture.  And the issue
predates the Reformation by quite a bit -- Jerome was negative about the
"deuteroncanonicals" and in fact, even though he transalted them, he put
them after the Hebrew canon (reordered from the Greek ordering to the
Hebrew one.)  His translations of them were quick-and-dirty, also (he
reports having done one of them in one day, and another overnight, just
dictating his translation to an amanuensis.

That is to say, it is the Vulgate, and all of its massive importance in
Western Christianity, along with the veneration of Jerome, which took the
first steps in "reducing" these books from the status they had (and have)
among the Greeks.

Furthermore, it is inaccurate to say that the Reformers "threw out" these
books.  Basically, they just placed them in a secondary status (as Jerome
had already done), but with the additional warning that doctrine should
not be based on citations from these ALONE.

I think that the emphasis on the Hebrew originals is sound, though it
seems somewhat arbitrary to disallow on the face of it a translation as
part of a collection whose principles of selection (in Hebrew or Greek)
are confused or unknown and likely fraught with accident.  It also seems
to play into a tendentious notion of the original languages being somehow
"more inspired" -- as if magical, and conveying a message untranslatable
-- than a translation, as if we could not hear God's word to the Jews in
Greek (or German, or English, ...).  This tendency seems to have got a
big boost in _sola scriptura_ Protestantism, even to the point of current
"inerrancy" bizarreness, despite the more basic, underlying tendency of
the Reformers to see that the texts SHOULD and COULD be translated.  If
we can profit from an English rendering of Hebrew and Greek, there is
surely little reason to keep Sirach, at least, out of our Bibles (and of
course, Anglicans don't do so :-)).  For texts originally in Greek, it
would seem more to be anti-Greek prejudice (notably, by the time the
Hebrew canon is fully attested, including anti-Christian prejudice which
led to the Jewish abandonment of the Septuagint) which is operative.

BTW: readers may enjoy some lectures of Bruce Metzger on the issues of
translation of the Bible (including some of what I said about Jerome,
above) in the current numbers of the journal _Bibliotheca Sacra_; two
of four have been published so far.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		I say "You are gods, sons of the
mls@panix.com			Most High, all of you; nevertheless
    - or -			you shall die like men, and fall
mls@ulysses.att..com		like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21481
From: lisa@ux1.lbl.gov (lisa stewart)
Subject: Christian Embassy in DC

Does anyone know about the Christian Embassy in Washington DC? What
exactly does it do?

Please respond to lisa@ux1.lbl.gov

Thanks

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21482
From: adamsj@gtewd.mtv.gtegsc.com
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

In article <May.9.05.40.15.1993.27475@athos.rutgers.edu>, Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno ) writes:
> [4) "Nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]" (Rev. 21.27). Therefore,
> babies are born in such a state that should they die, they are cuf off
> from God and put in hell, which is exactly the doctrine of St. Augustine
> and St. Thomas.  

I haven't read this entire thread, but, if someone hasn't tossed this out yet, then here it is: 

2 Samuel 12:21-23 (RSV) : 

  "Then his servants said to him, `What is this thing that you have
  done? You fasted and wept for the child while it was alive; but when
  the child died, you arose and ate food.' He [David] said, 'While the
  child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who knows
  whether the LORD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?' But
  now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall
  go to him, but he will not return to me.'"

Anyhow, many interpret this to mean that the child has gone to Heaven
(where David will someday go). I don't claim to know for sure if this
applies to all babies or not. But even if it's just this one, what
would you say to this?

-jeff adams-

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21483
From: gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham)
Subject: Ontological argument

I read somewhere that Kurt Goedel argued that the ontological argument
for God's existence was logically reasonable (or something to that
effect).

Does anyone know if this is true, and have a citation?

Thanks.
--
-Fred Gilham    gilham@csl.sri.com
"Peace is only better than war when it's not hell too.  War being hell
makes sense."
               -Walker Percy, THE SECOND COMING

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21484
From: loisc@microsoft.com (Lois Christiansen)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <May.7.01.08.16.1993.14381@athos.rutgers.edu> whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu wrote:
> Any one who thinks that Homosexuality and Christianity are compatible should check  
> out:
> 	Romans 1:27
> 	I Corinthians 6:9
> 	I Timothy 1:10
> 	Jude 1:7
> 	II Peter 2:6-9
> 	Gen. 19
> 	Lev  18:22
> (to name a few of the verses that pertain to homosexuality)
> 
> In Christ's Love,
> Bryan Whitsell

Like we have never heard of, or read these verses before?

How about you read them in context, taking into consideration the times and 
places in which they were written; the local customs and pagan rituals; 
what the surrounding verses are talking about and how they interact with 
the rest of the Bible.

There are many issues in the Bible that are argued, and can be argued 
successfullly from both sides of an issue.  Some examples that come to mind
are 
		Gifts of the Spirit
		when the Rapture will occur(pre or post tribulation)
		how people should be baptized
to name a few.

I have found nothing in scripture that condemns me, or anyone else, for having
a monogamous relationship with the person whom I love, even if we are the
same sex.

I'm sorry if I am coming across as heated.  It's just that the Lord has been
so dear to me the last several years and I'm tired of hearing this same old
thing from people who believe what their told rather than finding out for 
themselves.

Check it out for yourself.  Invite the Holy Spirit to guide you.  If I weren't
confident of this I wouldn't invite you to do this.

God Bless
Loisc

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21485
From: dan@ingres.com (a Rose arose)
Subject: Re: "National repentance"

mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:
: I heard on the radio today about a Christian student conference where
: Christians were called to "repent" of America's "national" sins, such
: as sexual promiscuity.
: 
: To which I reply: ...whoa there!
: 
: How can I repent of _someone else's_ sin?   I can't.
: 
: And when I claim to "repent" of someone else's sin, am I not in fact
: _judging_ him?  Jesus equipped us to judge activities but warned us
: not to judge people. "Judge not that ye be not judged."
: 
: C. S. Lewis made the same point in an essay after World War II,
: when some Christian leaders in Britain were urging "national repentance"
: for the horrors (sins???) of World War II.
: -- 

I see your point, but I cannot more strongly disagree.

To repent means to turn around.  We, as a nation, have behaved incredibly
arrogantly toward God condoning, encouraging, and even forcing folks to
participate in activity directly opposed to the written Word of God.  We
have arrogantly set our nation far above the God who created it and allowed
us the luxury of living in this land.  We have set a bad example for other
nations.  We've slaughtered unborn children by the millions.  We have
stricken the name of God from the classroom.  We've cheated God out of the
honor due Him at every turn, and we owe God an apology every bit as public
as our sins have been.

When Jesus said "Judge not that ye be not judged", he was not addressing
those like John the Baptist who had repented and were calling others to
repent.  He was addressing those who remained in sin while heaping down
condemnation on others for their sins.  His message to us all was to remove
the log from our own eye before removing the speck from our brother's.  But
He also said to rebuke and to reprove.  Don't forget that this is a command
too.

Our problem today is that we tend to judge and condemn as though we were
rebuking and we tend to neglect bringing folks back to the Lord with the
excuse that we don't want to judge anyone.

In truth, what we need to do is to judge less and call others to repent more
and to be able to distinguish between the two in our own motives.  Call sin
what it is and do so openly.  Let it's charge fall correctly where it should.
But instead of running someone into hell over it, pull them out of their
hellward path and onto the heavenward path.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
	"I deplore the horrible crime of child murder...
	 We want prevention, not merely punishment.
	 We must reach the root of the evil...
	 It is practiced by those whose inmost souls revolt
	 from the dreadful deed...
	 No mater what the motive, love of ease,
		or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent,
		the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed...
	 but oh! thrice guilty is he who drove her
		to the desperation which impelled her to the crime."

		- Susan B. Anthony,
		  The Revolution July 8, 1869

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21486
From: M.Reimer@uts.edu.au (Matthew R)
Subject: Urbana 93 mission conference

I would like to hear from people who are thinking of going to the Urbana 93
conference in December this year.  I have recently received info from IFES
(International Fellowship of Evangelical Students) and am thinking about
attending although I am still not sure whether I can afford it.

I would also like to hear from people involved in IFES or IVF groups just to
hear how things are going on your campus.
Are there any news groups or groups of people who already do this.

I am involved in the Christian Fellowship at the University of Technology
Sydney in Australia.  If you are interested to find out how we are going 
mail me to find out.

Matt Reimer
Email: M.Reimer@uts.edu.au
	

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21487
From: gchin@ssf.Eng.Sun.COM (Gary Chin)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's e

In article 11779@geneva.rutgers.edu, jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>In article <Apr.24.01.09.13.1993.4257@geneva.rutgers.edu> mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:
>None of the states currently recognize same-sex marriages, but I know
>several couples whose "marriages" are more stable and loving and 
>long-lasting than most of my legally married friends and relatives.
>(This drives one friend's family crazy. His brothers have been
>divorced twice, both his parents are divorced, and *he* - the "filthy
>gay" - has been "married" to his partner for 20 years.)
>
Just because those  "marriages" are more stable and loving and long-lasting,
doesn't make it right.  Same-sex partners could have been best friends,
without getting sexually involved with each other.

|-------------------|
| Gary Chin         |
| Staff Engineer    |
| Sun Microsystems  |
| Mt. View, CA      |
| gchin@Eng.Sun.Com |
|-------------------|

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21488
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

>If babies are not supposed to be baptised then why doesn't the Bible
>ever say so.  It never comes right and says "Only people that know
>right from wrong or who are taught can be baptised."

This is not a very sound argument for baptising babies. It assumes that
if the Bible doesn't say specifically that you don't need to do something,
then that must mean that you do need to do it. I know there's a specific
term for this form of logic, but it escapes me right now. However, if it
were sound, then you should be able to apply it this way; If the Bible
doesn't specifically say that something is wrong, then it must be OK,
which, coincidentally, leads perfectly into a question I've often pondered.
If slavery is immoral (which I believe it is, can I assume that everyone
else in this group does too?), why doesn't Jesus or any of the apostles
speak out against it? Owning slaves was common practice back then. Paul
speaks about everything else that is immoral. He apparently thought it
was important enough to talk about things like not being a drunkard. Why
doesn't anyone mention slavery? If God's morals are eternal and don't
change like the morals of society, then it must have been just as immoral then
as it is today.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21489
From: dhammers@pacific.? (David Hammerslag)
Subject: Re: Mormon Temples

In article <May.7.01.08.52.1993.14488@athos.rutgers.edu> brh54@cas.org (Brooks Haderlie) writes:

   searching out our deceased ancestors so that we can perform the
   ordinances -- such as baptism, confirmation, and marriage for time and
   eternity -- that are required for a person to obtain salvation through
   Christ and to live with Him through the eternities. These are people
   who may have not had the opportunity to know Christ in their lifetime,
   so we are making it possible for Christ's saving grace (I know there
   are thousands of interpretations of that phrase) to become fully
   effective for them if they allow it to do so on the other side.


This paragraph brought to mind a question.  How do you (Mormons) reconcile
the idea of eternal marriage with Christ's statement that in the ressurection
people will neither marry nor be given in marriage (Luke, chapt. 20)?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Hammerslag (dhammers@urbana.mcd.mot.com)
   "...there ain't nobody so bad that the Lord can't save 'em ain't
        nobody so good they don't need God's love..." -- Mullins 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21490
From: creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)
Subject: Re: Does it matter which church?

In article <May.2.09.51.04.1993.11807@geneva.rutgers.edu> gideon@otago.ac.nz (Gideon King) writes:
>When the Protestant reformers opposed and subsequently separated from the  
>Church of Rome, the battle cry of the new protesting religion was "The  
>Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible". Underlying that cry  
>was a theory that if people could read the Bible for themselves in their  
>native tongue they would discover the truth about God and His purpose.  
>They would shed their old errors and be united by a common faith.

   This idea, that the Reformers somehow were the first to bring the
Bible to the people in their own language, is a myth.  Many vernacular
translations of the Bible existed long before the Reformation.  The
Vulgate Bible, which is still the official version of the Bible for the
Catholic Church, was itself a translation in the common (i.e. vulgar ==
vulgate) tongue of its day, Latin, and had existed for about a millenium
before the Reformation.

   It might also be noted that the printing press was not even invented
until the same century as that in which the Reformation occurred.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21491
From: KEVXU@cunyvm.bitnet
Subject: Re: Christianity and repeated lives

While this is essentially a discussion of reincarnation in the context of
Christianity Gerry Palo has made some comparisons to Asian religious
beliefs on this topic which have simplified the Asian idea of karma
to the point of misrepresentation.

There are significant differences in the idea of karma among Hindus,
Jains, Buddhists (and even among the various Buddhist traditions.)

To refer to karma as a system of reward for past deeds is totally
incorrect in the Buddhist and Jain traditions.  Karma is considered to
be a moral process in which intentions (either good or evil) shape
a person's predilections for future intention and action and
produce a person who is more prone to good than evil, or the opposite --
"reward" has nothing to do with it.  Both Jainism and Buddhism are atheistic
so there is no deity to dispense rewards or punishments.  Karma is usually
described in terms of seeds and reaping the fruit thereof.  In fact "As you
sow, so shall you reap" is found in the Pali Canon as I recall, the metaphor
of natural growth is explicit.

Hinduism, or some sects in that tradition, are I believe much more
deterministic and involve concepts closer to reward and punishment being
theistically inclined.

In point of fact, the Theravadin Buddhist tradition of Southeast Asia
considers karma as only one of five influences in human life, and in
fact from their point of view they would be unable to explain the mechanics
of karma without the element of free will.

Also in Eastern religions there is a difference between reincarnation and
rebirth, which is essentially absent in Western considerations.

Isn't Origen usually cited as the most prestigious proponent of reincarnation
among Christian thinkers?  What were his views, and how did he relate them
to the Christian scriptures?

Jack Carroll

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21492
From: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell)
Subject: Re: Satan and TV

In article <May.9.05.41.06.1993.27543@athos.rutgers.edu>  
salaris@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrabbits) writes:
> MTV controls what bands are popular, no matter how bad they are.  In fact, it is  
>better to be politically correct - like U2, Madonna - than to have any musical  
>talent. 
> Steven C. Salaris                
 
Interesting idea.  
Regular televeision seems to do this sort of thing too with politically correct  
shows.


In Christ's Love
Bryan 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21493
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Portland earthquake

In article <May.7.01.09.33.1993.14542@athos.rutgers.edu> cctr114@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Rea) writes:
>in history seems to imply some pretty serious sin. The one of the 
>pastors in the church I attend, Christchurch City Elim, considers 
>that a prophesy of a natural disaster as a "judgement from the Lord" 
>is a clear sign that the "prophesy" is not from the Lord. 

I would like to see his reasoning behind this.  You may have gotten 
"burned" by natural disaster prophecies down there, but that
does not mean that every natural disaster/judgement prophecy is
false.  Take a quick look at the book of Jeremiah and it is obvious
that judgement prophecies can be valid.  here in the US, it seems like
we might have more of a problem with positive prophecies, though I
am sure there may be a few people who are too into judgement.

Sometimes God does give words that are difficult to swallow.  The
relative positiveness of a prophecy is not necesarily grounds to
dismiss it.  Much of the OT is not happy stuff.

Link Hudson.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21494
From: Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu (Fil Sapienza)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

In article <May.7.01.09.59.1993.14571@athos.rutgers.edu> Bill Mayne,
mayne@pipe.cs.fsu.edu writes:
In article <May.7.01.09.59.1993.14571@athos.rutgers.edu> Bill Mayne,
mayne@pipe.cs.fsu.edu writes:
>In article <May.5.02.50.42.1993.28665@athos.rutgers.edu> 
>Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu (Fil Sapienza) writes:
>>I am interested in finding out why people become
>>atheists after having believed in some god/God.
>>In conversing with them on other groups, I've
>>often sensed anger or hostility.   Though I don't
>>mean to imply that all atheists are angry or hostile,
>>it does seem to be one motivation for giving up
>>faith.  Thus, some atheism might result from 
>>broken-ness.
>
>This is condescending at best and a slightly disquised ad hominem
>attack. This attitude on the part of many theists, especially the
>vocal ones, is one reason for the hostility you sense. How do you
>like it when atheists say that people turn to religion out of
>immature emotionalism?

I wouldn't and don't.  I thought I did a pretty good job of
qualifying my statement, but apparently some people
misinterpreted my intentions.  I apologize for my part in
communicating any confusion.  My intent was more to
stir up discussion rather than judge.   It seems to
have worked.

[rest of post noted - by the way, I did not originally post this to
alt.atheism.  If it got there, I don't know how it did.]

--
Filipp Sapienza
Department of Technology Services
University of Michigan Hospitals - Surgery
Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21495
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: SATANIC TOUNGES

In article <May.9.05.40.36.1993.27495@athos.rutgers.edu> koberg@spot.Colorado.EDU (Allen Koberg) writes:
>There seem to be many points to the speaking in tongues thing which
>are problematic.  It's use as prayer language seems especially troubling
>to me.  I understand that when you pray in tongues, the spirit is doing
>the talking.  And when you pray, you pray to God.  And the Spirit is
>God.  So, the Spirit is talking to Himself.  Which is why I only go
>by the Pentecost use where it's an actual language.

What is wrong with "the Spirit talking to Himself."  Jesus intercedes
for us, and Romans 8:26-27 tell of how the Spirit intercedes for
us before God.  That is no theological problem.  Tounges as a prayer
language finds support in I Corinthians 14:14-18.


>Moreover, the phrase "though I speak with the tongues of men and angels"
>used by Paul in I Cor. is misleading out of context.   Some would then
>assume that there is some angelic tongue, and if when they speak, it
>is no KNOWN language, then it is an angelic tongue.

Its true that this could be (and has been) used as a rug to sweep
any difficulties under.  But it is a valid point.  Paul does mention
angelic tounges in the verse. 


>Hmmm...in the old testament story about the tower of Babel, we see how
>God PUNISHED by giving us different language.  Can we assume then that
>if angels have their own language at all, that they have the SAME one
>amongst other angels?  After all, THEY were not punished in any manner.

If the languages we sepak are the result of Babel, then it stands to
reason that angels would speak a different language from us.  You do 
have a valid point about multiple angelic languages.  But angelic
beings maybe of different species so to speak.  maybe different species
communicate differently.  

>Trouble is, while such stories abound, any and all attempts at
>verification (and we are to test the spirit...) either show that
>the witness had no real idea of the circumstances, or that outright
>fabrication was involved.  The Brother Puka story in a previous post
>seems like a "friend of a friend" thing.  And linguistically, a two
>syllable word hardly qualifies as language, inflection or no.

I have heard an eyewitness account, myself.  Such things are hard to prove.
They don't lend themselves to a laboratory thing very well.  I don';t
know if it is a very holy thing to take gifts into a laboratory anyway.

>Much as many faith healers have trouble proving their "victories" (since
>most ailments "cured" are just plain unprovable) and modern day
>ressurrections have never been validated, so is it true that no
>modern day xenoglossolalia has been proved by clergy OR lay.

That's an unprovable statement.  How can you prove if somethings been proved?
There is no way to know that you've seen all the evidence.  Once I 
saw an orthodontists records complete with photographs showing how one of
his patients severe underbite was cured by constant prayer.  

John G. Lakes once prayed for someone and saw them healed in a laboratory,
according to "Adventures in God."  Its an interesting book.

Link

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21496
From: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu
Subject: FAQ essay on homosexuality

Someone referred to my FAQ essay on homosexuality.  Since it hasn't
been posted for some time (and I've modified it somewhat since the
last time), I'm taking this opportunity to post it.  There is another
entry in the FAQ containing comments by some other contributors.  They
can be retrieved from ftp.rutgers.edu as
pub/soc.religion.christian/others/homosexuality.  It contains far
more detail on the exegetical issues than I give here, though
primarily from a conservative point of view.

----------------------------

This posting summarizes several issues involving homosexuality and
Christians.  This is a frequently asked question, so I do not post the
question each time it occurs.  Rather this is an attempt to summarize
the postings we get when we have a discussion.  It summarizes
arguments for allowing Christian homosexuality, since most people
asking the question already know the arguments against it.  The most
common -- but not the only -- question dealt with herein is "how can a
Christian justify being a homosexual, given what the Bible says about
it?"

First, on the definition of 'homosexual'.  Many groups believe that
there is a homosexual "orientation", i.e. a sexual attraction to
members of the same sex.  This is distinguished from actual homosexual
sexual activity.  Homosexuals who abstain from sex are considered by
most groups to be acceptable.  However in a lot of discussion, the
term 'homosexual' means someone actually engaging in homosexual sex.
This is generally not accepted outside the most 'liberal' groups.  In
this paper I'm going to use 'homosexual' as meaning a person engaging
in sexual acts with another of the same sex.  I haven't heard of any
Biblical argument against a person with homosexual orientation who
remains celebate.

I think most people now admit that there is a predisposition to be
homosexual.  This is often called a 'homosexual orientation'.  It is
not known whether it is genetic or environmental.  There is evidence
suggesting each.  The best evidence I've seen is that homosexuality is
not a single phenomenon, but has a number of different causes.  One of
them is probably genetic.  There are several groups that try to help
people move from being homosexual to heterosexual.  The best-known is
Exodus International".  The reports I've seen (and I haven't read the
detailed literature, just the summary in the minority opinion to the
Presbyterian Church's infamous report on human sexuality) suggest that
these programs have very low success rates, and that there are
questions about how real even the successes are.  But there certainly
are people who say they have converted.  However this issue is not as
important as it sounds.  Those who believe homosexuality is wrong
believe it is intrinsically wrong, defined as such by God.  The fact
that it's hard to get out of being a homosexual is no more relevant
than the fact that it's hard to escape from being a drug addict.  If
it's wrong, it's wrong.  It may affect how we deal with people though.
If it's very difficult to change, this may tend to make us more
willing to forgive it.

One more general background issue: It's common to quote a figure that
10% of the population is homosexual.  I asked one of our experts where
this came from.  Here's his response: Kinsey (see below) is the source
of the figure 10 percent.  He defines sexuality by behavior, not by
orientation, and ranked all persons on a scale from Zero (completely
heterosexual) to 6 (completely heterosexual).  According to Kinsey,
one-third of all male adults have had at least one experience of
orgasm homosexually post puberty.  Ten percent of all adult males have
most of their experiences of homosexually.  That was in 1948.  The
percentages held true in a followup study done by the Kinsey
Institute, based on data in the early seventies but not published
until the early 80s or so, by Bell and Weinberg, I believe.  I can't
put my hand on this latter reference, but here is the online
information for Kinsey's own study as it appears in IRIS, the catalog
at Rutgers:
   AUTHOR Kinsey, Alfred Charles, 1894-1956.
    TITLE Sexual behavior in the human male [by] Alfred C. Kinsey. Wardell B.
          Pomeroy [and] Clyde E. Martin.
PUBLISHER Philadelphia, W. B. Saunders Co., 1948.
  DESCRIP xv, 804 p. diagrs. 24 cm.
    NOTES "Based on surveys made by members of the staff of Indiana
	  University, and supported by the National Research Council's 
	  Committee for Research on Problems of Sex by means of funds 
	  contributed by the Medical Division of the Rockefeller Foundation."
	  * Bibliography: p. 766-787.
OTHER AUT Pomeroy, Wardell Baxter, joint author. * Martin, Clyde Eugene,
	  joint author.
 SUBJECTS Sex. * U. S. -- Moral Conditions.
  LC CARD    48005195
This figure is widely used in all scholarly discussions and has even
been found to hold true in several other cultures, as noted in the
recent NEWSWEEK coverstory "Is this child gay?" (Feb. 24, 1992).  A
journalist is running the rounds of talk shows this season promoting
her book that allegedly refutes Kinsey's study, but the scholarly
world seems to take her for a kook......

I've seen some objections to the Kinsey's study, but not in enough
detail to include here.  (If someone would like to contribute another
view, I'd be willing to include it.)

Most Christians believe homosexuality (at least genital sex) is wrong.
Not all, however.  A few denominations accept it.  The Metropolitan
Community Churches is the best-known -- it was formed specifically to
accept homosexuals.  However the United Church of Christ also allows
it, and I think a couple of other groups may as well.  The Episcopal
Church seems to accept it some areas but not others.  In churches that
have congregational government, you'll find a few congregations that
accept it (even among Southern Baptists, though the number is probably
only one or two congregations).  But these are unusual -- few churches
permit homosexual church leaders.  How carefully they enforce this is
another issue.  I don't have any doubt that there are homosexual
pastors of just about every denomination, some more open than others.

As to the arguments over the Biblical and other issues, here's an
attempt to summarize the issues:

The most commonly cited reference by those favoring acceptance of
homosexuality in previous discussions has been John Boswell:
"Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality", U Chicago Press,
1980.

The argument against is pretty clear.  There are several explicit laws
in the OT, e.g. Leviticus 20:13, and in Rom 1 Paul seems pretty negative on
homosexuality.  Beyond these references, there are some debates.  Some
passages often cited on the subject probably are not relevant.  E.g.
the sin which the inhabitants of Sodom proposed to carry out was
homosexual *rape*, not homosexual activity between consenting adults.
(There's even some question whether it was homosexual, since the
entities involved were angels.)  It was particularly horrifying
because it involved guests, and the responsibility towards guests in
that culture was very strong.  (This is probably the reason Lot
offered his daughter -- it was better to give up his daughter than to
allow his guests to be attacked.)  If you look through a concordance
for references to Sodom elsewhere in the Bible, you'll see that few
seem to imply that homosexuality was their sin.  There's a Jewish
interpretive tradition that the major sin was abuse of guests.  At any
rate, there's no debate that homosexual *rape* is wrong.

I do not discuss Leviticus because the law there is part of a set
of laws that most Christians do not consider binding.  So unless NT
justification can be found, Lev. alone would not settle the issue.

The NT references are all in Paul's letters.  A number of the
references from Paul are lists of sins in which the words are fairly
vague.  Boswell argues that the words occuring in these lists do not
mean homosexual.  Here's what he says: The two Greek words that appear
in the lists (i.e. I Cor 6:9 and I Tim 1:10) are /malakos/ and
/arsenokoitai/.  Unfortunately it is not entirely clear what the words
actually mean.  /malakos/, with a basic meaning of soft, has a variety
of metaphorical meanings in ethical writing.  Boswell suggests
"wanton" as a likely equivalent.  He also reports that the unanimous
interpretation of the Church, including Greek-speaking Christians, was
that in this passage it referred to masturbation, a meaning that has
vanished only in the 20th Cent., as that practice has come to be less
frowned-upon.  (He cites references as late as the 1967 edition of the
Catholic Encyclopedia that identify it as masturbation.)  He
translates /arsenokotai/ as male prostitute, giving evidence that none
of the church fathers understood the term as referring to
homosexuality in general.  A more technical meaning, suggested by the
early Latin translations, would be "active mode homosexual male
prostitute", but in his view Paul did not intend it so technically.

For a more conservative view, I consulted Gordon Fee's commentary on I
Cor.  He cites evidence that /malakos/ often meant effeminate.
However Boswell warns us that in Greek culture effeminate is not
necessarily synonymous with homosexual, though it may be associated
with some kinds of homosexual behavior.  Given what Boswell and Fee
say taken together, I suspect that the term is simply not very
definite, and that while it applies to homosexuals in some cases, it
isn't a general term for homosexuality.  While Fee argues against
Boswell with /arsenokotai/ as well, he ends up suggesting a
translation that seems essentially the same.  The big problem with it
is that the word is almost never used.  Paul's writing is the first
occurence.  The fact that the word is clearly composed of "male" and
"f**k" unfortunately doesn't quite tell us the meaning, since it
doesn't tell us whether the male is the subject or object of the
action.  Examples of compound words formed either way can be given.
In theory it could refer to rapists, etc.  It's dangerous to base
meaning purely on etymology, or you'll conclude that "goodbye" is a
religious expression because it's based on "God by with ye".  However
since Boswell, Fee, and NIV seem to agree on "homosexual male
prostitute", that seems as good a guess as any.  Note that this
translation misses the strong vulgarity of the term however (something
which Fee and Boswell agree on, but do not attempt to reproduce in
their translation).

In my opinion, the strongest NT reference to homosexuality is Romans
1.  Boswell points out that Rom 1 speaks of homosexuality as something
that happened to people who were naturally heterosexual, as a result
of their corruption due to worshipping false gods.  One could argue
that this is simply an example: that if a homosexual worshipped false
gods, he would also fall into degradation and perhaps become
heterosexual.  However I find this argument somewhat forced, and in
fact our homosexual readers have not seriously proposed that this is
what Paul meant.

However I am not convinced that Rom 1 is sufficient to create a law
against homosexuality for Christians.  What Paul is describing in Rom
1 is not homosexuality among Christians -- it's homosexuality that
appeared among idolaters as one part of a whole package of wickedness.
Despite the impression left by his impassioned rhetoric, I'm sure Paul
does not believe that pagans completely abandoned heterosexual sex.
Given his description of their situation, I rather assume that their
heterosexual sex would also be debased and shameless.  So yes, I do
believe that this passage indicates a negative view of homosexuality.
But in all fairness, the "shameless" nature of their acts is a
reflection of the general spiritual state of the people, and not a
specific feature of homosexuality.

My overall view of the situation is the following: I think we have
enough evidence to be confident that Paul disapproved of
homosexuality.  Rom 1 seems clear.  While I Cor 6:9 and I Tim 1:10 are
not unambiguous and general condemnations of homosexuality, they do
not seem like wording that would come from someone who approved of
homosexuality or even considered it acceptable in some cases.  On the
other hand, none of these passages contains explicit teachings on the
subject.  Rom 1 is really about idolatry.  It refers to homosexuality
in passing.

The result of this situation is that people interpret these passages
in light of their general approach to Scripture.  For those who look
to Scripture for laws about issues such as this, it not surprising
that they would consider these passages to be NT endorsement of the OT
prohibition.  For those whose approach to the Bible is more liberal,
it is not surprising that they regard Paul's negative view of
homosexuality as something that he took from his Jewish upbringing
without any serious reexamination in the light of the Gospel.  As
readers of this group know by now, the assumptions behind these
approaches are so radically different that people tend to foam at the
mouth when they see the opposing view described.  There's not a lot I
can do as moderator about such a situation.

A number of discussions in the past centered around the sort of
detailed exegesis of texts that is described above.  However in fact
I'm not convinced that defenders of homosexuality actually base their
own beliefs on such analyses.  The real issue seems to rest on the
question of whether Paul's judgement should apply to modern
homosexuality.

One commonly made claim is that Paul had simply never faced the kinds
of questions we are trying to deal with.  He encountered homosexuality
only in contexts where most people would probably agree that it was
wrong.  He had never faced the experience of Christians who try to act
"straight" and fail, and he had never faced Christians who are trying
to define a Christian homosexuality, which fits with general Christian
ideals of fidelity and of seeing sexuality as a mirror of the
relationship between God and man.  It is unfair to take Paul's
judgement on homosexuality among idolaters and use it to make
judgements on these questions.

Another is the following: In Paul's time homosexuality was associated
with a number of things that Christians would not find acceptable.  It
was part of temple prostitution.  Among private citizens, it often
occured between adults and children or free people and slaves.  I'm
not in a position to say that it always did, but there are some
reasons to think so.  The ancients distinguished between the active
and passive partner.  It was considered disgraceful for a free adult
to act as the passive partner.  (This is the reason that an active
mode homosexual prostitute would be considered disgraceful.  His
customers would all be people who enjoyed the passive role.)  This
supports the idea that it would tend not to be engaged in between two
free adult males, at least not without some degree of scandal.
Clearly Christian homosexuals would not condone sex with children,
slaves, or others who are not in a position to be fully responsible
partners.  (However Fee's commentary on I Cor cites some examples from
ancient literature of homosexual relationships that do seem to involve
free adults in a reasonably symmetrical way.  Thus the considerations
in this paragraph shouldn't be pushed too far.  Homosexuality may have
been discredited for Jews by some of these associations, but there
surely must be been cases that were not prostitutes and did not
involve slaves or children.)

Some people have argued that AIDS is a judgement against
homosexuality.  I'd like to point out that AIDS is transmitted by
promiscuous sex, both homosexual and heterosexual.  Someone who has a
homosexual relationship that meets Christian criteria for marriage is
not at risk for AIDS.

Note that there is good reason from Paul's general approach to doubt
that he would concede homosexuality as a fully equal alternative,
apart from any specific statements on homosexuality.  I believe his
use of the Genesis story would lead him to regard heterosexual
marriage as what God ordained.

However the way Paul deals with pastoral questions provides a warning
against being too quick to deal with this issue legally.

I claim that the question of how to counsel homosexual Christians is
not entirely a theological issue, but also a pastoral one.  Paul's
tendency, as we can see in issues such as eating meat and celebrating
holidays, is to be uncompromising on principle but in pastoral issues
to look very carefully at the good of the people involved, and to
avoid insisting on perfection when it would be personally damaging.
For example, while Paul clearly believed that it was acceptable to eat
meat, he wanted us to avoid pushing people into doing an action about
which they had personal qualms.  For another example, Paul obviously
would have preferred to see people (at least in some circumstances)
remain unmarried.  Yet if they were unable to do so, he certainly
would rather see them married than in a state where they might be
tempted to fornication.

I believe one could take a view like this even while accepting the
views Paul expressed in Rom 1.  One may believe that homosexuality is
not what God intended, that it occured as a result of sin, but still
conclude that at times we have to live with it.  Note that in the
creation story work enters human life as a result of sin.  This
doesn't mean that Christians can stop working when we are saved.  The
question is whether you believe that homosexuality is in itself sinful
or whether you believe that it's a misfortune that is in a broad sense
due to human sinfulness.  If you're willing to consider the latter
approach, then it becomes a pastoral judgement whether there is more
damage caused by finding a way to live with it or trying to cure it.
The dangers of trying to cure it are that the attempt most often
fails, and when it does, you end up with damage ranging from
psychological damage to suicide, as well as broken marriages when
attempts at living as a heterosexual fail.

This is going to depend upon one's assessment of the inherent nature
of homosexuality.  If you believe it is a very serious wrong, then you
may be willing to run high risks of serious damage to get rid of it.
Clearly we do not generally suggest that people live with a tendency
to steal or with drug addiction, even though attempts to cure these
conditions are also very difficult.  However these conditions are
intrinsically damaging in a way that is not so obvious for
homosexuality.  (Many problems associated with homosexuality are
actually problems of promiscuity, not homosexuality.  This includes
AIDS.  I take for granted that the only sort of homosexual
relationships a Christian would consider allowing would be equivalent
to Christian heterosexual relationships.)

In the course of discussing this over the last decade or so, we've
heard a lot of personal testimony from fellow Christians who are in
this situation.  I've also seen summaries of various research and the
results of various efforts for "conversion".  (Aside from the
Presbyterian report mentioned above, there's an FAQ that summarizes
our readers' reports on this question.)  The evidence is that
long-term success in changing orientation is rare enough to be on a
par with healing miracles.  The danger in advising Christians to
depend upon such a change is clear: When "conversion" doesn't happen,
which is almost always, the people are often left in despair, feeling
excluded from a Church that has nothing more to say but a requirement
of life-long celibacy.  Paul recognized (though in a different
context) that such a demand is not practical for most people, and I
think the history of clerical celibacy has strongly reinforced that
judgement.  The practical result is that homosexuals end up in the gay
sex clubs and the rest of the sordid side of homosexuality.  Maybe
homosexuality isn't God's original ideal, but I can well imagine Paul
preferring to see people in long-term, committed Christian
relationships than promiscuity.  As with work -- which Genesis
suggests wasn't part of God's original ideal either -- I think such
relationships can still be a vehicle for people sharing God's love
with each other.

There's an issue of Biblical interpretation underlying this
discussion.  The issue is that of "cultural relativism".  That is,
when Paul says that something is wrong, should this be taken as an
eternal statement, or are things wrong because of specific situations
in the culture of the time?  Conservative Christians generally insist
on taking prohibitions as absolute, since otherwise the Bible becomes
subjective -- what is to stop us from considering everything in it as
relative?

When looking at this issue, it's worth noting that no one completely
rejects the concept of cultural relativism.  There are a number of
judgements in the New Testament that even conservative Christians
consider to be relative.  The following judgements are at least as
clear in the Bible as anything said on homosexuality:

  - prohibition against charging interest (this occurs 18 times in
	the OT -- it's not in the NT, but I mention it here because
	until relatively recently the Church did consider it binding
	on Christians)
  - prohibition against swearing oaths
  - endorsement of slavery as an institution
  - judgement of tax collectors as sinner

We do not regard these items as binding.  In most cases, I believe the
argument is essentially one of cultural relativism.  Briefly:

  - prohibition of interest is appropriate to a specific
	agrarian society that the Bible was trying to build,
	but not to our market economy.
  - few people believe that American judicial oaths have the
	same characteristics as the kind of oaths Jesus was
	concerned about
  - most people believe that Paul was simply telling people
	how to live within slavery, but not endorsing it as
	an institution
  - for people believe that the IRS is morally equivalent to
	Roman tax farming

The point I'm trying to make is that before applying Biblical
prohibitions to the 20th Cent., we need to look at whether the 20th
Cent. actions are the same.  When Christian homosexuals say that their
relationships are different than the Greek homosexuality that Paul
would have been familiar with, this is exactly the same kind of
argument that is being made about judicial oaths and tax collectors.
Until fairly recently Christians prohibited taking of interest, and
many Christians regarded slavery as divinely endorsed.  (Indeed,
slavery is one of the more common metaphors for the relationship
between God and human beings -- Christians are often called servants
or slaves of God.)

I am not trying to say that everything in the Bible is culturally
relative.  Rather, I'm trying to say that *some* things are, and
therefore it is not enough to say that because something appears in
the Bible, that ends the discussion.  We need to look at whether the
action we're talking about now has the same moral implications as the
one that the Bible was talking about.  If Christians want to argue
that there are reasons to think that the prohibitions against
homosexuality are still binding, I'm willing to listen.  Those who
claim that the question doesn't need to be looked at are kidding
themselves (unless they are part of the small minority who really obey
all the rules listed above).

One thing that worries me is the great emotions that this issue
creates.  When you consider the weakness of the Biblical evidence --
some laws in Leviticus, a passage in Rom whose subject matter is
really idolatry rather than homosexuality, and a couple of lists whose
words are ambiguous -- the amount of concern this is raising among
Christians seems rather out of proportion.  This should suggest to
people that there are reasons other than simply Biblical involved.
This is true on both sides -- clearly homosexual Christians are as
strongly motivated to find ways of discrediting the Biblical arguments
as conservative Christians are to find Biblical arguments.  But I
can't help feeling that the Bible is being used by both sides as a way
of justifying attitudes which come from other sources.  This is a
dangerous situation for Christians.

On the other side of the issue, I would like to note some problems I
have with the pro-homosexual position as it is commonly presented.
One of the most common arguments is that homosexuality is biologically
determined.  I.e. "God made me homosexual", and I have no choice.  I
think "God made me homosexual" is a fine view for people who already
believe on other grounds that homosexuality is acceptable.  But I
don't see it as an argument for acceptability.

Many people think that alcholism is largely biological, and drug
addiction may turn out to be as well.  That doesn't mean it's OK.
Most of us have particular things we tend to do wrong.  Some people
get angry easily.  Others tend to be arrogant.  Others tend to be
attraced to women who are married to someone else.  Homosexuality (if
we view it as wrong) wouldn't be different than any of these other
things.  If we are going to follow God, we all end up at one time or
another having to work to overcome bad habits and particular
temptations that cause us problems.  None of us can sit back and say
that because God made us the way we are we can just relax.  As Jesus
said, we all have to take up our cross daily.  This concept of dying
to self (which also appears throughout Paul's letters) seems to
suggest that there are going to be things about ourselves that we we
are called on not to accept.  Paul's letters and the experience of
Christians throughout history show us that sin is ingrained in us, and
the battle against it is lifelong and difficult.  The fact that
homosexuality is difficult to fight doesn't necessarily say it's OK.
Maybe this isn't the place where we have to die to self.  But I'd like
to make sure that those who think it isn't are fighting the battle
somewhere else, and not rejecting the concept that all Christians have
to fight against the deeply engrained habits of sin.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21497
From: aaronc@athena.mit.edu (Aaron Bryce Cardenas)
Subject: Baptism requires Faith

It troubles me that there have been so many posts recently trying to support
the doctrine of Original Sin.  This is primarily a Catholic doctrine, with no
other purpose than to defend the idea of infant baptism.  Even among, its
supporters, however, people will stop short of saying that unbaptised infants
will go to hell.

It's very easy for just about anyone to come up with a partial list of
scripture to support any sort of wrong doctrine.  However, if we have the
heart to persevere in our beliefs to make sure that they are biblically
based, then we can come to an understanding of the truth.  Let's now take a
more complete look at scripture.

Colossians 2:11-12 "In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of
the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by Christ, having been
buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the
power of God, who raised him from the dead."

In baptism, we are raised to a new life in Christ (Romans 6:4) through a
personal faith in the power of God.  Our parent's faith cannot do this.  Do
infants have faith?  Let's look at what the Bible has to say about it.

Romans 10:16-17 "But not all the Israelites accepted the good news.  For
Isaiah says, 'Lord, who has believed our message?'  Consequently, faith
comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word
of Christ."

So then we receive God's gift of faith to us as we hear the message of the
gospel.  Faith is a possible response to hearing God's word preached.  Kids
are not yet spiritually, intellectually, or emotionally mature enough to
respond to God's word.  Hence they cannot have faith and therefore cannot
be raised in baptism to a new life.

Ezekiel 18:20 "The soul who sins will die.  The son will not share the
guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.  The
righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the
wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him."

If you read all of Ezekiel 18, you will see that God doesn't hold us guilty
for anyone else's sins.  So we can have no original guilt from Adam.

Ezekiel 18:31-32 "Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committted,
and get a new heart and a new spirit.  Why will you die, O house of Israel?
For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord.
Repent and live!"

The way to please God is to repent and get a new heart and spirit.  Kids
cannot do this.  Acts 2:38-39 says that when we repent and are baptized, we
will then receive a new spirit, the Holy Spirit.  Then we shall live.

Now then that we have a little more background as to why original sin is
not Biblical, let's look at some of the scriptures used to support it.

Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and
death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all
sinned--"

Sin and death entered the world when the first man sinned.  Death came to
each man because each man sinned.  Note that it's good to read through all
of Romans 5:12-21.  Some of the verses are easier to misunderstand than
others, but if we read them in context we will see that they are all
saying basically the same thing.  Let's look at one such.

Romans 5:19 "For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many
were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many
will be made righteous."

Through the disobedience of each individual, each was made a sinner.  In
the same way, through the obedience of Jesus, each will be made righteous.
We must remember when reading through this passage that death came to each
man only because each man sinned, not because of guilt from Adam.
Otherwise the Bible would contradict itself.  I encourage you to read
through this whole passage on your own, looking at it from this point of
view to see if it doesn't all fit together.

Psalm 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother
conceived me."

This whole Psalm is a wonderful example of how we should humble ourselves
before God in repentance for sinning.  David himself was a man after God's
own heart and wrote the Psalm after committing adultry with Bathsheba and
murdering her husband.  All that David is saying here is that he can't
remember a time when he wasn't sinful.  He is humbling himself before God
by confessing his sinfulness.  His saying that he was sinful at birth is
a hyperbole.  The Bible, being inspired by God, isn't limited to a literal
interpetation, but also uses figures of speech as did Jesus (John 16:25).
For another example of hyperbole, see Luke 14:26.

Now then, even though people see that baptism requires faith and that
original sin is not Biblical, they will still argue that infant baptism is
necessary because children sin by being selfish - not sharing toys with
other children, by being mean - hitting others and fighting, etc.

Certainly we have observed children doing wrong things, but my gut feeling
is always that they don't know any better.  Let's look to see if the Bible
agrees with my gut feelings.

Isaiah 7:14-15 "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign:  The
virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him
Immanuel.  He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the
wrong and choose the right."

Now just about any church leader will tell you that this is a prophecy
about Jesus.  If they don't, then point them to Matthew 1:23 and find a new
leader.  Jesus certainly couldn't have had less knowledge than normal human
babies.  Yet this passage says that he had to mature to a certain extent
before he would know the difference between right and wrong.  We see that
he did grow and become wiser in Luke 2:40 and 2:52.  The implication is
that Jesus did wrong things as a child before he knew to choose right over
wrong.  Since we know that Jesus was perfect -- without sin, we have rather
conclusive proof that babies cannot sin because they don't know to choose
the right instead of the wrong.

Jesus himself was baptized, albeit with John's baptism, not as an infant,
but as a thirty-year-old man (Luke 3:21-23) and started his ministry as
soon as he was baptized (Luke 3:23).  Immediately afterwards, he was
tempted by the devil (Luke 4:1-13; Matthew 4:1-11; Mark 1:12-13).

Thank you for your attention.

Moderator - this should finish up the subject for a while.  Perhaps you
would like to make a FAQ out of this response so that you can repost it
from time to time when the topic comes up.  Feel free to rearrange the
contents if you would like to, but please send me a copy of the final FAQ.

Sincerely,

Aaron Cardenas
aaronc@athena.mit.edu

[I think you're overly optimistic about the authoritative quality of
your response.  First, original sin is not a Catholic-only doctrine.
It was held by Luther and Calvin as well, and is still present in one
form or another in the Lutheran and Reformed traditions.  Second,
saying that it has no other purpose than defending infant baptism is
an ad hominem argument, which has considerable evidence against it.
The original Baptist theology included original sin, and some Baptists
still hold it.  And there are certainly groups that baptize infants
without believing in original sin.  Among Protestants, the sacraments
tend to be a bit more symbolic than among Catholics.  Protestants who
baptize infants see baptism as a sign of God's acceptance of us,
rather than our acceptance of God.  In traditional Protestant
theology, God's grace precedes our response, and is applicable to
children.  There are a number of passages one can cite to indicate
that God accepts even children.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21498
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell

|> Imagine the worst depth of despair you've
|> ever encountered, or the worst physical pain you've ever experienced.
|> Some people suffer such emotional, physical, and mental anguish
|> in their lives that their deaths seem to be merciful. But at least
|> the pain does end in death. What if you lived a hundred such lives,
|> at the conclusion of one you were instantly reborn into another?
|> What if you lived a million, a billion years in this state?
|> What if this kept going forever?


>Did this happen to Jesus? I don't think so, not from what I heard. He lived
>ONE DAY of suffering and died. If the wages of sin is the above paragraph, then
>JESUS DIDN'T PAY FOR OUR SINS, DID HE?

This is something I've always found a little curious. I've never quite understood
the trinity thing. On the one hand, Jesus is supposed to be God incarnate. But,
at the same time, he is God's son "For God so loved the world that he gave his
only begotten son". First question is, if Jesus was God in human form, how could
he really be God's son? If the Holy Ghost "planted the seed" in Mary, so to speak,
then it seems that Jesus' relationship to God would be the equivalent to the
human father/son relationship. While a son might inherit alot of the father's 
qualities, he is not the father. They are still two separite entities. To try
and say that a son is the same person as the father is obviously wrong. In that
case, Jesus and God aren't the same. On the other hand, if their relationship
isn't the same as the human father/son relationship, but Jesus is actually God
incarnate, then he's not really God's son and he never was. He's just God
manifesting himself as Jesus. At least, this is how I'm seeing it. Can someone
who is more knowledgeable about the trinity enlighten us? 

Getting back to the original question, what is the great price that Jesus paid
to redeem our sins? Was it dying on the cross? Since Jesus knew that he would
rise again in 3 days and then ascend back to heaven, I have a hard time seeing
how this is considered paying such a great price for humanity. His earthly body
may have been killed, but then, so what? He suffered a few hours of physical
pain, but then, there has been many a human who has suffered a great deal more.
The fact that Jesus was God's only begotten son doesn't seem to me to have much
meaning since God can beget as many sons as he wants to. Jesus being the only
one was simply a matter of choice. I suspect that these questions will be very
offensive to many Christians on this net. To those people, please accept my
sincere apologies. It is not my intention to offend or to trivialize Christ.
But, I do believe these are legitimate questions and I am genuinely curious.
 
[Note that the Trinity and Incarnation have to be looked at together.
First, your reading of the Virgin Birth is an uncommon one.  (In this
group, it's dangerous to say that no one believes something.)  You
seem to be suggesting the Jesus is God's son in a physical sense,
with the Holy Spirit as Father and Mary as Mother.  I consider that
terrible heresy, though some people react less violently.  The Virgin
Birth says that Jesus' birth is God's responsibility.  But it doesn't
imply that God's sperm was involved.  Indeed one (though by no means
the only) speculation is that God used Joseph's genetic material.

Second, Jesus is in some sense doubly indirect from the Father.  In a
Trinitarian context, the term Son refers to the eternal Logos, who is
a part of God.  The Son didn't come into existence with Jesus' birth.
Jesus is the incarnation of the Son.  So his sonness isn't
specifically a result of being incarnated.  Rather, it's the Son
who was incarnated.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21499
From: u9245669@athmail1.causeway.qub.ac.uk
Subject: Christianity and repeated lives

>There is a paragraph in the New Testament which in my opinion, clearly makes
>a positive inference to reincarnation. I don't remember which one it is off of
>the top of my head, but it basically goes like this: Jesus is talking with the
>apostles and they ask him why the pharisees say that before the messiah can 
>come Elijah must first come. Jesus replies that Elijah has come, but they did 
>not recognize him. It then says that the apostles perceived that he was refering 
>to John the Baptist. This seems to me to clearly imply reincarnation.

This was a popular belief in the Judaism of Jesus` time, that Elijah
would return again (as he had been taken in to heaven in a chariot and
did not actually die).  However Jesus was referring to John the
Baptist not in the sense that Elijah was reincarnated as John
(remember Elijah didn`t die) but that John was a similar prophet to
Elijah.  John was a fiery preacher, he wore sackcloth and wandered
rough through Israel preaching the coming kingdom.  The verses that
describe him (in Mark`s gospel) can be linked to OT references about
Elijah.  Hence John was similar to Elijah and Jesus was drawing the
parallels between the two just as he drew parallels with the Suffering
Servant in Isaiah (and other messianic figures) and himself.

A brief reply but I don`t have time to look up all the relevant stuff.

Suffice to say there is a very strong explanation.



Rick.

________________________________________________________________

Richard Johnston                             Queen`s University
73 Malone Road                               Belfast
Belfast                                 
Northern Ireland                          
BT9 6SB                                   

u9245669@athmail1.causeway.qub.ac.uk
________________________________________________________________

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21500
From: nichael@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Subject: Re: Variants in the NT Text (cont.)

From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
>Does anyone now where an English translation of the long recension of
>the Acts of the Apostles can be found?

1] An english translation of this can be found in:
   "The Acts of the Apostles, translated from the Codex Bezae, with an
   introduction on its Lucan Origin and Importance", J. M. Wilson
   (London, 1923).

2] Another work that might be useful is:
   "The Acts of the Apostles, a Critical Edition with Introduction and
   Notes on Selected Passages", Albert C. Clark (Oxford, 1933;
   reprinted 1970).

(This is an edition of text of Acts that makes the assumption that the
text in Codex Bezae is the more authentic.  I don't know if it
actually contains an english translation or not.)

3] Another useful that discusses many of the variants in detail is:
   "The Theological Tendency of the Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in
   Acts", Eldon J Epp (Cambridge, 1966).

4] The most recent reference I found was an edition in French from the
early '80s.  (I can supply the reference if anyone's interested.)

5] Now, many of the works are going to be difficult to find.  So if
you're interested in examining the differences in the long recension
an excellent (and easily obtainable) discussion can be found in:
   "A Textual Commentary on the Greek NT", Bruce Metzger (United Bible
   Society, 1971).

Metzger's book serves as a companion volume to the UBS 3rd edition of
the Greek NT.  It contains a discussion on the reasoning that went
behind the decisions on each of the 1440 variant readings included in
the UBS3.  Furthermore, notes on an addition 600 readings are
included in aTCotGNT (the majority of these occur in Acts).

In particular in the introduction to the section on Acts Metzger writes:
   "[An attempt was made] to set before the reader a more or less full
   report (with an English translation) of the several additions and
   other modifications that are attested by Western witnesses ...
   Since many of these have no corresponding apparatus in the
   text-volume, care was taken to supply an adequate conspectus of the
   evidence that supports the divergent readings." (p 272).

>I understand that one of the early codexes, Vaticanus and Siniaticus has
>this version of Acts.  It would be interesting to know what the
>differences are between the long and the short forms.

6] Most of the copies of the text of Acts that we have (including the
ones in Vaticanus and Siniaticus) adher pretty closely to the shorter
(or Alexandrian) version.  The longer version to which you refer is
usually called the "Western" version and its main witness is the Codex
Bezae (althought there are a few other rather fragmentary sources).

7] As far as size, the difference is that in Clark's edition
(mentioned above) the book of Acts contains 19,983 words whereas the
text edited by Westcott and Hort (a typical Alexandrian text) contains
18,401 words; i.e. a difference of about 8-1/2%.

8] To answer the obvious questions, no, there are no major revelations
in the longer text nor major omissions in the shorter text.  The main
difference seems to "expansion" of detail in the Western text (or, if
you prefer "contractions" in the Alexandrian).  The Western text seems
to be given to more detail.  There are some interesting specific
cases, but this probably not the place to go into it in detail.

9] The discussion over the years as to which of these versions is the
more authentic has been hot and heavy.  If there is anything
approaching a modern consensus it is (i) that neither text represents
purely the "authentic" version, (ii) each variant reading has to be
examined on its own merits however, (iii) the variant in the
Alexandrian text is the "better" more often than not.

N

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21501
From: dozier@utkux1.utk.edu (Anni Dozier)
Subject: SOC.RELIGION.CHRISTIAN

After reading the posts on this newsgroup for the pasts 4 months, it 
has become apparent to me that this group is primarily active with 
Liberals, Catholics, New Agers', and Athiests.  Someone might think 
to change the name to:  soc.religion.any   - or -  perhaps even
soc.religion.new.  It might seem to be more appropriate.
Heck, don't flame me, I'm Catholic, gay, and I voted 
for Bill Clinton.  I'm on your side!                      

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21502
From: simon@giaeb.cc.monash.edu.au
Subject: Virtues of Purity, Modesty and innocence

Heres a nice story to help explain the virtues of purity, innocence
and modesty, and their importance.



    The Most Beautiful Virtues

    This story is an excerpt taken from The  Basket  of  Flowers   by
    Johann Christoph von Schmid


    In a certain little market town, over a hundred years ago,	there
    lived  an  upright	and  intelligent man named Jacob Rede. He was
    married to a most virtuous young woman and they lived happily  in
    a  humble  home which was in the midst of a large, beautiful val-
    ley. After living many, happy years together, Jacob's wife	died,
    leaving  him alone with only one friend...his daughter Mary. Even
    as a child Mary was uncommonly pretty; but as she grew in  years,
    her piety, her innocence, her modesty and her unfeigned kindne ss
    towards all she came in contact with, gave to her beauty  a  rare
    and  peculiar  charm. Her face was lighted up with a look of such
    indescribable goodness, that  it  seemed  almost  as  though  one
    looked upon an angel.

    Mary's greatest delight was the beautiful garden and her  favour-
    ite  flowers  were the violet, the lily and the rose. Jacob loved
    to point to them as emblems of the virtues most becoming  to  her
    gender.  When	she  once, early in March brought the first violet to
    him and joyfully called upon him to admire it, he said:

    Let the modest violet, my dear Mary, be to you an image of humil-
    ity  and  of the benevolence that does good in secret. It clothes
    itself in the tender colours of modesty; it prefers to  bloom  in
    retired  grots; it fills the air with its fragrance while remain-
    ing hidden beneath the leaves.  May you also, my  dear  Mary,  be
    like  the  retiring violet, avoiding vain display, not seeking to
    attract the public	eye,  but  preferring  ever  to  do  good  in
    quietude and peace.

    One morning when the roses and lilies were in full bloom and  the
    garden appeared in its richest array, Jacob said to his daughter,
    as he pointed out a beautiful lily,  which	was  beaming  in  the
    morning sun:

    Let the lily my dear child, be to you the emblem
     of purity. Look how beautiful, how pure and fair it is! The whi-
    test  linen is as nothing compared with the purity of its petals:
    they are like the snow. Happy the maiden whose heart is  as  pure
    and as free from stain. But the purest of all colours is also the
    hardest

				   -5-







    to preserve pure. Easily is the petal of the lily  soiled;	touch
    it	but carelessly or roughly and a stain is left behind.  In the
    same way, a word or a thought may stain the purity of  innocence!
    Then pointing to a rose he said:

     Let the rose my dear Mary, be to you an emblem of modesty.  More
    beautiful  than the colour of the rose is the blush that rises to
    the cheek of a modest girl. It is a sign that she is  still  pure
    of	heart  and  innocent in thought. Happy is the maiden whom the
    suggestion of a thought that is indelicate, will cause to  blush,
    as	she  is thus put on her guard against the approach of danger.
    The cheeks which readily blush will remain for a long  time  with
    their  roseate  hue, while those which fail to blush at the least
    indelicacy of thought will soon  become  pale  and	wan,  and  go
    before their time to the grave."




    Among the many fruit trees that adorned the garden there was  one
    that  was  prized above all the others. It was an apple tree, not
    much larger than a rose bush, and stood by itself in  the  middle
    of	the garden. Mary's father had planted it the day that she was
    born and every year it bore a number of beautiful apples. Once it
    blossomed  earlier	than  usual  and with unusual luxuriance. The
    tree was one mass of blossom. Mary was so delighted with it  that
    she went every morning as soon as she was dressed to look at
     it. Once, when it was in full bloom, she called  to  her  father
    and said:

    Look father, how beautiful! Was there ever such a lovely mingling
    of	red  and  white?  The whole tree looks like one huge bunch of
    flowers!

    The next morning she hastened into the garden to feast  her  eyes
    once  more	upon the tree. But what was her grief to see that the
    frost had nipped it and destroyed all its flowers. They were  all
    become  brown  and	yellow	and  when  the	sun came forth in its
    strength they withered and fell to the ground. Mary  wept  bitter
    tears at the sight. Then said the father:

    Thus, does sinful pleasure destroy the  bloom  of  youth.  Oh  my
    child,  never  cease to remember how dreadful it is to be seduced
    from the path of right! Behold in the example of the  apple  tree
    an	image of what would happen if you were to wander from the way
    - if the hopes your conduct  hitherto  has	raised	in  my	heart
    should  vanish,  not  merely for a day or year, but for life. Ah,
    then how much more bitter would be the tears which I  would  shed
    over your lapse from virtue than those which now course down your
    cheeks! Life would have no joys for me: with tears in my eyes  I
    should

				   -6-







    go down sorrowfully to my grave.

    As he spoke, the tears stood in his eyes; Mary was deeply  moved,
    and  the words he uttered made so profound an impression upon her
    mind that she never forgot them.

    Under the eyes of a father so  loving  and	wise,  and  amid  the
    flowers  of  her  garden, Mary grew daily in stature and intelli-
    gence - blooming as a rose, pure as a  lily  and  retiring	as  a
    violet, and as full of promise as a tree laden with blossom.

    Happy was the old man at all times to behold how plenteously  the
    fruits  of	his  garden  rewarded his diligent toil; but with how
    much more happiness and content did he mark the  gracious  effect
    produced  upon  the heart and mind of his beloved daughter by his
    pious teaching and example.

    Jacob plucked several roses and lilies, tied them together	in  a
    bunch and gave them to Mary with the words:

    The lily and the rose, sister flowers as they are, belong the one
    to	the  other;  both incomparable in their beauty, they are ren-
    dered still more lovely by being together. In  the	same  way  my
    dear  child  are innocence and modesty twin sisters of virtue and
    cannot be separated




    The greatest and most powerful guardian of purity is the  thought
    of the presence of God

-- 
Internet: simon@giaeb.cc.monash.edu.au  
Viva Cristo Rey !! Long Live Christ the King.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21503
From: scott@prism.gatech.edu (Scott Holt)
Subject: hate the sin...

"Hate the sin but love the sinner"...I've heard that quite a bit recently, 
often in the context of discussions about Christianity and homosexuality...
but the context really isn't that important. My question is whether that
statement is consistent with Christianity. I would think not.

Hate begets more hate, never love. Consider some sin. I'll leave it unnamed
since I don't want this to digress into an argument as to whether or not 
something is a sin. Now lets apply our "hate the sin..." philosophy and see
what happens. If we truly hate the sin, then the more we see it, the 
stronger our hatred of it will become. Eventually this hate becomes so 
strong that we become disgusted with the sinner and eventually come to hate
the sinner. In addition, our hatred of the sin often causes us to say and 
do things which are taken personally by the sinner (who often does not even 
believe what they are doing is a sin). After enough of this, the sinner begins
to hate us (they certainly don't love us for our constant criticism of their
behavior). Hate builds up and drives people away from God...this certainly
cannot be a good way to build love.

In the summary of the law, Christ commands us to love God and to love our 
neighbors. He doesn't say anything about hate. In fact, if anything, he 
commands us to save our criticisms for ourselves. So, how are Christians
supposed to deal with the sin of others? I suppose that there is only one
way to deal with sin (either in others or ourselves)...through prayer. We
need to ask God to help us with our own sin, and to help those we love 
with theirs. Only love can conquer sin...hatred has no place. The best way to
love someone is to pray for them. 

- Scott
-- 
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Scott Holt                 		Internet: scott@prism.gatech.edu
Georgia Tech 				UUCP: ..!gatech!prism!scott
Office of Information Technology, Technical Services

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21504
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse


   This is what the LORD Almighty says: "You who now hear these words spoken by
the prophets who were there when the foundation was laid for the house of the
LORD Almighty, let your hands be strong so that the temple may be built.

Zechariah 8:9

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21505
From: af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.)
Subject: _Christianity In Crisis_ by Hank Hanegraaff

Has anyone read this important book?  If so, what are your feelings about it?

Frank
-- 
"If one wished to contend with Him, he could not answer Him one time out
 of a thousand."  JOB 9:3

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21506
From: aidler@sol.uvic.ca (E Alan  Idler)
Subject: Re: Mormon beliefs about bastards

erh0362@tesla.njit.edu writes:

>    Could anyone enlighten me on how the Mormon church views 
>children born out of wedlock?  In particular I'm interested to know if any 
>stigma is attached to the children as opposed to the parents.  

All children are born pure, i.e., without sin.
However, most saints would view a pregnancy
outside of marriage as an occasion of mourning.
(Some church members would be much more
judgmental, but that is *their* problem.)

In situations where welfare assistance is 
provided through our Church, bishops usually
require that the family be making some effort to
live the Gospel standards and provide for 
themselves.

However, there are occasions when assistance is
provided because of the children in the home.
As a former bishop of mine said, "Children are 
always worthy before God."

>I'm especially 
>keen to learn if there is or is not any prohibition in the Mormon faith on 
>bastards entering heaven or having their names entered in the big genealogical 
>book the Mormons keep in Salt Lake City.  

I am not sure what you mean by the term "bastards"
in this context.

Latter-Day Saints believe that through the
temple ordinances the family unit may be
preserved in eternity.

If you use genealogical material or software
produced by the Church, you may notice a section
for "temple ordinances."  Within that section
there should be a spot for signifying "BIC"
which stands for "born in the covenant."

The children born to couple sealed (married)
within the temple are "born in the covenant"
and are eligible to be part of that eternal
family unit.
Children born to other couples (whether in a
civil marriage or not) would have to be
sealed to their parents after their marriage
is solemnized for eternity.

Supposing a child were born to a woman out of
wedlock, he or she could be sealed to his or
her parents at a later date or adopted into 
any eternal family unit (which may include one
of the birth parents).

>If this is an issue on which the 
>"official" position has changed over time, I'm interested in learning both old 
>and new beliefs.  E-mail or posting is fine.  All information or pointers are 
>appreciated.

I can't say if this principle of adoption
was revealed at the same time as the sealing 
ordinances, but it has been accepted for the 
~15 years I have been in the Church.

I would tend to discount any admonitions from
the Church authorities against having children
out of wedlock because even though there are
provisions within the Lord's plan to recover
what we have done wrong the Church does not
want to give anyone the impression we can sin
and repent at our leisure.

A IDLER

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21507
From: gchin@ssf.Eng.Sun.COM (Gary Chin)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article 27611@athos.rutgers.edu, mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:
>In <May.7.01.08.16.1993.14381@athos.rutgers.edu> whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell) writes:
>Homosexual Christians have indeed "checked out" these verses.  Some of
>them are used against us only through incredibly perverse interpretations.
>Others simply do not address the issues.
>
>You would seem to be more in need of a careful and Spirit-led course
>in exegesis than most of the gay Christians I know.  I suggest that
>you stop "proof-texting" about things you know nothing about.

Let me say that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is
central to Christianity. If you personally believe that Jesus Christ
died for you, you are a part of the Christian body of believers.

We are all still human. We don't know it all, but homosexual or heterosexual,
we all strive to follow Jesus.  The world is dying and needs to hear about
Jesus Christ.

Are you working together with other Christians to spread the Gospel?

|-------------------|
| Gary Chin         |
| Staff Engineer    |
| Sun Microsystems  |
| Mt. View, CA      |
| gchin@Eng.Sun.Com |
|-------------------|

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21508
From: ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis)
Subject: Re: Deuterocanicals, eps. Sirach

Thanks for the responses so far. I hope that I have 
sparked some thought (which is more my intent than 
to restart one of the Reformations).

I'm just going to tug on two threads:

In Message-ID: <May.10.05.07.21.1993.3479@athos.rutgers.edu>
db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes, 

>	And I must point out that
>the Jews only drew up their canon in 90 AD, 60 years after the founding
>of the Christian Religion upon the Cross.  Why should we adhere to a
>canon that was drawn up by the faithless, in reaction to the Chrsitian
>use of the Greek Septuagint, which includes the deutero-canon?  

I was simply observing that as a non-Jew, I am not in that community
which might be bound by such a decision (I don't know much about
the Council of Jamnia, but I have heard that it is not well-attested
historically). 'Faithless' has nothing to do with it, and I prefer
not to speculate about motives.

>As early
>as 150 AD, St. Justin had already accused the Jews of mutilating the
>Canon of Scripture by their removal of certain books.  

I wish the Dialogue_with_Trypho were a real transcript of a real
dialogue,, but I think it a fictional effect on Justin's part.
Putting that to one side, Justin's point may be evidential; one
would want to know- 'which books?'

>Protestants apparently prefer to think that God's revelation was limited 
>by a decree of the Jews [...]

Perhaps the reformers were traveling in all the light (MS evidence)
they had. Let's stick to the issues. Again, I prefer not to speculate
about motives. One would need quotes from Luther, Calvin, etc. to
evidence this 'preference'.

-----
In Message-ID: <May.9.05.38.22.1993.27327@athos.rutgers.edu>
wagner@grace.math.uh.edu (David Wagner)

>That is not quite accurate.  Otherwise we would have the book
>of Enoch in the canon (as Dave noted).  One can say that the 
>apocrypha are not quoted by Christ.  

Is this the principle: 'Any (BC) text not quoted by Christ cannot
be counted as Scripture' ? Think well about this- Job, Ruth...?

I wrote:
 		These is a logically invalid *a priori*. 
 		Besides, we are talking about OT texts- 
 		which in many parts are superceded by the NT
 		(in the Xtian view). Would not this same
 		principle exclude _Ecclesiastes_?
 		This principle cannot be consistently applied.

Dave W. answers:
 
>I have to reject your argument here.  The Spirit speaks with one
>voice, and he does not contradict himself.  

Meaning what? Do you affirm the principle (that the D.c's can be
excluded since they contain 'false doctrine') or do you deny it? 
If affirmed (as is implied in your statement) how does one determine 
that doctrine X is false? Do you affirm every teaching in _Ecclesiastes_?

>The ultimate test of canonicity is whether the words are inspired
>by the Spirit, i.e., God-breathed.  It is a test which is more
>guided by faith than by reason or logic.  

If so, it may be a test that cannot be applied. The Orthodox
faithfully believe that Psalm 151 is canonical. How can my
faith say 'Not!' ? All I hear here is the *a priori* I mentioned
before.

>The deutero-canonical books were added much later in the church's
>history.  

This is contrary to fact.

>They do not have the same spiritual quality as the
>rest of Scripture.  

Can this be elevated to a principle? How is 'spiritual quality'
measured? I'll take the 'spiritual quality' of most of Sirach over 
Joshua or Chronicles, any day.

>I do not believe the church that added these
>books was guided by the Spirit in so doing.  

What can I say? You believe what you believe- I'm asking for
a consistency check. I don't see that the books were added- in any
construction this formulation begs the question. No one can validly
ask me to 'have faith' that these books are noncanonical.


Dave Davis, ddavis@ma30.bull.com
These are my opinions & activities alone

QOTD:

"Christianity is not a doctrine, not, I mean, a theory about what has
 happened and will happen to the human soul, but a description of something
 that actually takes place in a human life.  For `consciousness of sin' is a
 real event, and so are despair and salvation through faith.  Those who speak
 of such things (Bunyan, for instance) are simply describing what has happened
 to them, whatever anyone may want to say about it." -- Ludwig Wittgenstein

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21509
From: dan@ingres.com (a Rose arose)
Subject: Re: Legal definition of religion

e_p@unl.edu (edgar pearlstein) writes:
: 
:   .
:            It's my understanding that the U.S. Supreme Court has never 
:        given a legal definition of religion.  This despite the many 
:        cases involving religion that have come before the Court. 
:            Can anyone verify or falsify this?  
:            Has any state or other government tried to give a legal 
:        definition of religion? 

According to the legal practices of today's America, I imagine the legal
definition of religion, if defined, may resemble the following:

	"Any system of belief or practice to which people are committed
	for the benefit of society which must, in the opinion of secular
	thought, be isolated from political and educational influence."

	"Should any system of belief or practice to which people are
	committed be harmful or void of any benefit to society in the
	opinion of religious thought as defined in the previous paragraph,
	isolation of such from political and educational influence would
	constitute unreasonable censorship and an unlawful violation of
	civil rights."

Someday, perhaps they'll legalize benevolence :-)
                 ^^^^^^^?

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21510
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <May.9.05.42.07.1993.27611@athos.rutgers.edu> mls@panix.com (Michael
Siemon) writes:

>>	Romans 1:27
>>	I Corinthians 6:9
>>	I Timothy 1:10
>>	Jude 1:7
>>	II Peter 2:6-9
>>	Gen. 19
>>	Lev  18:22
>>(to name a few of the verses that pertain to homosexuality)
>
>Homosexual Christians have indeed "checked out" these verses.  Some of
>them are used against us only through incredibly perverse interpretations.
>Others simply do not address the issues.
>
>You would seem to be more in need of a careful and Spirit-led course
>in exegesis than most of the gay Christians I know.  I suggest that
>you stop "proof-texting" about things you know nothing about.
>-- 
>Michael

Well, Michael,  I don't know if clh has left them in the faq  (Maybe you should
post the "how to get there map again), but I posted two or three lengthy
exegetical paper on these verses.  They looked at the OT, NT and
intertestimental usages of terms in reference.  I would suggest you read those
before you talk about a "need" in exegetical studies.  If those aren't enough,
I could also provide "The source and NT Meaning of Apsevokoitai".  Dr James
DeYoung published it in THE MASTERS SEMINARY JOURNAL in fall of '92.  To read
any of these 4 papers shows that the shoe is on the other foot as far as a need
for honest exegesis.

Again, please refer to the faq file, or if you are unable to acess it, drop me
a line and I will enclose them to you.

Rexlex@fnal.fnal.gov 

[They're in a separate file, which I gave a pointer to in my posting
yesterday.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21511
From: bradk@isdgsm.eurpd.csg.mot.com (Brad Kaiser)
Subject: Re: What WAS the immaculate conception

In article <May.6.00.35.55.1993.15474@geneva.rutgers.edu> Joe Moore writes,
speaking of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin:

>It was a gift from God.  I think basically the reasoning was that the
>tradition in the Church held that Mary was also without sin as was Jesus.

Yes.  For examples of this in the writings of the early fathers, consider:

    You alone and your Mother
        are more beautiful than any others;
    For there is no blemish in you,
        nor any stains upon your Mother.
    Who of my children
        can compare in beauty to these?
                -- St. Ephrem the Syrian, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8, around
                   A.D. 370

    Lift me up not from Sara but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled 
    but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.
                -- St. Ambrose, "Commentary on Psalm 118", 22:30, ca. A.D. 388

There are many others.

>As the tenets of faith developed, particularly with Augustine, sin was
>more and more equated with sex, and thus Mary was assumed to be a virgin
>for life (since she never sinned, and since she was the spouse of God, etc.)

No.  We have, for instance:

    Was there ever anyone of any breeding who dared to speak the name of
    Holy Mary, and being questioned, did not immediately add, "the Virgin"?
    ... And to Holy Mary, Virgin is invariably added, for that Holy Woman
    remains undefiled.
                -- St. Epiphanus of Salamis, "Panacea against all heresies",
                   between A.D. 374-377.

    We surely cannot deny that you were right in correcting the doctrine
    about children of Mary ... For the Lord Jesus would not have chosen
    to be born of a virgin if He had judged that she would be so incontinent
    as to taint the birthplace of the Body of the Lord, home of the Eternal
    King, with the seed of human intercourse.  Anyone who proposes this is
    merely proposing ... that Christ could not be born of a virgin.
                -- Pope St. Siricius, Letter to Anysius, Bishop of 
                   Thessalonica, A.D. 392

Note that St. Augustine's conversion to Christianity was in A.D. 387.  I
don't know offhand when his election as bishop of Hippo was, but I'm quite
sure it was after 392.  The belief in Mary's perpetual virginity originated
long before Augustine's time.  We hold that it originated with the 
Apostles.

Strictly speaking, however, Mary's perpetual virginity is independent
of her Immaculate Conception.  Mary could have been Immaculately 
Conceived and not remained a virgin; she could have remained a virgin
and not been Immaculately Conceived.

>Since we also had this notion of original sin, ie. that man is born with
>a predisposition to sin, and since Mary did not have this predisposition
>because she did not ever sin, she didn't have original sin.  When science
>discovered the process of conception, the next step was to assume that
>Mary was conceived without original sin, the Immaculate Conception.

No.  It has been held in the Church since ancient times that original
sin was transmitted at conception, when a person's life begins.
Biology had nothing to do with it.  Prayerfully reflecting on the
truth of Mary's sinlessness, and the means by which God could have
achieved this, the Church arrived at the truth of the Immaculate
Conception.  Thus, the Immaculate Conception is not a new doctrine,
but the logical result of our understanding of two old ones.

The celebration of the Feast of the Immaculate Conception itself was
given by Pope Sixtus IV (1471-84) and the Feast was made a precept
feast of the Church by Pope Clement XI (1700-21).

>Mary at that time appeared to a girl named Bernadette at Lourdes.  She 
>refered to herself as the Immaculate Conception.  Since a nine year old 
>would have no way of knowing about the doctrine, the apparition was deemed
>to be true and it sealed the case for the doctrine.

No.  First of all, Lourdes is private revelation, and doctrine is not
based on private revelation.  The most that private revelation can do
is enhance and deepen our understanding of existing public revelation,
which ended with the death of St. John the Apostle.

Second, the "case for the doctrine" was irreformably sealed in 1854 
with the ex cathedra promulgation of the Bull "Ineffabilis Deus" by
Pope Pius IX.  This meant that the doctrine was formally recognized as
a dogma; a dogma, by definition, cannot change and is required to be
believed by the faithful.

The apparition at Lourdes happened in 1858, four years later.  The most
that might be claimed is that Lourdes gave the infallible proclamation
of 1854 a sort of heavenly stamp of approval, but the Church has never
claimed that, nor shall she.

In Christ's Peace,

Brad Kaiser
(bradk@isdgsm.eurpd.csg.mot.com)

	  Those who trust in Him shall understand truth,
	  and the faithful shall abide with Him in love;
	  Because grace and mercy are with His holy ones,
	  and His care is with His elect.
		    -- Wis 3:9 [NAB]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21512
From: Rick_Granberry@pts.mot.com (Rick Granberry)
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

In article <May.10.05.07.56.1993.3582@athos.rutgers.edu>, 
muddmj@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
> > Therefore, until someone is capable of comprehending 
> > God's laws they are not accountable for living them. 
> > They are in the book of life and are not removed until 
> > they can make a conscious decision to disobey God. 
> > 
> > A IDLER 
> 
> If babies are not supposed to be baptised then why doesn't the Bible 
> ever say so.  It never comes right and says "Only people that know 
> right from wrong or who are taught can be baptised." 
>         What Christ did say was : 
> 
>         "I solemly assure you, NO ONE can enter God's kingdom without 
>          being born of water and Spirit ... Do not be surprised that I 
>          tell you you must ALL be begotten from above." 
> 
> Could this be because everyone is born with original sin? 
> 
> Mike 

Do we attach some meaning of the Israelites entering "the promised land" to 
Christianity?

   I submit God did not hold the children responsible when the adults chose 
to follow the bad report of the 10 spies over Joshua and Caleb.  This is 
recorded for us in Deuteronomy 1:39 "Moreover your little ones, which ye said 
should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge 
between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give 
it, and they shall possess it."

   At least to me it seems there was/is an age, or point in maturity where 
they were/are held responsible, and could not enter the "Promised Land", 
younger ones were not held to the same "rules", at least not by God.


| "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." |
| "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."  |
| (proverbs 26:4&5)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21513
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: What WAS the immaculate conception?

Joe Buehler writes:

>There are various explanations for her reaction to the angel's
>greeting.  One is that she grasped what the angel was getting at, that
>she was to be the mother of the Messiah.  And knew what this entailed,
>all the suffering.  This gave her a moment's pause.

A priest I know gave me an interesting explanation.  He said that the
words of Mary point not to doubt or troubled thoughts, but rather to
complete humbleness.  Those who are humble and do not revel in
themselves frequently are confused when given high praise about
themselves, as Mary would rightly be.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21514
From: autry@magellan.stlouis.sgi.com (Larry Autry)
Subject: Definition of Christianity?

I have enrolled in "The History of Christianity" at a college here in
St. Louis. The teacher of the class is what I consider to be
closed-minded and bigotted on the subject of what the definition of
Christianity is.  His definition is tied directly to that of the
Trinity and the Catholic church's definition of it and belief in
Jesus Christ is not sufficient to call one's self a Christian.

While his saying it doesn't make it so,  I nevertheless feel insulted
(or am I just neurotic? :^) ). I would like to be able to respond to
him with some sense of literacy while maintaining an amiable
student-teacher relationship.

So, is there common definition of what Christianity is?  As the
previous discussion of the Trinity did not lend itself to an exchange
of flames, I am hopeful that this will also not produce major
flames.

Regards,
--
Larry Autry
Silicon Graphics, St. Louis
autry@sgi.com 



[Often we get into discussions about who is Christian.  Unfortunately
there are a number of possible definitions.  Starting from the 
broadest, commonly used definitions are:

  a historical definition
  people who accept Christ as Lord and savior
  a broad doctrinal definition
  narrow doctrinal definitions

1) By a historical definition I mean the sort of definition a secular
historian would likely use.  This would include any group that
developed out of the Christian church, and continues within the same
broad culture.  E.g. some Unitarians would fail just about any
doctrinal test you could come up with.  Yet it's clear that that group
developed from Christianity, and people from very different
backgrounds (e.g. Hindus) would likely see them as part of
Christianity.  This is not a definition most Christians like, but it's
relevant in some political and ethnic contexts.

2) Accepting Christ as Lord and savior is a test used by many
Christian groups for membership, e.g. the Southern Baptists and
Presbyterian Church (USA).  I would qualify it by saying that what
most people have in mind is an exclusive commitment to Christ, so that
someone who accepted Christ as one of many gods would not fit.  It's
an attempt to formulate a criterion that is religious but is not based
on technical doctrine.  By this definition, groups such as Arians
would be viewed as heretical Christians, but still Christians.  In the
modern context this would include Mormons, JW's, and "oneness
Pentecostals".  They would be viewed as heretical Christians, but
still Christian.  In practice I believe just about everyone who falls
into this category would accept the Apostle's Creed.

3) The next level is an attempt to give a broad doctrinal definition,
which includes all of the major strands of Christianity, but excludes
groups that are felt to be outside "historic Christianity."  This is
of course a slippery enterprise, since Catholics could argue that
Protestants are outside historic Christianity, etc.  But I think the
most commonly accepted definition would be based on something like the
Nicene Creed and the Formula of Chalcedon.  The attempt is to
characterize doctrines that all major strands of Christianity agree
are key.  Obviously this is to some extent a matter of judgement.  A
Mormon will regard the LDS church as a major strand, and thus will not
want to include anything that contradicts their beliefs.  But I think
this definition would have fairly broad acceptance.

4) Finally, some people use definitions that I would say are limited
to a specific Christian tradition.  E.g. some evangelicals only
consider someone Christian if he has had an evangelical-style
conversion experience, and some I've even heard of groups that limit
it to their specific church.

I think you can find contexts where each of these definitions is used.
A lot is going to depend upon the purpose you're using it for.  If
you're using it descriptively, e.g. in history or anthropology, you'll
probably use definition 1 or 2.  If you're using it normatively, i.e.
to say what you believe the Christian message is, you'll probably use
a definition like 3 or even 4.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21515
From: lmvec@westminster.ac.uk (William Hargreaves)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

muirm@argon.gas.organpipe.uug.arizona.edu (maxwell c muir) writes:
: 
: In the NT, the clear references are all from Paul's letters.  In Rom
: 1, there is a passage that presupposes that homosexuality is an evil.
: Note that the passage isn't about homosexuality -- it's about
: idolatry.  Homosexuality is visited on people as a punishment, or at
: least result, of idolatry.  There are a number of arguments over this
: passage.  It does not use the word "homosexuality", and it is referring
: to people who are by nature heterosexual practicing homosexuality.
: So it's not what I'd call an explicit teaching against all homosexuality.

That's like saying that murder is only wrong for those of us who aren't natural
murders, and stealing is only wrong for those of us who aren't natural
thieves.

Will
-- 
============================================
| Dallas Cowboys - World Champions 1992-93 |
============================================

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21516
From: koberg@spot.Colorado.EDU (Allen Koberg)
Subject: Re: Satan kicked out of heaven: Biblical?

In article <May.9.05.42.00.1993.27592@athos.rutgers.edu> mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker) writes:
>easteee@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:

>>     I have a question about Satan.  I was taught a long time ago
>>that Satan was really an angel of God and was kicked out of heaven
>>because he challenged God's authority.  The problem is, I cannot
>>find this in the Bible.  Is it in the Bible?  If not, where did it
>>originate?

>	The quick answer:  Revelation 12:7-9


And as someone mentioned earlier, from the apocryphal Book of Enoch,
satan was apparently kicked out for three times asserting his own will,
"I will".  Hmmm...pro-choice looks kinda creepy here.

Then there are the references around the Bible about taking a third
of the angels, getting a third of the heavens or something.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21517
From: gtd259a@prism.gatech.edu (Matt Kressel)
Subject: a few questions


	I am writing a paper on religion and how it reflects 
and or affects modern music.  This brief questionaire is summary of
the questions I would like answered.  A response is requested and 
can be mailed to me directly at: 
                   
                    gtd259a@prism.gatech.edu 
          
                   *PLEASE MAIL - DO NOT POST*

Thanks in advance,
Matt Kressel


----------------------------------------------------------------------

1.) How do you feel about groups like Diecide, Slayer, and Dio who
freely admit to practicing satanism and preach it in their songs?


2.) How do you feel about groups like Petra, old Stryper, Whitecross,
and Holy Soldier who promote and sing about Cristianity?


3.) How do you feel about groups like Front 242, XTC, Revolting Cocks,
Minor Threat, and Ministry who condone and sing about atheism?


4.) How do you feel about bands like Shelter who preach the Hare
Krishna religion and other minority(but not unheard of) religions?


5.a) Do you feel there is any difference between promoting music that
supports Cristianity and music that condones satanism?

  b) Why do you feel this way?


6.) What types of music do you listen to?


7.a) How often do you purchase music?

  b) How often does that music contain lyrics with undertones in
religion?


8.a) Do you feel that music one listens to affects the way one views
a particular religion? Religion in general?

  b) How does it affect the way you view your religion? All religions?


9.)  FEEL FREE TO ADD ANY COMMENTS HERE





-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
Matthew Owen Kressel(gtd259a@prism.gatech.edu)
"...nothing settles a man's mind more wonderfully than the knowledge that he
will be hanged in the morning."  - Arthur C. Clarke

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21518
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

In article <May.11.02.36.27.1993.28065@athos.rutgers.edu> biz@soil.princeton.edu writes:

>Who is the "atheist's prayer" being said to?


My roommate, the atheist, says "to anyone out there who might be 
listening."
 
-- 
Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock 
Catechist
gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21519
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock)
Subject: Re: homosexual issues in Christianity

In response to alleged circular reasoning concerning the morality of      
homosexuality, clh poses the following challenge:

>In order to break the circle there's got to be some other
>reason to think homosexuality is wrong.

I answer,

The circle is simple to break.   The Church teaches that homosexual
behavior is immoral.  This teaching is raw, impassionate, unassailable
dogma.  That closes the argument for me.


-- 
Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock 
Catechist
gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu 

[Right.  I understand that people have other reasons for not
accepting homosexuality.  The point I was making was that the
specific argument given wouldn't stand on its own.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21520
From: mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker)
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno ) writes:

>Joseph H. Buehler writes:

>>This all obviously applies equally well to infants or adults, since
>>both have souls.  Infants must be baptized, therefore, or they cannot
>>enter into Heaven.  They too need this form of life in them, or they
>>cannot enter into Heaven.

>Are you saying that baptism has nothing to do with asking Jesus to come into
>your heart and accepting him as your savior, but is just a ritual that we
>must go through to enable us to enter Heaven?


	My feeling on baptism is this:  parents baptize their baby so that the
	baby has the sanctifying grace of baptism (and thus removal of original
	sin) on its soul in the event of an unexpected death.
	
	That is, the parents speak on behalf of the child which is too young
	to speak on its own.  This should not surprise anyone:  don't parents
	*always* do what they believe is the best for their baby?  Why would
	that apply to the baby's physical needs only but not his/her spiritual
	needs to have God's grace?
	
	The purpose of confirmation is for the baby (now young adult) to 
	decide to re-affirm for himself/herself the promises that his/her
	parents made at baptism.  That is where accepting Jesus into your
	heart comes in.  In baptism, the parents ask Jesus to come into their
	baby's heart; at confirmation the child repeats that request 
	independently.
	
	(By the way, these are my personal feelings, though I believe they are
	pretty close to what the doctrinal position of the Catholic Church on
	this issue.  Can anyone out there back me up or correct me?

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21521
From: mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker)
Subject: Re: Mary's assumption

mpaul@unl.edu (marxhausen paul) writes:

>I hate to sound flippant, having shot off my mouth badly on the net
>before, but I'm afraid that much of this material only adds to my
>feeling that "the assumption of Mary" would be better phrased "our
>assumptions _about_ Mary."  In all the time I've been reading about
>Mary on this group, I can not recall reading much about Mary that
>did not sound like wishful veneration with scant, if any, Scriptural
>foundation.  

>I find in the New Testament a very real portrait of Christ's parents
>as compellingly human persons; to be honored and admired for their
>humility and submission to God's working, beyond doubt.  But the almalga-
>mation of theories and dogma that has accreted around them gives me
>an image of alien and inhuman creatures, untouched by sin or human
>desire.  Only Christ himself was so truly sanctified, and even He knew
>temptation, albeit without submitting to it.

>I also don't see the _necessity_ of saying the Holy Parents were some-
>how sanctified beyond normal humanity: it sounds like our own inability
>to grasp the immensity of God's grace in being incarnated through an or-
>dinary human being.  

>I won't start yelling about how people are "worshipping" Mary, etc.,
>since folks have told me otherwise about that, but I do think we
>lose part of the wonder of God's Incarnation in Christ when we make
>his parents out to be sinless, sexless, deathless, otherworldly beings.
>  
>--
>paul marxhausen .... ....... ............. ............ ............ .......... 

	Paul-

	You did a wonderful job of not doing anything humany possible to 
offend us Catholics; hopefully I can be just as careful in my wording as you
were.
	I also don't want to extend this topic into an entire major issue of
debate (anymore than it already is), but just a note or two:

	1.  Please don't talk about Jesus' "parents"--the doctrinal positions
		of the church an unequivocally different regarding Mary and
		Joseph.  I (personally) have never heard of anything being
		attributed to St. Joseph other than his sainthood; that is,
		no reference *ever* to him being sinless, assumed into heaven,
		immaculately conceived, etc.--all these ideas apply only to
		Mary.

	2.  I would agree there is very little scriptural evidence for our
		doctrines about Mary.  Needless to say, that presents a 
		significant problem to those who accept the bible as the only
		source of doctrine.  If, however, one turns to the sacred 
		traditions of the undivided Christian Church, there is no
		problem finding plently of evidence that it was basically a
		unanimous belief among the apostles and all the early 
		generation that Mary was assumed into heaven, body and soul,
		etc. etc.  It wasn't until the reformation that these doctrines
		were called into question.  As far as I am concerned (again, my
		personaly feelings) if it's a choice between the apostles or
		Luther, I'll choose the apostles every time, whether or not
		it is recorded within the writings that the traditions of men
		have determined to be "the bible".

	Like a said, just a couple of notes.  As is often said, I believe that
we must agree to (politely) disagree.  
	May God's peace and blessings be with you always in your search to
discover His absolute truth.  
			- Mike Walker
			  mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
			  (Univ. of Illinois)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21522
From: mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker)
Subject: New thought on Deuterocanonicals


	Often times (most recently on this list in the last few days) I've
heard the passage from revelation:

	"...whoever adds to the sacred words of this book...whoever removes
	 words from this book..."    

	 used as an arguement against the deutercanonical books.

	 I feel this is ridiculous for two reasons:

	 1.  They weren't added later by the Catholic Church; they were
		*always* part of what was considered inspired scripture.
		(This has been dealt with in previous postings...no reason
		to repeat the info.)

	2.  It is more likely than not that when St. John (or whomever) wrote
		the book of Revelation WHAT WAS THEN CONSIDERED SCRIPTURE was
		** NOT ** the same thing you and I are holding in our hands!

	If one takes the translation of "this book" in REV 18:22 (or somewhere
	around there) to mean "all of scripture", then all of us are likely
	holding something that is in violation of this command.

	It is impossible to exactly date the scriptures, even the N.T. ones
	(they didn't like to date their letters, I guess).  I really wish I
	had my bible with me right now to get the facts straight, but I believe
	that several of the N.T. letters, chief among them 2 Peter, have their
	most likely date of composition in the early second century A.D.
		Revelation was almost certainly written durin the reign of 
	Domition (sp?), A.D. 80-96.  Thus it could be argues that we are all
	in sin if we accept 2 Peter as scripture, since it was "added" to the
	book after the composition of Revelation, when we are told to add 
	nothing more.

	If you want to get the exact dates, get a copy of the New American
	Bible.  I'll try to follow this up tomorrow if I remember.
					- Mike Walker
					  mdw3310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
					  (Univ. of Illinois)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21523
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock)
Subject: On Capital Punishment

In article <May.11.02.37.49.1993.28198@athos.rutgers.edu>
 mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:

>I would say only to the extent that the Roman Catholic Church
>neither approves nor disapproves of capital punishment, as
>confirmed in the recent catechism, though there are many RCs
>who were rather surprised and upset that capital punishment was
>not explicitly condemned.

I quote from the journal, "30 Days In the Church and In the World,"
1992, No. 8/9, p. 29. 

Regarding the new draft of the Universal Catechism:

	In procuring the common good of society the need could arise
	that the aggressor be placed in the position where he cannot
	cause harm.  By virtue of this, the right and obligation of 
	public authorities to punish with proportionate penalties,
	including the death penalty, is acknowledged.  For similar
	reasons, legimate authorities have the right to impede
	aggressors in society with the use of arms.  The Church's 
	traditional teaching has always been expressed and will 
	continue to be expressed in the 
	consideration of the real conditions of common good and the
	effective means for preserving public order and personal
	safety.  To the degree that means other than the death
	penalty and military operations are sufficient to keep the
	peace, then these non-violent provisions are to be preferred
	because they are more in proportion and in keeping with the
	final goal of protection of peace and human dignity.  

As is clearly shown by this excerpt, the Church's teaching on capital
punishment remains today as it has always been in the past - in total
accord with my sentiment that I do not disagree with the use of deadly
force in those cases for which this option is justifiable.  

>I do not think your biblical quote can automatically be taken
>as support for capital punishment. I take it that as a Roman
>Catholic you are opposed to abortion, and would still onsider
>it wrong, and something to be objected to even if legalised by
>"authority".

I seek to conform my will to the will of God as expounded by His
instrument of the visible Church here on earth whenever the question
of faith or morals arises.  


-- 
Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock 
Catechist
gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21524
From: koberg@spot.Colorado.EDU (Allen Koberg)
Subject: Re: The Bible available in every language (was Re: SATANIC TOUNGES)

In article <May.9.05.38.18.1993.27323@athos.rutgers.edu> bjorn.b.larsen@delab.sintef.no writes:
>In article <May.5.02.53.10.1993.28880@athos.rutgers.edu>
>koberg@spot.Colorado.EDU (Allen Koberg) writes:

>> The concept of tongues as used at Pentecost seems an outdated concept
>> now.  With the Bible available in nearly every language, and missionaries
>> who are out there in ALL languages, why does the church need tongues?

>I guess there are at least some people who are not able to support
>this claim. There are still a lot of languages without the Bible, or a
>part of the Bible. There are still many languages which we are not
>able to write, simply because the written version of the language has
>not yet been defined!

Yes, I suppose that's true.  Of course, notice I qualified with NEARLY
every language :-).  And there are missionaries out there who can
speak every imaginable language AND dialect.  But then, the fact that
not all languages have a WRITTEN gospel lends no credence to the 
concept of "pentecost" type xenoglossolalia since most tongues occur not
in these places of un-written language, but rather in churches full
of people who do have a written language and a Bible in that language.

But I nitpick.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21525
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: The Bible on the Immaculate COnception

Andy Byler writes on the Biblical basis for the dogma of the
Immaculate Conception:

 +  I will put enmity between you [the Serpent] and the woman, and
 + between your seed and her seed, she [can also be read he] shall
 + crush your head and you shall bruise her [or his] heel.
 + -Genesis 3.15

 +  He who commits sin is of the devil ...    -1 John 3.8

 +  Hail, full of grace [greek - kecharitomene], the Lord is with
 + thee ...    -Luke 1.28

In the Hebrew of Genesis 3:15, the gender is clearly masculine.

 + HE shall crush your head, and you shall bruise HIS heel.

The Latin has feminine forms, only by an accident of grammar.

Andrew stated that KECHARITOMENE means not just "full of grace" but
"having a plenitude or perfection of grace." The word is used
elsewhere in the New Testament only in Ephesians 1:6

 + Unto the praise of the glory of his grace, in which he hath
 + GRACED us in his beloved Son. (Rheims-Douay translation)

I cannot find any indication in my dictionary that the verb implies
anything as strong as Andrew suggests, nor does the Ephesians
passage suggest that the verb means "to preserve from any taint of
original or actual sin from the first moment of existence." I should
like to see a comment on the meaning of the verb, preferably not
from s writer who is discussing Luke 1:28 at the moment.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21526
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: two nits picked

Gerry Palo writes:

 > Between Adam and Eve and Golgotha the whole process of the fall
 > of man occurred.  This involved a gradual dimming of
 > consciousness of the spiritual world.  This is discernable in
 > the world outlooks of different peoples through history.  The
 > Greek, for example, could say, "better a beggar in the land of
 > the living than a king in the land of the dead."  (Iliad, I
 > think).

I would not swear that nothing of the sort is found in the Iliad,
but the first passage I thought of was the Odyssey 11:480 or
thereabouts (my copy has no line numbers). The ghost of Acchilles
speaks (Robert FitzGerald translation):

 > Better, I say, to break sod as a farm hand
 > for some poor country man, on iron rations,
 > than lord it over all the exhausted dead.

The next passage I thought of was from Ecclesiastes 9:4

 + A living dog is better than a dead lion.

 > On the other hand, there is one notion firmly embedded in
 > Christianity that originated most definitely in a pagan source.
 > The idea that the human being consists essentially of soul
 > only, and that the soul is created at birth, was consciously
 > adopted from Aristotle, whose ideas dominated Christian thought
 > for fifteen hundred years and still does today....

Surely Aristotle had little influence on Christian thought before
about 1250 AD.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21527
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: Bernadette dates

Joe Moore writes:

 > Mary at that time appeared to a girl named Bernadette at
 > Lourdes.  She referred to herself as the Immaculate Conception.
 > Since a nine year old would have no way of knowing about the
 > doctrine, the apparition was deemed to be true and it sealed
 > the case for the doctrine.

Bernadette was 14 years old when she had her visions, in 1858,
four years after the dogma had been officially proclaimed by the
Pope.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21528
From: mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Subject: Re: SATANIC TOUNGES

In article <May.10.05.08.50.1993.3730@athos.rutgers.edu> bjorn.b.larsen@delab.sintef.no writes:
>We chose to believe whetever we want, but we are not allowed to define
>our own Christianity. we see in parts. If you see something that I do
>not see, or vice versa, it does not give me the right to play jokes on
>your belief!
>
It is important if Christianity is being damaged by it. If
people who "speak in tongues" make claims that they are
miraculously speaking a foreign language through the power of
the Holy Spirit, when it can easily be shown that they are simply
making noises, it damages all Christians, since many who are
not Christians do not distinguish between the various sects.

The more modest claim for "tongues" that it is simply
uncontrolled praise in which "words fail you" is surely the one
that should be used by those who make use of this practice.

I agree with the point that "Charismatic" practices like this
can lead to forms of worship which are more about the
worshipper showing off than genuine praise for God; one of the
things Jesus warned us about.

Matthew Huntbach

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21529
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: Jacob and Esau

Gerry Palo wrote that there is nothing in Christianity that excludes
the theory of a succession of lives.

I wrote that the Apostle Paul, in Romans 9, speaks of God as
choosing Jacob over Esau, and adds that this is not as a result of
anything that either child had done, since they had not been born
yet.

Clearly, Paul does not believe that they had had previous lives, nor
does he suppose that his readers will believe it. For if they had
had previous lives, it would not make sense to say, "Neither of them
has done anything good or bad as yet, since they are not yet born."

Daniel Cossack writes to ask whether it is fair for God to hate
Easau when Esau has done nothing bad?

I reply that in Hebrew it is standard usage to speak of hating when
what is meant is simply putting in second place. As an example,
consider the saying in Matthew 6:24

 + No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one
 + and love the other, or....

Now, it is obviously false that a man with two masters must hate one
of them. But it is obviously true that he must put one of them in
second place. A dog that always comes when either Billy or Bobby
calls will have a problem if they stand in different places and call
simultaneously. It cannot give first priority to both. One must take
second place. In our original example, second place means that
Jacob, not Esau, is chosen to bear the covenant blessing and
obligation, and to be the ancestor of Christ.

     *****     *****     *****     *****     *****

Eugene Bigelow mentions Matthew 11:14 which says of John the
Baptist:

 + And if ye will receive it, this is ELijah, who was to come.

I take this to mean that John was an Elijah-like figure, dressing
and living like Elijah, preaching like Elijah, and fulfilling the
prediction that Elijah would prepare the way for the Messiah.  I do
not think that he was Elijah in a literal sense, and, appareently,
neither did he (John 1:21).

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21531
From: brother.roy@almac.co.uk (Brother Roy)
Subject: RFD: soc.religion.taize

This is a RFD on a proposal for a newsgroup which would promote a 
sharing on the "Johannine hours" as proposed each month by the monks of 
the ecumenical community of Taize (pronounced te-zay) in France.

NAME OF PROPOSED NEWSGROUP: 
==========================

soc.religion.taize (Unmoderated)


PURPOSE OF THE GROUP: 
====================

The Taize Community is an international ecumenical community of monks 
based in France. Many young adults come there to search for meaning in 
their life and to deepen their understanding of their faith through a 
sharing with others. This newsgroup will allow such a sharing through a 
monthly "Johannine Hour" which will be posted at the beginning of each 
month. A "Johannine hour" involves a short commentary on a given Bible 
passage, followed by some questions for reflection.  Any thoughts that 
may arise in consequence and that you wish to share with others can be 
posted here. We are not interested in theological debate, and even less 
in polemics. No expertise is required! The idea is to help one another 
to deepen our understanding of Scripture as it is related to our own 
life-journey.

The idea of "Johannine hours" was born in Taize as a simple response
to all those who were trying to assimilate the Bible's message in the
midst of their daily life. Because of work or studies, it is often
impossible to spend long hours in silence and reflection, but
everyone can take an hour from time to time to enter a church, sit
quietly at home or go out for a walk in the woods. There, in silence,
we can meditate on a passage of Scripture to listen to the voice of
Christ.

During the time of silence, it is important to concentrate on what we 
understand and not waste time worrying if, in some Biblical expressions, 
we find it difficult to hear the voice of Christ. The idea is to 
communicate to others what we have understood of Christ, not burdening 
them with our own hesitations but rather telling them what has brought 
us joy, what has led us to run the risk of trusting more deeply.

Perhaps those who read and think about the "Johannine Hours" in this
newsgroup could share their reflections and discoveries with others.

The important thing is the complementarity between two aspects, the
personal aspect of silent, personal reflection and the communal aspect
of sharing, which through Usenet makes us a part of a worldwide network.

BACKGROUND OF THE TAIZE COMMUNITY:
=================================

The following provides some background information on the life and
vocation of the Taize (pronounced te-zay) community.

"A PARABLE OF COMMUNION": August 1940, with Europe in the grip of
World War II, Brother Roger, aged 25, set up home in the almost
abandoned village of Taize, in Eastern France. His dream: to bring
together a monastic community which would live out "a parable of
community", a sign of reconciliation in the midst of the distress of
the time. Centering his life on prayer, he used his house to conceal
refugees, especially Jews fleeing from the Nazi occupation.

AN INTERNATIONAL AND ECUMENICAL COMMUNITY: Taize's founder spent the
first two years alone. Others joined him later and at Easter 1949,
seven brothers committed themselves together to common life and
celibacy. Year by year, still others have entered the community, each
one making a lifelong commitment after several years of preparation.
Today, there are 90 brothers, Catholics and from various Protestant
backgrounds, from over twenty different countries. Some of them are
living in small groups in poor neighbourhoods in Asia, Africa, North
and South America. The brothers accept no donations or gifts for
themselves, not even family inheritances, and the community holds no
capital. The brothers earn their living and share with others
entirely through their own work. In 1966, Sisters of Saint Andrew, an
international Catholic community founded 750 years ago, came to live
in the neighbouring village, to share the responsibility of welcoming
people in Taize.

TAIZE AND THE YOUNG; THE INTERCONTINENTAL MEETINGS: Young adults, and
less young, have been coming to Taize in ever greater numbers since
1957. Hundreds of thousands of people from Europe and far beyond have
thus been brought together in a common search. Intercontinental
meetings take place each week, Sunday to Sunday, throughout the year
and they include youth from between 35 and 60 countries during any
one week. The meetings give each person the opportunity to explore
the roots of their faith and to reflect on how to unite the inner
life and human solidarity. The meetings in summer can have up to
6,000 participants a week. Three times every day, the brothers and
everybody on the hill come together for common prayer in the Church
of Reconciliation, built in 1962 when the village church became too
small.

"A PILGRIMAGE OF TRUST ON EARTH" The community has never wanted to
create a "movement" around itself. Instead, people are called to
commit themselves in their church at home, in their neighbourhood,
their city or village. To support them in this, Taize has created
what it calls "a pilgrimage of trust on earth". At the end of each
year, the pilgrimage has a "European meeting" which brings together
tens of thousands of young adults from every part of Europe for
several days in a major city. There have also been meetings in Asia
and in the United States. Every year, Brother Roger writes an open
letter to the young. Usually completed during a stay in one of the
poor regions of the world, these are translated into thirty languages
and provide themes for reflexion for the following year.

NOTE:  Discussion on the creation of this newsgroup will take place in 
       news.groups.

For any further information contact: Brother.Roy@almac.co.uk

               brother.roy@almac.co.uk
-- 
 . 1st 1.10b #332 . Taize-Community, 71250 TAIZE, France

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21532
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: legal definition of religion

Edgar Pearlstein asks (Fri 7 May 1993) whether the Supreme Court, or
any other government authority, has attempted a legal definition of
religion.

The Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1958 exempted
from the draft those whose "religious training and belief" was
opposed to participation in war in any form. It defined "R T & B" as
"an individual's belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving
duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but [not
including] essentially political, sociological, or philosophical
views or a merely personal moral code."

In the 1965 case of UNITED STATES V. SEEGER, the Supreme Court
broadened the definition so as not to restrict it to explicit
theists. Justice Tom Clark, delivering the Court's opinion, said:

   We have concluded that Congress, in using the expression "Supreme
   Being" rather than the designation "God," .... the test of belief
   "in a relation to a Superme Being" is whether a given belief that
   is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its
   possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God
   of one who clearly qualifies for the exemption. Where such
   beliefs have parallel positions in the lives of their respective
   holders we cannot say that one is "in a relation to a Supreme
   Being" and the other is not...."

My immediate reference is THE FIRST FREEDOM, by Nat Hentoff,
(Delacorte 1980, Dell 1981).

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21533
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Athiests and Hell

In article <May.11.02.36.29.1993.28068@athos.rutgers.edu>
ptrei@bistromath.mitre.org (Peter Trei) writes:
>In article <May.9.05.38.49.1993.27375@athos.rutgers.edu> REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
writes:
>[much deleted] 
>>point today might be the Masons.  (Just a note, that they too worshipped 
>>Osiris in Egypt...)
>[much deleted] 
>
>     It bugs me when I see this kind of nonsense.
>
>     First, there is no reasonable evidence linking Masonry to ancient
>Egypt, or even that it existed prior to the late 14th century (and
>there's nothing definitive before the 17th).

My wifes uncle was a 30+ level mason.  He let me look at some of the books
(which after his death his "brothers" came over and took from his greiving
widow before his body had even cooled).  Don't tell me you don't worship
Osiris.  You must not be past your 20th level.  You should read Wilkinson's
Egyptians and how he shows this Egyptian religion paralleling his own British
Masonry.  There is a man here at this laboratory who is a 33 degree black
mason.  I've talked with him, though much he likes to hide ("mystery"). 
Special handshakes and all.  When he first started trying to "evangelize" me,
he told me all kinds on special this, and special that.  Here is truely a
"mystery" religion.  THere is the public side with motorcyle mania and
childrens hospitals and then there is the priviate side that only the highest
degree mason every learns of.
>
>     Second, worship of Osiris is not, nor has it ever been, a part of
>Masonic practice (we are strictly non-denominational).
>
I haven't read it, but the literature that is offered by the silver haired
apologist (can't remember his name) on TV, didn't exactly come to this same
conclusion.  

"Khons, the son of the great goddess-mother, seems to have been gernaerally
represented as a full-grown god. The Babylonian divinity was also represented
very frequently in Egupt in the very same wayas in the land of his nativity
-i.e. as a child in his mother's arems.  THis was the way in which Osiris, 'the
son, the husband of his mother,' was often exhibited, and what we learn of this
god, equally as in the case of Khonso, shows that in his original he was none
other than Nimrod.  It is admitted that the secret system of Free Masonry was
originally founded on the Mysteries of the Egyptian Isis, the goddess-mother,
or wife of Osiris.  But what could have led to the union of a Masonic body with
these Mysteries, had they not had particular reference to architecture, and had
the god who was worshipped in them not been celebrated for his success in
perfecting the arts of fortification and building?  Now, if such were the case,
considering the relation in which, as we have already seen, Egypt stood to
Babylon, who would naturally be liiked up to there as the great patron of the
Masonic art?  The strong presumption is, that Nimrod must have been the man. 
He was the first that gained faim in this way.  As the child of the Babylonian
goddess-mother, he was worshipped in the character of Ala mahozim, 'The God of
Fortification.'  Osiris, the child of the Egyptian Modonna, was equally
celebrated as 'the strong chief of the buildings.'  THis strong chief of the
buildings was origninally worshipped in Egypt with every physicall
characteristic of Nimrod.  I have already noticed the fact that Nimrod, as the
son of Cush, was a negro.  Now, there was a tradition in Egypt, recorded by
Plutarch, that 'Osiris was black'......."  Hislop

It was like a cold slap to my face, when my wifes uncle brought out his
cerimonial dress and it was leopard skin.  I mean real leopard skin.   He told
me that only the highest of degrees wore the leopard skin.  (The reason that he
started telling me all this was that he had just been given a couple of months
to live and my wife had led him to a saving faith in Christ and he immediately
repented from 'mysteries' of the lodge!)

Nimr-rod from Nimr, a "leopard," and rada or rad "To subdue."  It is a
universal principle in all idolatries, that the high priest wears the insignia
of the god he serves.  Any representation of Osiris usually show the wearing of
some leopard.  It is interesting that the Druids of Britian also show, or
should I say hide, this representation.  They, however, worshipped the "spotted
cow".

I'll stand by my statements.  Masonry is of the "mystery" religions that all
find their source in Babylon, the great harlot. Sorry Peter,  I do not mean to
be a "cold slap to the face" but there is to much evidence to the contrary that
Masonry doesn't find its origins in Egypt.  Of the Masons I have personally
talked to, all refered to Egypt as their origin.  Why are you now separating
yourself from this which not many years ago, was freely admitted?

-Rex

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21534
From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal F Lillywhite)
Subject: Eternal Marriage (was Mormon Temples)

In article <May.11.02.39.09.1993.28334@athos.rutgers.edu> dhammers@pacific.? (David Hammerslag) writes:

>This paragraph brought to mind a question.  How do you (Mormons) reconcile
>the idea of eternal marriage with Christ's statement that in the ressurection
>people will neither marry nor be given in marriage (Luke, chapt. 20)?

Well, here is something I wrote some time ago in response to a
similar question.  I hope it helps:

[Begin repeat of previous post]

As for the scripture mentioned I agree that it does seem to be a 
problem, not only for eternal marriage but marriage in general.  
Luke's version has Jesus saying that the children of this world 
marry and are given in marriage but not those who will attain
the kingdom of heaven.  It almost sounds like marriage disqualifies
one for salvation.  (Matthew and Mark both omit this statement.)   I
think the accounts are not as clear as they might be.  Let's have a
look at the incident and see if we can come up with some reasonable
ideas of what it means.  The scriptures involved are Mat 22:23-30,
Mark 12:18-25, and Luke 20:27-36.

What happened was that the Sadducees, who did not believe in the
resurrection, thought they could trap Jesus.  They made reference to
the "Leverite" marriage which required the brother of a man who died
without children to take the widow to wife and raise up children.  
The children would be considered children of the deceased, just as
though the woman's first husband had fathered them.  It seems
obvious from this that the woman was still considered in a way to be
the wife of her first husband.  However, the Sadducees concocted a
scene in which 6 brothers of the deceased each in his turn failed to
father children by the widow.  They seem to imply that the Leverite
marriage was equal to the first for they ask, "Whose wife shall she
be in the resurrection?"  At this point it seems obvious that if she
is anybody's wife, it is the first husband.  After all, had she
borne children they would have been credited to him regardless of
which brother was the biological father.  It is possible Jesus was
refering to this when he says, "Ye do err, not knowing the
scriptures or the power of God." (Mat 22:29, compare Mark 12:24,
phrase not in Luke's account).

Anyway, the Sadducees ask, "Whose wife will she be in the
resurrection, seeing that all 7 had her?"  Jesus answer is that,
"In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in
marriage..." (Mat 22:30) "When they rise from the dead they neither
marry..." (Mark 12:25)  "They which are accounted worthy to obtain
that world neither marry..." (Luke 20:35)  All 3 accounts go on to
say, "but are as the angels in heaven" or the equivalent.  I find
this last not very helpful since the Bible does not define angels
nor give any idea what their life is like.  (Some ministers claim
that they are sexless, different that humans etc. but I can find no
Biblical support for this.)

I think what Jesus is saying here (and it is clearest in Matthew's
and Mark's accounts) is that marriages will not be performed in the
resurrection.  This goes along with our belief that if a person is
to marry at all it must be done on this earth.  However, we do
believe that a marriage performed by the authority of God can be
binding in eternity.  In fact, the first marriage appears to have
been performed by God himself before death entered the world (in the
Garden of Eden).  What therefore God hath joined together, let not
man put asunder. (Mat 19:6)  Jesus also told Peter and the other
apostles that whatsoever they should bind on earth should be bound
in heaven (Mat 16:19, 18:18).  I believe that this also refers to
marriages performed by the proper authority.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21535
From: dm112660@nevada.edu (Don Miller)
Subject: Christian Counseling/Psychology Folks out there?

Hello.
Hoping to net some netters
who are in the helping professions 
(counseling, psychology, psychiatry, social work, therapy etc.)
to network on some topics and consider
the possibility of a sci.counseling.christian type newsgroup
or list.

The integration of psychology and counseling and theology 
is a subject of great debate and one of particular interest
to me.

If you're out there, please lemme know.

Email me direct if you will so we can get to know one another
off the news.

Don Miller
UNLV
dm112660@helios.nevada.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21536
From: smayo@world.std.com (Scott A Mayo)
Subject: Re: Dreams and out of body incidents

dt4%cs@hub.ucsb.edu (David E. Goggin) writes:

>I'm fairly new to these groups, tho' some have heard from me before.
Welcome.

>I'd like to get your comments on a question that has been on my mind a
>lot:  What morals/ethics apply to dreams and out-of-body incidents?
>In normal dreams, you can't control anything, so obviously
>you aren't morally responsible for your actions.

Hm. I get a little queasy around the phrase "aren't morally 
responsible", perhaps because I've heard it misused so many times.
(I remember in college some folk trying to argue that a person who
was drunk was not morally responsible for his actions.) In general,
most folk can't control their dreams, but perhaps what you do all day
and think about has some impact on them, hm? And I'm not sure what
"actions" are in a dream. But I will note that Jesus does seem adamant
about the fact that our thought-life is at least as important as
our actions. Go lightly with this argument - we are all morally
responsible for *who we are* and dreams might well be an important
part of that.

>Now, there seem to be 3 alternatives:
>1) Dreams and OOBEs are totally mental phenomena.  In this case no morality
>applies beyond what might be called 'mental hygiene', that is, not trying
>to think about anything evil, or indulgining in overly sexy or violent
>thoughts.
I don't know a thing about Out Of Body Experiences. I've had dreams, some
fairly vivid ones; is an OOBE just a very vivid dream? I would argue that
extreme interest in this sort of phenomena is a tad risky; it is probably
much better to think about who Jesus is, and who we are in relation to that,
than to cultivate a strong interest in dreams. Unless you feel plagued by
dreams that are painful and out of control; then pray about it and/or get help.

>2) Dreams and OOBEs have a reality of their own (i.e. are 'another plane')
>Evidence for this is that often dreams and OOBEs are sometimes done in
>common by more than one person.
What on Earth is your definition of "often"? I know exactly one case of
two people who had substantially the same dream at the same time, and
as they were brothers who had spent the day doing the same things I could
see why their dreams might be similiar. Anyway, the only "other plane" I
know of is the spiritual realm. I don't think *anyone's* dreams,
perhaps outside the occasional prophet's, represent actual actions on an
alternate plane. If they were real actions, or conscious thoughts, then
yes they would have direct moral significance.

>3) Like (2), but here we assume that [garbled text: "because the dream occurs
in a different environment, then different moral laws apply" is my guess of
what you said.]
I don't see the slightest hint in Christian writings that ones "environment"
changes the way a person determines what is moral. For a Christian won't
it *always* come down to "what Jesus would have us do?"

>So... There it is.  Is one of these cases the truth, or does anyone know
>of another alternative?  respond by post or email.
Truth? I don't claim to be an expert in dreams. I'll note that the Bible
doesn't talk much about dreams outside of the realm of God using them to speak
to us, with the caveat that such messages are not always very clear, as it
warns somewhere in the OT. Given that, I would not give them a lot of
attention unless you feel your dreams are trying to tell you something.

I would discount talk of "alternate planes," though. The only places such
concepts are commonly bandied about are for the most part hostile to
Christianity, though I've run into the occasional exception. If you are,
or want to be, a Christian, you want to be very careful about ideas like
this. 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21537
From: e_p@unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)
Subject: Re: Bastards (was Mormon beliefs about bastards)


       .
  Of some relevance to the posts on this subject might be Deut.23:2,
     
       "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord;
       even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the
       congregation of the Lord." 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21538
From: creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

In article <May.11.02.38.18.1993.28241@athos.rutgers.edu> adamsj@gtewd.mtv.gtegsc.com writes:
>2 Samuel 12:21-23 (RSV) : 
[...]
>Anyhow, many interpret this to mean that the child has gone to Heaven
>(where David will someday go). I don't claim to know for sure if this
>applies to all babies or not. But even if it's just this one, what
>would you say to this?

   That brings up an interesting question.  If this interpretation is
correct, how would these people be getting into Heaven before Jesus
opened the gates of Heaven?

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21539
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Dreams and out of body incidents

In article <May.11.02.37.40.1993.28185@athos.rutgers.edu> dt4%cs@hub.ucsb.edu (David E. Goggin) writes:
>I'd like to get your comments on a question that has been on my mind a
>lot:  What morals/ethics apply to dreams and out-of-body incidents?
>In normal dreams, you can't control anything, so obviously
>you aren't morally responsible for your actions.  But if you can contrive
>to control the action in dreams or do an OOBE, it seems like a morality applies.

I think that if someone often has immoral dreams, like lustful dreams, 
or dreams where you commit acts of violence, etc. etc. it may be a sign 
that he has something sinful in his heart.  It may be the Holy Spirit's
way of allowing the sinfulness that is in us to come to light so that
we can pray about it and have it removed.  Generally, if one has a 
pure heart, and sets his mind on things that are holy, he will be holy
even when he dreams.

Dreams also can be from the Lord.  Joseph and Nebucadnezzar are two examples
of people in the Bible who received dreams from the Lord.  

Regarding out of body experiences, this is something that we have to be
careful with.  What is called an OOBE can be spiritual in nature, especially
if what one saw is the same as an experience witnessed by someone else.
Christians should certainly avoid any occult activity that would generate
an out of body experience.  Some things that might be called an OOBE
might actually be from the Lord.  Paul wrote of what might of been an OOBE.
In II Corinthians 12, he wrote of a spiritual experience of being caught
up into the third heaven.  Is an OOBE truely an OOBE?  Does one really
leave his body, or is he just seeing an image being shown to him by a
spirit, be it a demon or the Holy Spirit?  I don't think it matters
that much.  Paul could not tell.  

Be that as it may, we should be careful not to open ourselves up to Satan
to experience OOBE's.  We should not meditate and pretend we are in a 
place until our spirits apparently float there.  This is dangerous.  If
God wants to gice us what seems like an OOBE, then He can do that of His
own sovereign will.  In the Bible, most often it seems that prophets are
just taken up by God's sovereign will, and not because they are seeking
an OOBE.  John was in the Spirit praying on the Lord's day when he was
caught up in the visions he received.  Ezekial was talking with some
Jewish leaders when he was caught up into the visions of God one
time.  If God wants to take one of us up into a vision, he can do it.
People should be careful not to open themselves up to evil spirits
for the sake of a few thrills.

Link Hudson.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21540
From: creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

In article <May.11.02.39.02.1993.28325@athos.rutgers.edu> Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com writes:
>>This all obviously applies equally well to infants or adults, since
>>both have souls.  Infants must be baptized, therefore, or they cannot
>>enter into Heaven.  They too need this form of life in them, or they
>>cannot enter into Heaven.
>
>Are you saying that baptism has nothing to do with asking Jesus to come into
>your heart and accepting him as your savior, but is just a ritual that we
>must go through to enable us to enter Heaven?

   I don't think Joe was saying any such thing.  However, your question
on "asking Jesus to come into your heart" seems to imply that infants
are not allowed to have Christ in theirs.  Why must Baptism always be
viewed by some people as a sort of "prodigal son" type of thing; i.e. a
sudden change of heart, going from not accepting Christ to suddenly
accepting Christ?  Why can't people start out with Christ from shortly
after birth, and build their relationship from there?  After all, does
a man suddenly meet a woman, and then marry her that same day?  From my
experiences, I've learned that all relationships must be built,
including one's relationship with God.

   Also Joe is speaking from the standpoint that Baptism is not just a
ritual, but that through it God bestows sacramental grace upon the
recipient.  Certainly for those with the mental faculties to know Christ
it is necessary to believe in Him.  However, the Sacrament itself
bestows grace on the recipient, and makes a permanent mark of adoption
into God's family on the soul.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21541
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: more on 2 Peter 1:20

I wrote that I thought that 2 Peter 1:20 meant, "no prophecy of
Scripture (or, as one reader suggests, no written prophecy) is
merely the private opinion of the writer."

Tony Zamora replies (Sat 8 May 1993) that this in turn implies that
it is not subject to the private interpretation of the reader
either. I am not sure that I understand this.
     In one sense, no statement by another is subject to my private
interpretation. If reliable historians tell me that the Athenians
lost the Pelopennesian War, I cannot simply interpret this away
because I wanted the Athenians to win. Facts are facts and do not go
away because I want them to be otherwise.
     In another sense, every statement is subject to private
interpretation, in that I have to depend on my brains and
expereience to decide what it means, and whether it is sufficiently
well attested to merit my assent. Even if the statement occurs in an
inspired writing, I still have to decide, using my own best
judgement, whether it is in fact inspired. This is not arrogance --
it is just an inescapable fact.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21542
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: earthquake prediction

In article <May.11.02.37.28.1993.28163@athos.rutgers.edu> dan@ingres.com (a Rose arose) writes:

>4--were God to call me to be a prophet and I were to misrepresent God's Word,
>   my calling would be lost forever.  God's Word would command the people
>   never to listen to or fear my words as I would be a false prophet.  My
>   bridges would be burnt forever.  Perhaps I could repent and be saved, but
>   I could never again be a prophet of God.

Though there is a command in the law not to heed to one who prophecies 
falsely, it is still possible for the one who has prophecied falsely
to prophecy truely again.  Take, for example the story in Kings about the
man of God from Judah who came to israel and prophecied against a king.
The Lord had commanded him to not eat or drink till he returned home.
Another prophet wanted this man of God to stay in his house, so he
prophecied falsely that the Lord wanted the man of God to stay in his 
house.  While they ate and drank in his house, the Lord gave the prophet
who lied a word that the man of God would die from breaking the word of
the Lord.  It came to pass.

Link Hudson.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21543
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: homosexual issues in Christianity

>[There's some ambiguity about the meaning of the words in the passage
>you quote.  Both liberal and conservative sources seem to agree that
>"homosexual" is not the general term for homosexuals, but is likely to
>have a meaning like homosexual prostitute.  

From what I understand of my experience in looking up this word, and 
discussing it with a Greek-literate individual, the meaning of the 
word is rather clear.  Basically it literally means "he who beds with a man"
or "he who has sex with a man."  The burden of proof is on the 
pro-homosexuality side of the argument to show that the word has an 
idiomatic meaning nor evident from its literal meaning.  One can speculate
all day long that it might mean something else, but we need evidence
before we create new doctrines, and get rid of the historical understanding
of the meaning of this word.

Link Hudson.


[I've read enough discussions of this passage, in both liberal and
conservative sources, to be sure that the meaning -- even the literal
meaning -- is not certain.  That doesn't mean one can't come to some
conclusion, nor does it mean that I think there's any doubt about what
Paul thinks of homosexuality.  But there are plausible arguments for
a couple of different meanings.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21544
From: sfp@lemur.cit.cornell.edu (Sheila Patterson)
Subject: Re: Mary's assumption

In article <May.11.02.37.01.1993.28111@athos.rutgers.edu>, mpaul@unl.edu (marxhausen paul) writes:|> feeling that "the assumption of Mary" would be better phrased "our

[text deleted] 
|> I also don't see the _necessity_ of saying the Holy Parents were some-
|> how sanctified beyond normal humanity: it sounds like our own inability
|> to grasp the immensity of God's grace in being incarnated through an or-
|> dinary human being.  
|> 
[text deleted]
|> --
|> paul marxhausen 

Thank you very much Paul.  I have always been impressed by the very human-ness of
Mary.  That God chose a woman, like me, to bring into this world the incarnation
of Himself proves to me that this God is MY God. He reaches down from His
perfection to touch me. Ah, the wonder of it all :-)

-- 
  Sheila Patterson, CIT CR-Technical Support Group
  315 CCC - Cornell University
  Ithaca, NY  14853
  (607) 255-5388

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21545
From: dan@ingres.com (a Rose arose)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

news@cbnewsk.att.com writes:
: Arrogance is arrogance.  It is not the result of religion, it is the result
: of people knowing or firmly believing in an idea and one's desire to show
: others of one's rightness.  I assume that God decided to be judge for our
: sake as much as his own, if we allow him who is kind and merciful be the 
: judge, we'll probably be better off than if others judged us or we judged 
: ourselves.  

I'm not sure I agree with this 100%.  I agree that arrogance is not the result
of religion and that God is a far better judge than we are.  I also agree if
you mean to say that arrogance shows up in the form of trying to prove one's
superior knowledge, rightness, or holiness over another person's beliefs.

I need to be careful to understand what you mean here so that I do not fall
into the mistake of misrepresenting your views.  If I fall down in this area
I hope you will forgive me.

Arrogance is not the result of believing one is right or of believing that
one's God is greater than the god's of others or of believing that one's
religion is better than other religions.  These are all naturally self-implied
beliefs.

It is self-contradictory to say that I believe my current beliefs to be wrong.
Were I to find myself in error, my beliefs would naturally change and follow
what I believe to be right.  Therefore, I must always consider my beliefs
correct.  That's not arrogance.  That's unavoidable behavior.

It is nonsense to say that I believe another person's god to be greater than
my God.  Were his or her god greater, wouldn't I be obligated to change so
that their god would become my God?  We are naturally obligated to worship
that God which we deem to be the greatest.  Why should we feel obligated to
worship a second best god for the sake of feeling humble?

Arrogance is not necessarily thinking onesself to be better looking or more
intelligent or stronger or having more resources than another person.  No
doubt many will have to chew on this one awhile.  Were passive observation
of one's superior points arrogance, then God would be most arrogant of all.

Humility does not rest in slandering or belittling God's work of creation in
our lives.  People often go around trying to be humble saying to one another,
"I'm not very smart.  I'm poor.  I'm not good looking.  I'm just a worm in
the ground.  I'm such a weak person and although I don't want to sin, I
really cannot help it."  Were this person truely humble, he would take a
different approach.  "God, thank you for making me the way you did.  I know
that you never do anything second best.  Yet with all that you have given me,
I have been so unthankful.  You've given me power to resist the devil.  I
have not used it but have indulged myself in doing exactly what you have said
not to do.  I have slandered your creation in my life and have credited myself
with humility for doing so.  Lord, with all you've given me, I have been
completely unfaithful and I do not deserve your forgiveness.  And, yet Your
love for me is so boundless that you would give Yourself to die for me to
save me.  As terribly evil as I am, I deserve to go straight to hell, yet it
pleases you somehow to rescue me from this terrible life I've led.  Lord,
please forgive me and help me stay on the right track so that I can bring
glory to Your Name instead of insult.  Lord I'm so sorry for my wrongs.  Please
help me to change."

: 
: I think people take exceptional offense to religious arrogance because
: they don't want to be wrong.  If I find someone arrogant, I typically
: don't have anything to do with them.

For me, I've often found it hard to tell the difference.  Often times, the
most humble christian has come across to me as arrogant while the most
proud "worm in the ground" false humility type person has been found to be
most comfortable company.

When I'm wrong and arrogant about my wrongness, I certainly don't feel like
being confronted by my wrongness.  Were someone to confront me verbally with
my wrongness, I'd be likely to snap at them and examine them head to toe for
all their faults and charge them with hypocricy for what they said to me.
At the root, my desire would be to make them shut up so that I can go about
living my life arrogantly as I wish.  However, were someone to confront me
silently by their example, earn my respect, and perhaps mention it to me in
humility in private, I'd feel broken down and challenged to seek God for help
in changing from the error of my ways.

The hard part is getting to the point to where I can be humble before anyone
regardless of their humility or pride--regardless of their hypocricy or
sincerity--regardless of whether onlookers will frown down upon me or not.
It isn't easy to take this pain in love with thankfulness for the opportunity
to improve in one's ability to serve God.  It's easier to cast aside any hope
of reaching true humility and merely hide behind slandering God's creation
in our lives instead.

: But we should examine ourselves [I hope I typed this back in right]
: and why we react to certain situations with such emotions.  For instance,
: many of us feel "justified" to be insulted by an arrogant person.  As if
: we needed a reason to feel insulted.  But after being insulted over and
: over again by the words of others, you'd think we'd either toughen up
: or decide not to be insulted, or ignore the insult.  Just because you
: can justify feelings of anger or insult or outrage, that doesn't make that
: reaction the appropriate one.  It is in this light of self-examination
: that we can change our emotional reactions.
: 

Sometimes it helps when we can understand and feel the difference between
what is a true statement of our character and what is a false and slanderous
statement of our character.  The devil is the accuser of the bretheren.  He
would love us to feel hopelessly guilty where we are innocent and feel arrogant
and self-righteous where we are indeed wrong.  The devil's aim is to get us
into as much misery as he can.  Just think of the devil as a cruel and merci-
less criminal who torments a parent by burning his or her children with
hot irons.  The way the devil gets under the Father's skin is by hurting
those that the Father loves so much.


--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
	"I deplore the horrible crime of child murder...
	 We want prevention, not merely punishment.
	 We must reach the root of the evil...
	 It is practiced by those whose inmost souls revolt
	 from the dreadful deed...
	 No mater what the motive, love of ease,
		or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent,
		the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed...
	 but oh! thrice guilty is he who drove her
		to the desperation which impelled her to the crime."

		- Susan B. Anthony,
		  The Revolution July 8, 1869

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21546
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be
my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the
earth." 
Acts 1:8

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21547
From: creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

In article <May.11.02.39.07.1993.28331@athos.rutgers.edu> Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com writes:
>>If babies are not supposed to be baptised then why doesn't the Bible
>>ever say so.  It never comes right and says "Only people that know
>>right from wrong or who are taught can be baptised."
>
>This is not a very sound argument for baptising babies. It assumes that
>if the Bible doesn't say specifically that you don't need to do something,
>then that must mean that you do need to do it. I know there's a specific
>term for this form of logic, but it escapes me right now. However, if it
>were sound, then you should be able to apply it this way; If the Bible
>doesn't specifically say that something is wrong, then it must be OK,
>which, coincidentally, leads perfectly into a question I've often pondered.

   This is no less logical than the assumption that if something is
_not_ in the Bible, then it _must not_ be done.  But I don't really
think that's what he's saying anyway.  See below.

>If slavery is immoral (which I believe it is, can I assume that everyone
>else in this group does too?), why doesn't Jesus or any of the apostles
>speak out against it? Owning slaves was common practice back then. Paul
>speaks about everything else that is immoral. He apparently thought it
>was important enough to talk about things like not being a drunkard. Why
>doesn't anyone mention slavery? If God's morals are eternal and don't
>change like the morals of society, then it must have been just as immoral then
>as it is today.

   What about the letter to Philemon?  In it Paul at least hints that a
certain slave be released.  Also, slavery in those times was not the
same as the type of slavery we had in the U.S.  I think a better
comparison would be to indentured servitude.  I don't really want to get
into a discussion on slavery.  Anyway, although it does demonstrate your
point, I don't think it is relevent, because the original poster did not
say that absence of specific condemenation proves something is not
immoral.

   Back to the original poster's assertion.  He is not in fact making
the logical error of which you accuse him.  He stated the fact that the
Bible does not say that babies cannot be baptized.  Also, we know that
the Bible says that _everyone_ must be baptized to enter Heaven.
_Everyone_ includes infants, unless there is other Scripture to the
contrary, i.e. an exception.  Since there is no exception listed in the
Bible, we must assume (to be on the safe side) that the Bible means what
it says, that _everyone_ must be baptized to enter Heaven.  And so we
baptize infants.

   To summarize, you accused the original poster of saying if something
is not forbidden by the Bible, then that proves it is OK; i.e. if
something cannot be disproven, it is true.  He rather seemed to be
asserting that since the Bible does not forbid, _you cannot prove_,
using the Bible, that it is _not_ OK.  There is a difference between
proving whether or not something can be proven or disproven (there are
theories on provability in the field of Logic, by the way) and actually
proving or disproving it.  The other logical error we must avoid falling
into is the converse: that if something cannot be proven, then it is
false.  This seems to be the error of many _sola scriptura_ believers.

   I think the only thing that can be proven here is that one cannot use
Scripture alone to prove something either way about infant Baptism,
although the evidence seems to me to favor it.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21548
From: koberg@spot.Colorado.EDU (Allen Koberg)
Subject: Re: SATANIC TOUNGES

In article <May.11.02.38.52.1993.28313@athos.rutgers.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>In article <May.9.05.40.36.1993.27495@athos.rutgers.edu> koberg@spot.Colorado.EDU (Allen Koberg) writes:
>>Hmmm...in the old testament story about the tower of Babel, we see how
>>God PUNISHED by giving us different language.  Can we assume then that
>>if angels have their own language at all, that they have the SAME one
>>amongst other angels?  After all, THEY were not punished in any manner.
>
>If the languages we sepak are the result of Babel, then it stands to
>reason that angels would speak a different language from us.  You do 
>have a valid point about multiple angelic languages.  But angelic
>beings maybe of different species so to speak.  maybe different species
>communicate differently.  

I don't know either.  Truth be known, so little is known of angels
to even guess.  All we really know is that angels ALWAYS speak in
the nativ tongue of the person they're talking to, so perhaps they
don't have ANY language of their own.

>>Trouble is, while such stories abound, any and all attempts at
>>verification (and we are to test the spirit...) either show that
>>the witness had no real idea of the circumstances, or that outright
>>fabrication was involved.  The Brother Puka story in a previous post
>>seems like a "friend of a friend" thing.  And linguistically, a two
>>syllable word hardly qualifies as language, inflection or no.
>
>I have heard an eyewitness account, myself.  Such things are hard to prove.
>They don't lend themselves to a laboratory thing very well.  I don';t
>know if it is a very holy thing to take gifts into a laboratory anyway.

Well, we are told to test the spirits.  While you could do this
scripturally, to see if someones claims are backed by the bible,
I see nothing wrong with making sure that that guy Lazarus really
was dead and now he's alive.

>>Much as many faith healers have trouble proving their "victories" (since
>>most ailments "cured" are just plain unprovable) and modern day
>>ressurrections have never been validated, so is it true that no
>>modern day xenoglossolalia has been proved by clergy OR lay.
>
>That's an unprovable statement.  How can you prove if somethings been proved?
>There is no way to know that you've seen all the evidence.  Once I 
>saw an orthodontists records complete with photographs showing how one of
>his patients severe underbite was cured by constant prayer.  

It's a common fallacy you commit.  The non-falsifiability trick.  How
can I prove it when not all the evidence may be seen?  Answer:  I
can't.  The fallacy is in assuming that it is up to me to prove 
anything.  

When I say it has never been proven, I'm talking about the ones
making the claims, not the skeptics, who are doing the proving.

The burden of proof rest with the claimant.  Unfortunately, 
(pontification warning) our legal system seems to be headed in
the dangerous realm of making people prove their innocence (end
pontification).

But truthfully, Corinthians was so poorly written (or maybe just
so poorly translated into English) that much remains unknown
about just what Paul really intended (despite claims of hard
proof one way or another).  Some will see his writings in
1 cor 12-14 as saying don't do this don't do this and using
sarcasm, metaphor, etc. while yet others take what he says literally
sarcasms and metaphors notwithstanding.

Me?  When I read 1 Cor 14 about praying/speaking in tongues regarding
building oneself/the church, I see him using compare/contrast,
saying do this because it build the church, while doing this
builds onself (implying don't do that).  It's a common usage
of writing that we all employ, and it is easily seen how it
COULD be interpreted this way.  Why some do and some don't is
a mystery.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21549
From: bluelobster+@cmu.edu (David O Hunt)
Subject: Re: How I got saved...

My first and most important point is that regardless of how your recovery
happened, I'm glad it did!

On 10-May-93 in Re: How I got saved...       
user Karen Lauro@camelot.brad writes:
>	I found it ore than coincidental that less than 2 weeks after
>I put my faith where my mouth was, one more in the long line of doctors
>and not even an orthopeodic specialist, diagnosed my problems with no
>difficulty, set me on the path to an effective cure, and I was walking
>and running again without the pain that had stopped me from that for
>4 years. The diagnosis was something he felt the other doctors must have
>"overlooked" because it was perfectly obvious from my test results.

NOW!  The point that I'll try to make is that coincidences like this occur
with a very high frequency.  How many of us have been thinking of someone
and had that person call?  Much of the whole psychic phenomenon is easily
explicable by this - one forgets the misses.  Consider your astrological
forcast in the newspaper.  How many times have you said "That's me" vs
"That's not me"?  You'll remember the hits, but the misses will be much more
frequent.

On 10-May-93 in Re: How I got saved...       
user Karen Lauro@camelot.brad writes:
>	Maybe this doesn't hit you as miraculous. But to me it really
>is. Imagine an active 17 year old being told she may not be able to
>walk mcuh longer...and is now a happy 18 year old who can dance and run
>knowing that the problem was there all along and was "revealed" just
>after she did what she knew was right. As the song says...

And what if, instead if being healed, your affliction got much worse and
you ended up paralyzed?  Would you have attributed that to god as well?
Or would that have been the work of satan?  If you believe that would have
been so, why ONLY good from god, and ONLY evil from satan?  Couldn't the
agony have come from god?  Think about what he did to poor Job!



David Hunt - Graduate Slave |     My mind is my own.      | Towards both a
Mechanical Engineering      | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and
Carnegie Mellon University  | <<<Use Golden Rule v2.0>>>  | Jewish homeland!
====T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=========T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=====
Email:  bluelobster+@cmu.edu    Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper"

The gostak distims the doches!

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21550
From: mdw@sitar.hr.att.com (Mark Wuest)
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

In article <May.11.02.38.56.1993.28319@athos.rutgers.edu> Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com writes:

>>Eugene Bigelow writes:

>>>Doesn't the Bible say that God is a fair god [sic]?  If this is true,
>>how can >this possibly be fair to the infants?

>Andrew Byler writes:

>>[What do you mean fair?  God is just, giving to everyone what they
>>deserve. As all infants are in sin from the time of conception (cf
>>Romans 5.12, Psalm 1.7), they cannot possibly merit heaven, and as
>>purgatory is for the purging of temporal punishment and venial sins, it
>>is impossible that origianl sin can be forgiven....

>Why is it fair to punish you, me and the rest of humanity because of
>what Adam and Eve did? Suppose your parents committed some crime before
>you were born and one day the cops come to your door and throw you in
>jail for it. Would you really think that is fair? I know I wouldn't.

Well, suppose your mother was a crack addict and crack user/abuser while
she was pregnant? Suppose your husband gave you some SDT (this recently
happened to a close friend of my wife and mine)?

OFTEN, the consequences of our sin are at least partially inflicted on
innocent people. Several times in the OT, this is pointed out, even
saying that descendants would suffer consequences for a person's sin
for several generations. Even today, we see multi-generational (to
coin a phrase) effects from alcoholism, child abuse, and spousal
abuse just to name three.

So, God's definition of fair and ours differ.

Some points of perspective:

Though the predisposition towards sinning is now inbred (see Webster's
first definition of inbred) thanks to Adam, it is arrogant and foolish
for any of us to think we would have done any different if we were in
their shoes. I know myself pretty well, and I'm just not that good. Take
God's word for it, neither are you. "There is no one righteous..."

More important, when a person decides to be a disciple of Jesus, God
promises supernatural help in overcoming our physical self's sinful
tendency. We can, of course, choose to ignore this help. (Rom 7,8)

"...God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many
schemes." -Eccl

Mark
-- 
Mark Wuest                              |     *MY* opinions, not AT&T's!!
mdw@violin.hr.att.com (Sun Mailtool Ok) |
mdw@trumpet.hr.att.com (NeXT Mail)      |

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21551
From: kutz@andy.bgsu.edu (Ken Kutz)
Subject: Re: FAQ essay on homosexuality

Our moderator writes:

> I believe one could take a view like this even while accepting the
> views Paul expressed in Rom 1.  One may believe that homosexuality is
> not what God intended, that it occured as a result of sin, but still
> conclude that at times we have to live with it.  Note that in the
> creation story work enters human life as a result of sin.  This
> doesn't mean that Christians can stop working when we are saved.

Please note that God commanded Adam to work before the fall:

"The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work
 it and take care of it." (Gen 2:15, NIV).  

Work was God's design from the beginning.

-- 
Ken

[I'll clarify the wording.  There was obviously a rather different
kind of labor imposed after the fall, but the statement as it
stands is misleading.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21552
From: Rick_Granberry@pts.mot.com (Rick Granberry)
Subject: Re: FAQ essay on homosexuality

Before you finalize your file in the FAQs (or after), you might want to 
correct the typo in the following:

> Kinsey (see below) is the source 
> of the figure 10 percent.  He defines sexuality by behavior, not by 
> orientation, and ranked all persons on a scale from Zero (completely 
> heterosexual) to 6 (completely heterosexual).

It seems one or the other end of the rating scale should be identified with 
"homosexual".

As a personal note, I guess I differ with you on the question of work 
entering human life as a result of sin.  
> Note that in the 
> creation story work enters human life as a result of sin.
 
Before the fall (Gen 2:15) "And the LORD God took the man, and put him into 
the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it." which I would call "work".  
For me, the difference introduced by sin is the painful aspects of work added 
at the fall (I take the cursing of the ground in vs.17-19 to apply to the 
work for sustenance).  In a way, some view "work" as a blessing (Ecclesiastes 
is a fun book! - for melancholies).

I hope I do not sound caustic, maybe you can enlighten me further.

Well, this is certainly a delicate subject, and I guess you accomplished what 
you state as your purpose "It summarizes arguments for allowing Christian 
homosexuality", not for me the most noble goal, but you are writing a FAQ.

I wonder if you might temporize the apparent "sentence" of the specific 
homosexual you propose (arguably tenuously define).
> The danger in advising Christians to
> depend upon such a change is clear: When "conversion" doesn't happen,
> which is almost always, the people are often left in despair, feeling
> excluded from a Church that has nothing more to say but a requirement
> of life-long celibacy. 
  Perhaps that would be true of "celibacy from homosexual relations", or 
refrainng from their choice relationships, but that does not forbid 
heterosexual.  Could they not have/enjoy heterosexual relations "for what it 
was worth"?
 
[This depends upon the person.  In some cases I think the answer is
no.  Even with those who could, consider what you're asking.  I assume
we're talking about marriage -- I certainly would not want to suggest
sex outside that.  You're talking about a permanent commitment to a
kind of sexual relationship that they aren't really sure they can live
with.  There may be people for whom this is a possible solution, but I
wonder whether it's entirely fair to the other partner.  I have a
cousin who was a victim of exactly this situation.  We found out later
(after her death) that her husband had had problems with his sexual
identity.  His family (conservative Christians) knew it, and pushed
him into getting married.  He continued having problems, and they were
near divorce.  She died in an accident whose circumstances some of the
relatives consider odd.  He has since had a sex change operation, and
has been moving around from state to state without being able to hold
a job, keeping their children in a kind of home life both sets of
grandparents consider irresponsible.  I hope you can understand why I
am not enthusiastic about pushing homosexuals into marriage.  I really
liked my cousin.  This is sort of an emotional issue for me.  Again,
it may be possible for some, but this is the sort of situation that
needs to be dealt with pastorally and not as a matter of fixed
ideology.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21553
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <May.11.02.36.45.1993.28090@athos.rutgers.edu> news@cbnewsk.att.com writes:
>Paul repeatedly talks about the
>"thorn" in his side, some think it refers to lust, others pride, but
>who knows.  Whatever the thorn was, apparently it was not "compatible"
>with Christianity, yet does that make his epistles any less?

There is no reason to believe that Paul's thorn in the flesh was 
a sin in his life.  That makes little sense in the light of Paul'
writings taken in totality.  He writes of how he presses for the
mark, and keeps his body submitted.  No doubt Paul had to struggle
with the flesh just like every Christian.  Paul does associate his 
thorn with a Satanic messenger, and with physical infirmities and tribulation,
but not with a sin in his life.

Link Hudson.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21554
From: creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)
Subject: Catholic doctrine of predestination

In article <May.11.02.37.03.1993.28114@athos.rutgers.edu> noye@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>really?  you may be right, but i'd like proof.  as far as i know (and
>i am not a div school student!) the catholic church does not seem to
>accept predestination.  my chaplain told me "beware of greeks bearing
>gifts" with reference to this doctrine: it seems to have the curious
>result that human beings are not held responsible for their own
>actions!  i'll answer how you deal with this in a minute.

   The Catholic doctrine of predestination does not exclude free will in
any way.  Since God knows everything, He therefore knows everything that
is going to happen to us.  We have free will, and are able to change
what happens to us.  However, since God knows everything, He knows all
the choices we will make "in advance" (God is not subject to time).  Too
often arguments pit predestination against free will.  We believe in
both.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21555
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: An quoted argument for theism

On Sun 2 May 1993, Damon wrote:

 > A Christian friend of mine once reasoned that if we were never
 > created, we could not exists. Therefore we were created, and
 > therefore there exists a Creator.

I hesitate to comment on the validity of this, because I do not know
what your friend meant by it. If he meant that whatever exists must
have been created, then he is open to the obvious retort that God
exists, and so God must have been created.

Perhaps your friend meant that we exist now but that there was a
time when we did not exist, and therefore something other than
ourselves must have brought us into existence. This seems plausible,
but an atheist might reply, "So my parents engendered me. So what?"
Here your friend would have to explain why an infinite regress of
causes is not a satisfactory explanation. He would have some support
from philosophers who are not ordinarily considered religious (Ayn
Rand, and some others who are in the tradition of Aristotle). Having
argued for a First Cause, he would have to bridge the gap between
said entity and the God of Abraham. If he merely asserts that the
things we observe are ultimately dependent on things radically
unlike them, few physicists would disagree.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21556
From: AKF@stud.hsn.no (ANN KRISTIN FRYSTAD)
Subject: Re: How I got saved

Hello, Brycen ?!
I'm a Norwegian journalist student - and also a Christian. Thanks for your 
testimony! But I want to ask you one question: What do you think of Heavy 
Metal music after you became a Christian? You know there are Christian bands 
like Barren Cross, Whitecross, Bloodgood and Stryper, that play that kind of 
music. I like some of it, I feel like it sometimes. Of course I listen to 
the lyrics too. I don't listen to any Christian band, but it's better than 
listening to secular music anyway. 
Hope you're still going strong - with Christ!!

Ann Kristin Froeystad, College of Nordland, Norway.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21557
From: creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

In article <May.11.02.38.56.1993.28319@athos.rutgers.edu> Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com writes:
>As St. Augustine said, "I did not invent original sin, which the
>Catholic faith holds from ancient time; but you, who deny it, without a
>doubt are a follower of a new heresy."  (De nuptiis, lib. 11.c.12)]
>
>Why is it fair to punish you, me and the rest of humanity because of
>what Adam and Eve did? Suppose your parents committed some crime before
>you were born and one day the cops come to your door and throw you in
>jail for it. Would you really think that is fair? I know I wouldn't.

   You may not think that it is fair, but how many sins do you know of
that affect only the sinner?  Is it fair for us even to be able to get
into Heaven?  Do we have a _right_ to Heaven, even if we were to lead
sinless lives?  Anyway, your argument seems to be saying, "If _I_ were
God, I certainly wouldn't do things that way; therefore, God doesn't do
things that way."

	Isaiah 55:8-9:

	"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my
	ways, saith the LORD.  For as the heavens are higher than the
	earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts
	than your thoughts."

   Original Sin is biblical:

	Romans 5:12-14:

	"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death
	by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have
	sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not
	imputed when there is no law.  Nevertheless death reigned from
	Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the
	similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him
	that was to come."

	1 Corinthians 15:22:

	"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made
	alive."

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21558
From: crs@carson.u.washington.edu (Cliff Slaughterbeck)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christiani

OFM writes:

>This is an issue throughout the Presbyterian Church.  On the other
>side, one of the major churches in Cincinnati has been ordaining
>homosexual elders, and has ignored Presbytery instructions not to do
>so.  And the church in Rochester where the judicial commission said
>they couldn't install a homosexual pastor has made her an
>"evangelist".  These situations, as well as the one you describe, do
>not appear to be stable.  This will certainly be a major topic for the
>General Assembly next month.  If the church can't come up with a
>solution that will let people live with each other, I think we're end
>up with a split.  Clearly neither side wants that, but I think we'll
>get pushed into it by actions of both sides.
>
>--clh]

The Moderator of the General Assembly, the Rev. John Fife, visited our
church about a week ago (just 4 days after Rev. Spahr--it's been a busy
week for our small church!!).  He was asked specifically about the issue
of homosexuality and what he thinks will happen at the GA meeting next
month.  Evidently, there are 15-20 known resolutions pending that range
the gamut from "outlawing" homosexuality altogether to "legalizing" it
completely.  He will readily admit that this is probabaly the most difficult
issue that the church has had to deal with since the Presbyterian church
split in two over the issue of slavery more than 100 years ago.  Without
question, the issue may split the church again after we've been reunited
for all of a dozen years or so.  He is hopeful that it will not and is
pushing the same attitude that helped the church deal with the abortion
issue last year as a solution.

He is hoping to pass a resolution that more or less states that we, the
members of the church "Agree to Disagree" on the issue, admitting that
both sides have honestly studied the Scriptures and had the Spirit lead
them to different conclusions.  It worked last year when the abortion
issue threatened to do more or less the same thing, and he is hopeful that
the GA can foster a loving and caring attitude about people who disagree
with their own view.

--
Cliff Slaughterbeck           | 
Dept. of Physics, FM-15       |   It's time for the sermon on the
University of Washington      |   Grand Torino!
Seattle, WA 98195             |

[It's going to be hard to agree to disagree.  If we allow
disagreement, then some presbyteries and churches are going to ordain
people that others will not recognize.  That's a difficult situation
in a connectional church.  I could live with it, but I think a lot of
people would not be willing to.  Note that the church was not willing
to live with this kind of compromise with ordination of women.  The
one thing that will definitely prevent a person from becoming a
Presbyterian minister is if they indicate that they don't accept
ordination of women.  The argument is that we can't have half the
church not accepting the leaders of the other half.  Maybe people will
decide to live with it in this case when they didn't in the other, but
I wonder.  I admit that my own Presbytery submitted an overture to the
GA that would have exactly this effect, and we considered the
ambiguity better than the current situation.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21559
From: mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server)
Subject: Re: homosexual issues in Christianity

whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell) sent in a list of verses 
which he felt condemn homosexuality.  mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) wrote in 
response that some of these verses "are used against us only through incredibly 
perverse interpretations" and that others "simply do not address the issues."

In response, I wrote:
>I can see that some of the above verses do not clearly address the issues, 
>however, a couple of them seem as though they do not require "incredibly 
>perverse interpretations" in order to be seen as condemning homosexuality.
> 
>"... Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, 
>nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, 
>nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom  of God.  And such were 
>some of you..."  I Cor. 6:9-11.
> 
>Would someone care to comment on the fact that the above seems to say
>fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of God?  How does this apply
>to homosexuals?  I understand "fornication" to be sex outside of
>marriage.  Is this an accurate definition?  Is there any such thing as
>same-sex marriage in the Bible?  My understanding has always been that
>the New Testament blesses sexual intercourse only between a husband
>and his wife.  I am, however, willing to listen to Scriptural evidence
>to the contrary.
[remainder of my post deleted]  The moderator then made some comments I would 
like to address:

>[There's some ambiguity about the meaning of the words in the passage
>you quote.  Both liberal and conservative sources seem to agree that
>"homosexual" is not the general term for homosexuals, but is likely to
>have a meaning like homosexual prostitute.  That doesn't meant that I
>think all the Biblical evidence vanishes, but the nature of the
>evidence is such that you can't just quote one verse and solve things.

If you are referring to the terms "effeminate" and "homosexuals" in
the above passage, I agree that the accuracy of the translation has
been challenged.  However, I was simply commenting on the charge that
it is an "incredibly perverse" interpretation to read this as a
condemnation of homosexuality.  Such a charge seems to imply that no
reasonable person would ever conclude from the verse that Paul
intended to condemn homosexuality; however, I think I can see how a
reasonable person might very well take this view of the verse.
Therefore I do not believe it is "incredibly perverse" to read it in
this way.

>I think your argument from fornication is circular.  Why is
>homosexuality wrong?  Because it's fornication.  Why is it
>fornication?  Because they're not married.  Why aren't they married?
>Because the church refuses to do a marriage ceremony. Why does the
>church refuse to do a marriage ceremony?  Because homosexuality is
>wrong.  In order to break the circle there's got to be some other
>reason to think homosexuality is wrong.
> 
>--clh]

Actually, I wasn't thinking of the church at all.  After all, a couple
doesn't have to be married by a minister.  A secular justice of the
peace could do the job, and the two people would be married.  My point
was that it is easy to find a biblical basis for heterosexual
marriage, but where in the Bible would one get a Christian marriage
between two people of the same sex?  And if you do see a biblical
basis for same-sex marriages, how willing would gay Christians be to
"save themselves" for such a marriage and to never have sexual
intercourse with anyone outside of that marriage relationship?  Please
note that I am not trying to imply that gay Christians would not be
willing to be so monogamous, I am genuinely interested in hearing
opinions on the subject.  I have heard comments from gays in the past
that lead me to believe they regard promiscuity as one of the main
points of being homosexual, yet I tend to doubt that gays who want to
be Christian would advocate such a position.  So what is the gay view?

- Mark

[Yes, I agree that a reasonable person might conclude that Paul is
condemning homosexuality.  I was responding to certain details of
your posting.  That doesn't mean I agree with Michael in all
respects.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21560
From: mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server)
Subject: Re: Dreams and out of body incidents

dt4%cs@hub.ucsb.edu (David E. Goggin) writes:

>1) Dreams and OOBEs are totally mental phenomena.  In this case no morality
...
>2) Dreams and OOBEs have a reality of their own (i.e. are 'another plane')
...
>3) Like (2), but here we assume that though the dreeam and OOBE environs have 
>a
>real existence, a different moral/ethics apply there, and no (or maybe 
>different) moral laws apply there.


I can think of another alternative:

4)  OOBE's are a form of contact with the demonic world, whereby one 
intentionally or unintentionally surrenders control of his or her perceptions 
to spiritual beings whose purpose is to deceive and entrap them.

- Mark

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21561
From: jlin@convex1.tcs.tulane.edu.tulane.edu (Jonah Lin)
Subject: Re: SATANIC TOUNGES

In article <May.9.05.40.36.1993.27495@athos.rutgers.edu> koberg@spot.Colorado.EDU (Allen Koberg) writes:
>
>Hmmm...in the old testament story about the tower of Babel, we see how
>God PUNISHED by giving us different language.  Can we assume then that
>if angels have their own language at all, that they have the SAME one
>amongst other angels?  After all, THEY were not punished in any manner.
>

Maybe before Babel,everyone including angels spoke the same language,so at
Babel, God punished us by giving us languages different from the original one.
So if that's the case,then angels now would be speaking in the tongue  mankind
spoke before Babel.

Jonah

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21562
From: revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

Dan Schaertel,,, (dps@nasa.kodak.com) wrote:
: In article 15441@geneva.rutgers.edu, loisc@microsoft.com (Lois Christiansen) writes:

: |>You might visit some congregations of Christians, who happen to be homosexuals,
: |>that are spirit-filled believers, not MCC'rs; before you go lumping us all
: |>together with Troy Perry.  
: |>

: Gee, I think there are some real criminals (robbers, muderers, drug
: addicts) who appear to be fun loving caring people too.  So what's
: your point?  Is it OK. just because the people are nice?

The point is not about being "nice."  "Nice" is not a christian virtue.  The
point is that the gifts and fruits of the spirit (by their fruits you shall
know them- Mt 7:20) are manifested by and among prayerful, spirit-filled
GAY christians.  It was the manifestation of the spirit among the gentiles
that convinced Peter (Acts 10) that his prejudice against them (based on
scripture, I might add) was not in accordance with God's intentions.

: I think the old saying " hate the sin and not the sinner" is
: appropriate here.  Many who belive homosexuality is wrong probably
: don't hate the people.  I don't.  I don't hate my kids when they do
: wrong either.  But I tell them what is right, and if they lie or don't
: admit they are wrong, or just don't make an effort to improve or
: repent, they get punished.  I think this is quite appropriate.  You
: may want to be careful about how you think satan is working here.
: Maybe he is trying to destroy our sense of right and wrong through
: feel goodism.  Maybe he is trying to convince you that you know more
: than God.  Kind of like the Adam and Eve story.  Read it and compare
: it to today's mentality.  You may be suprised.

Of course the whole issue is one of discernment.  It may be that Satan
is trying to convince us that we know more than God.  Or it may be that
God is trying (as God did with Peter) to teach us something we don't
know- that "God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears
him and does what is right is acceptable to him." (Acts 10:34-35).

revdak@netcom.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21563
From: revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille)
Subject: Re: Deuterocanonicals, esp. Sirach

poram@ihlpb.att.com wrote:
: Lets talk about principles. If we accept that God sets the
: standards for what ought to be included in Scripture - then we
: can ask:
: 1. Is it authoritative?

"Authoritative" is not a quality of the writing itself- it is a statement
by the community of faith whether it will accept the writing as normative.

: 2. Is it prophetic?

How is "prophecy" to be defined? If it is "speaking forth" of God's message,
much of the apocrypha must surely qualify.

: 3. Is it authentic?

Again, by what standard?  Is "authenticity" a function of the authors? the
historical accuracy? 

: 4. Is it dynamic?

What is this supposed to mean?  Many of the apocryphal books are highly
"dynamic" -thought provoking, faithful, even exciting.

: 5. Is it received, collected, read and used?

By whom?  Of course the apocryphal books were received (by some),
collected (or else we would not have them), read and used (and they still are,
in the Catholic and Orthodox churches).

: On these counts, the apocrapha falls short of the glory of God.

This is demonstrably false.

: To quote Unger's Bible Dictionary on the Apocrapha:
: 1. They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and
: anachronisms.

So do other books of the Bible.

: 2. They teach doctrines which are false and foster practices
: which are at variance with sacred Scripture.

"False" by whose interpretation?  Those churches that accept them find no
contradiction with the rest of scripture.  

: 3. They resort to literary types and display an artificiality of
: subject matter and styling out of keeping with sacred Scripture.

This is a purely subjective evaluation.  The apocryphal books demonstrate
the same categories and forms of writing found in the other scriptures.
(In fact, one could argue that the apocryphal "Additions to the Book of
Esther" act rather to bring the "unscripturelike" book of Esther more into
line with other books.)

: 4. They lack the distinctive elements which give genuine
: Scripture their divine character, such as prophetic power and
: poetic and religious feeling.

Have you ever read the Wisdom of Ben Sira or the Wisdom of Solomon?  They
exhibit every bit as much "poetic and religious feeling" as Psalms or
Proverbs.

[deletions]

: How do you then view the words: "I warn everyone who  hears the
: words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to
: them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
: And if anyone takes away from this book the prophecy, God will
: take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the
: holy city" (Rev 22.18-9)
: Surely this sets the standard and not just man-made traditions.

These words clearly were meant to refer to the book of Revelation alone,
not to the whole body of scripture.  Revelation itself was accepted very
late into the canon.  The church simply did not see it as having a primary
role of any kind in identifying and limiting scripture.

: It is also noteworthy to consider Jesus' attitude. He had no
: argument with the pharisees over any of the OT canon (John
: 10.31-6), and explained to his followers on the road to Emmaus 
: that in the law, prophets and psalms which referred to him - the 
: OT division of Scripture (Luke 24.44), as well as in Luke 11.51
: taking Genesis to Chronicles (the jewish order - we would say
: Genesis to Malachi) as Scripture.

Jesus does not refer to the canon for the simple reason that in his day,
the canon had not been established as a closed collection.  The books
of the apocrypha were part of the Septuagint (which was the Bible of
the early church).  The Hebrew canon was not closed until 90 c.e.
The Torah (Pentateuch/ "Law") was established in Jesus' day, as were
the Prophets (with the _exclusion_ of Daniel).  The Writings, however,
were still in flux.  Jesus does not refer to the Writings, only to the
Psalms, which were part of them.  The books of the apocrypha were all
part of the literature that was eventually sifted and separated.

To argue that Jesus is referring to the Jewish canonical order in Luke 11:51
is weak at best; he is not quoting scripture, but telling a chronological
story.  And, as mentioned above, the Hebrew canon (especially in the
present order) did not exist as such in Jesus' day.

revdak@netcom.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21564
From: wagner@grace.math.uh.edu (David Wagner)
Subject: Re: Deuterocanonicals, esp. Sirach

"Larry" == Larry L. Overacker <shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com> writes:

I, not Dave Davis, wrote:
>
>The deutero-canonical books were added much later in the church's
>history.  They do not have the same spiritual quality as the rest of
>Scripture.  I do not believe the church that added these books was
>guided by the Spirit in so doing.  And that is where this sort of
>discussion ultimately ends.

Sorry, I put my foot in my mouth, concerning the church's history.
It is correct to say that the Council of Hippo 393 listed the 
deuterocanonical books among those accepted for use in the
church, and that this was ratified by the Council of Carthage,
and by Pope Innoent I and Gelasius I (414 AD).

Yet Eerdman's History of the Church says: 

"At the end of the fourth century views still differed in regard to
the extent of the canon, or the number of the books which should
be acknowledged as divine and authoritative.

   The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew bible, was universally 
received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version
of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books
suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between
canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings.
And justly; for those books, while they have great historical
value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New,
all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and the cannot
be therefore regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited
by Christ or the aposteles."

"In the Western church the canon of both Testaments was closed
at the end of the fourth century through the authority of
Jerome (who wavered, however, between critical doubts and the
principle of tradition), and more especially of Augustine,
who firmly followed the Alexandrian canon of the Septuagint,
and the preponderant tradition in reference to the Catholic
Epistles and the Revelation; though he himself, in some
places, inclines to consider the Old Testament Apocrypha
as *deutero* canonical, bearing a subordinate authority."

This history goes on to say that Augustine attended both the
Council of Hippo and of Carthage.

It is interesting to note, however, the following footnote to
the fourth session of the Council of Trent.  The footnote 
lists various Synods which endorsed lists of canonical 
books, but then says "The Tridentine list or decree was the
first *infallible* and effectually promulgated declaration
on the Canon of the Holy Scriptures."

Which leads one to think that the RC canon was not official
until Trent.  Thus my previous erroneous statement was
not entirely groundless.

It is also interesting to note that the Council of Trent
went on to uphold "the old Latin Vulgate Edition" of 
the Scriptures as authentic.  Which, I would suppose, 
today's Catholic scholars wish the Council had never said.
Also the council made no distinction between deutero-canonical
and canonical books--in contrast to (Eerdman's statement of) the
fourth century views.

David Wagner
a confessional Lutheran

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21565
From: fortmann@superbowl.und.ac.za (Paul Fortmann - PG)
Subject: Praying for Justice

I recently came across this article which I found interesting. I have 
posted it to hear what other people feel about the issue.

I realise it is rather long (12 pages in Wordperfect) by may well be worth 
the read.

Except for the first page (which I typed) the rest was scanned inusing 
Omnipage. Some of the f's have come out as t's and visa-versa. I have tried 
to correct as much as possible.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Peter Hammond is the founder of Frontline Fellowship, a
missionary organisation witnessing to the communist countries in
Southern Africa. He has also made several visits to many East
European countries.

FRONTLINE FELLOWSHIP NEWS                          ISSN 1018-144X

PRAYING FOR JUSTICE
(by Peter Hammond)

To those involved in ministering to Christians suffering
persecution the imprecatory Psalms are a tremendous source of
comfort. And those of us who are fighting for the right to life
of the preborn, or battling social evils such as pornography or
crime, are beginning to appreciate what an important weapon God
has entrusted to us in the imprecatory Psalms.


THE IMPRECATORY PSALMS

Early in my Christian walk I encountered the prayers for
judgement in the Psalms and was quite at loss to know how to
respond to them. Prayers such as:
"Break the arm of the wicked and evil men; call him to account for
his wickedness ..." Psalm 10:15 did not seem consistent with the
gospel of love which I had accepted. Yet Psalm 10:15 was clearly
motivated by love for God ("The Lord is King for ever and ever;
the nation will perish from His land" 10:16, and "Why does the
wicked man revile God? 10:13), and by love for the innocent who
suffer ("You hear, O Lord, the desire of the afflicted; You
encourage them, and You listen to their cry, defending the
fatherless and oppressed, in order that man, who is of the earth,
may terrify no more." 10:17-18)

Nevertheless, I grew increasingly uncomfortable reading such
graphic prayers for God to judge the wicked as: "Pour out your
wrath on them; let Your fierce anger overtake them" 64:24; "O
Lord, the God avenges, O God who avenges, shine forth. Rise up, O
Judge of the earth, pay back to the proud what they deserve."
95:1-2; "Break the teeth in their mouths, O God; ...let them
vanish like water .. let their arrows be blunted ... The
righteous will be glad when they are avenged, when they bathe
their feet in the blood of the wicked. Then men will way, "Surely
the righteous still are rewarded; surely there is a God who
judges the earth.'" 58:6-11

Certainly I wanted God to be honoured and yes I was deeply
destressed by the prevalence of evil -  but could I actually pray
for God to "pour out His wrath" on the wicked?

The scripture make it clear that these prayers are not to be
prayed for own selfish motives, nor against our personal enemies.
Rather they are to be prayed in Christ, for His glory and against
His enemies. The psalmist describes the targets of these
imprecation as: those who devise injustice in their heart and
whose hands mete out violence (58:2) those who "boast of evil"
and "are a disgrace in the eyes of God. Your tongue plots
destruction, it is like a sharpened razor, and you who practise
deceit. You love evil rather than good, falsehood rather than
speaking the truth." 52:1-3; "They crush your people ... They
slay the widow and the alien; they murder the fatherless." 94:5-
6; "With cunning they conspire against Your people; they plot
against those You cherish." 83:3; "You hate all who do wrong. You
destroy those who tell lies; bloodthirsty and deceitful men the
Lord abhors." 5:5-6.

To those unrepentant enemies of God the psalmist declares:
"Surely God will bring you down to everlasting ruin" 52:5;
"Surely God will crush the heads of His enemies ... of those who
go on in their sins" 68:21.

And the purpose of these prayers for justice is declared: "Then
it will be known to the ends of the earth that God rules ..."
59:13; "to proclaim the powers of God" 68:34; "All kings will bow
down to Him and all nations will serve Him " 72:11; "Who knows
the power of Your anger? For Your wrath is as great as the fear
that is due You. " 90:11

Yet despite the fact that 90 of the 150 Psalms include
imprecations (prayers invoking God's righteous judgement upon the
wicked) such prayers are rare in the average Western church.
However, amongst the persecuted churches these prayers are much
more common.


PRAYING AGAINST THE PERSECUTORS

Amidst the burnt out churches and devastation of Marxist Angola I
found the survivors of communist persecution including the
crippled and maimed, and widows and orphans praying for God to
strike down the wicked and remove the persecutors of the Church.
I was shocked - yet it was Biblical (Even the martyrs in heaven
pray "How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge
the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?" Revelation
6:10).

The initiator of the communist persecution in Angola was Agestino
Neto. Described as a "drunken, psychotic, marxist poet", Neto had
been installed by Cuban troops as the first dictator of Angola.
He boasted that: "Within 20 years there won't be a Bible or a
church left in Angola. I will have eradicated Christianity." Yet
despite the vicious wave of church burning and massacres it is
not Christianity that was eradicated in Angola but Agestino Neto.
Neto died in mysterious circumstances on an operating table in
Moscow.

In Romania I learnt of a series of remarkable incidents recorded
of God judging the persecutors of the Church in answer to prayer:
  *  A communist official ordered a certain pastor to be
     arrested. the next day the official died of a heart attack.
  *  Another communist party official ordered that all the Bibles
     in his district were to be collected and pulped, to be
     turned into toilet paper. This blasphemous project was in
     fact carried out. But the next day when the official was
     medically examined, he was informed that he had terminal
     cancer. He died shortly afterwards.
  *  On another occasion, a communist official who had ordered a
     Baptist church to be demolished by bulldozers died in a car
     crash the very next day.
  *  When an order was given to dismantle a place of worship on
     the mountainside in a forest, the workmen flatly refused to
     carry out the order. At gunpoint a group of conscripted
     gypsies also refused to touch the church. In desperation,
     the communist police forced prisoners at bayonet-point to
     dismantle the structure. Yet the officer in charge pleaded
     with the local Christians to pray for him, that God would
     not judge him. He emphasised that he had nothing against
     Christians and was only obeying strict orders. The building
     was in fact reconstructed later, and again used for worship.
     "They were all seized with Sear and the Name of the Lord
     Jesus was held in high honour... in this way the Word of the
     Lord spread widely and grew in power. " Acts 19:17,20

Nicolae Ceaucescu the dictator who ordered much of the
persecution in Romania was overthrown by his own army and
executed on Christmas day, 1989, to joyous shouts of "the
antiChrist is dead" in the streets. Many testified that this was
in answer to the fervent prayers of the long suffering people of
Romania.

Another persecutor of the Church who challenged God was Samora
Machel, the first dictator of Marxist Mozambique. Samora Machel
was a cannibal who ate human flesh in witchcraft ceremonies in
the 1960's. He pledged his soul to Satan and vowed that he would
destroy the Church and turn Mozambique into the first truly
Marxist-Leninist state in Africa. Thousands of churches in
Mozambique were closed confiscated, "nationalised" chained and
padlocked, burnt down or boarded up. Missionaries were expelled,
some being imprisoned first. Evangelism was forbidden. Bibles
were ceremonially burnt and tens of thousands of Christians,
including many pastors and elders, were shipped off to
concentration camps - most were never seen again.

A month before his sudden death Samora Machel cursed God publicly
and challenged Him to prove His existence by striking him
(Machel) dead. On 19 October 1986, while several churches were
specifically praying for God to stop the persecution in
Mozambique, Machel's Soviet Tupelov aircraft crashed in a violent
thunderstorm. The plane crashed 200 metres within South Africa's
boundary with Mozambique. Amidst the wreckage the marxist plans
for overthrowing the government of Malawi were discovered and
published. Not only had God judged a blasphemer and a persecutor,
but He had also saved a country from persecution.

In the months leading up to the first multi-party elections in
Zambia many churches fasted and prayed tor God to remove the 27
year socialist dictatorship of Kenneth Kaunda. This was done on
31st October 1991 when Fredrick Chiluba (a man converted to
Christ whilst imprisoned for opposing Kaunda) was elected
president of Zambia and covenanted to make Zambia a Christian
country.

It is recorded in history that the wicked Mary, Queen of Scots,
declared trembling and in tears: "I am more afraid of John Knox's
prayers than of an army of ten thousand".

On 3 April 1993 the Secretary General of the South African
Communist Party Chris Hani was shot dead. From the unprecedented
international wave of condolences and adulation reported one
could be forgiven for assuming that this man was a saint and a
martyr. Certainly it was not the death and resurrection of Christ
Jesus which dominated the thoughts and headlines of South Africa
this Easter, but the assassination of Chris Hani.

The stunning hypocrisy of the situation is that 20 135 people
were murdered in South Africa in 1992, yet more collective
concern and anguish were reported over the death of the head of
the SA Communist Party than for all the thousands of other
victims. Indeed the SA government, the international community
and the mass media have apparently had greater sorrow reported
over this one death than for all the 50 000 South Africans
murdered since 2nd February 1990 when the ANC, SACP and PAC were
unbanned!

Yet as a member of the ANC Revolutionary Council since 1973,
Deputy Commander of Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) the ANC's "military
wing" - from 1982, and Chief of Staff of MK from 1987, Chris Hani
had approved and ordered bombings and assassinations of many
unarmed civilians. As Jesus warned: "all who live by the sword
will die by the sword " Matt 26:52.

After personally confronting Hani about his terrorist activities
at a press conference in Washington DC (where he publicly
declared his support for Fidel Castro, Col. Gaddafi, Yasser
Arafat and Saddam Hussein and defended the placing of car bombs
and limpet mines in public places during "the struggle") I told
him that I was a Christian and, while I didn't hate him, I did
hate communism and I was praying for him - that God would either
bring him to repentance and salvation in Christ, or that God
would remove him. He responded by swearing and declaring that he
was an atheist.

Several other people also prayed that God would either bring Hani
to repentance or remove him. Similarly several churches in
America have begun to pray the imprecatory Psalms against
unrepentant abortionists. In one town 8 abortionists were struck
down, with heart attacks, strokes, car accidents and cancer,
within months of these public prayers for God to stop these
killers of preborn babies.

Some praised God for His righteous acts of judgement and quoted:
"When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous and terror
to evildoers " Proverbs 21:15. Others were shocked that any
Christian could express satisfaction at the misfortune of any -
even of the blatantly wicked. Yet the Apostles prayed imprecatory
prayers (Acts 13:8-12; Galatians 1:8-9; 2 Tim 4:14-15) and so did
our Lord (Matt 11:20-24).

What then should our attitude towards the imprecatory Psalms be?
Should we be praying the Psalms? To tackle these thorny issues I
would like to present a short summary of an excellent book, "War
Psalms of the Prince of Peace - Lessons From The Imprecatory
Psalms" by James E Adams, (published by the Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Company):

Our Lord Jesus Christ & His apostles used the Psalms constantly
in teaching men to know God. The New Testament (NT) quotes the
Old Testament (OT) over 283 times. 41% of all OT quotes in the NT
are from the Psalms. Christ Himself alluded to the Psalms over 50
times. The Psalms are the Prayer Book of the Bible.


1. Are the imprecatory Psalms the oracles of God?

Some Christian commentators & theologians reject these Psalms as
"devilish", "diabolical ", "unsuited to the church", and "Not God
's pronouncements of His wrath on the wicked; but the prayers of
a man for vengeance on his enemies, just the opposite of Jesus'
teaching that we should love our enemies. "

Yet 2 Tim 3:16-17 declares:
"All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching,
rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the
man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. "
(see also 2 Peter 3:15-16).

The fact that something in the Word of God is beyond our
comprehension is not grounds to denying or even questioning its
inspiration. To make ourselves the judge of what is good or evil
is to impudently take the place of God.

Do we imagine ourselves to be holier than God? Wrong ideas of God
have led many to become "evangelic plastic surgeons who have made
it their job to "clean up" God's Word according to their own
ideas of what is proper. They have forgotten that it is God alone
who must determine what Christianity is and what is suitable for
His Church. The essence of what many have done is to question the
authority of God's Word (like Eve's original sin of listening to
Satan's question "Yes, hath God said... ?").

The Psalms are part of God's revelation of Himself and His
attributes, and they are reaffirmed by the NT as the
authoritative Word of God. Those imprecatory Psalms which these
evangelical plastic surgeons reject as "unsuited" and "unworthy"
for the Church are the very Psalms Christ used to testify about
Himself (eg: Mark 12:36; Matt 22:43-44) and which the Apostles
used as authoritative Scripture (eg: Acts 1:16-20; Acts 4:25; Heb
4:7). See also: 2 Samuel 23:1-2.

CH Spurgeon said concerning the imprecatory Psalms, (especially
Ps 109):
"Truly this is one of the hard places of Scripture, a passage
which the soul trembles to read, yet it is not ours to sit in
judgement upon it, but to bow our ear to what the Lord would
speak to us therein. "

The rejection of any part of God's Word is a rejection of the
giver of that Word, God Himself.


2. Who is praying these Psalms?

Christ quoted the Psalms not merely as prophesy; He actually
spoke the Psalms as His own words. The Psalms occupied an
enormous place in the life of our Lord. He used it as His prayer
book and song book - from the Synagogue to the festivals and at
the Last Supper.

On the cross Christ quoted from the Psalms - not as some ancient
authority that He adapted for His own use, but as His very own
words - the words of the Lord's Anointed - which as David's Son
He truly was.
"Father, into your hands I commit my Spirit" Ps 31:5
"My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" Ps 22:1

In His ministry Christ foretells what He will say as the Judge on
the day of judgement, and He quotes the Psalms in doing so!
Matt 7:23 "Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away
from me, you evildoers'. " Ps 6:8

In Heb 10:5 the apostle attributes Ps 40:6-8 directly to Christ
although nowhere in the Gospels is Christ recorded as having said
these words. Similarly Hebrews 2 : 12 attributes Ps 22:22
directly to Christ despite there being no record of His having
spoken these words while on earth. Clearly the apostles believed
Christ is speaking in the Psalms.

Christ came to establish His kingdom and to extend His mercy in
all the earth. But let us never forget that Jesus will come again
to execute Judgement on the wicked.
David as the anointed king of the chosen people of God was a
prototype of Jesus Christ. Acts 2:30:
"being therefore a prophet, ... he foresaw and spoke of the
resurrection of Christ. "
David was a witness to Christ in his office, in his lite, and in
his words. The same words which David spoke, the future Messiah
spoke through him. The prayers of David were prayed also by
Christ. Or better Christ Himself prayed these Psalms through His
forerunner David.

The imprecatory Psalms are expressions of the infinite justice of
God, of His indignation against wrong doing, and His compassion
for the wronged.


3. But what about the Psalms of repentance?

Christ is also the Lamb of God, the substitutionary sacrifice for
our sins. Christ in the day of His crucifixion was charged with
the sin of His people. He appropriated to Himself those debts for
which He had made Himself responsible. Our Lord was the
substitution for the sinner. He took the sinners place (Isaiah
53).

"God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we
might become the righteousness of God. " 2 Cor 5:21

In history the Psalms, especially the imprecatory Psalms, have
been understood to have been the prayers of Christ by: St
Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, Tertullian, Luther and many others.
All the Psalms are the voice of Christ. Christ is praying the
imprecatory Psalms! All the Psalms are messianic. It is the Lord
Jesus Christ who is praying these prayers of vengeance. It is
only right for the righteous King of Peace to ask God to destroy
His enemies.

These prayers signal an alarm to all who are still enemies of
King Jesus. His prayers will be answered! God's Word is revealed
upon all who oppose Christ. Anyone who rejects God's way of
forgiveness in the cross of Christ will bear the dreadful curses
of God.

He who prays Psalm 69:23-28 will one day make this prayer a
reality when He declares to those on His left:
"Depart from me you who are cursed into the eternal fire prepared
for the devil and his angels. " Matt 25:41

All the enemies of the Lord need to hear these Psalms. *God's
Kingdom is at War.* The powers of evil will tall and God alone
will reign forever!
"With justice He judges and makes war...out of His mouth comes a
sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. He will rule
them with an iron sceptre; He treads the winepress of the fury of
the wrath of God Almighty...King of Kings and Lord of Lords. "
Rev 19 : 15


4. Are Jesus' prayers contradictory?

What about Jesus' command to love our enemies and to bless those
who curse us (Matt 5:44)?

Christ is of course the loving and merciful Saviour who forgives
sin; but He is also the awesome Judge who is coming in Judgement
on those who disobey His Gospel.

"God is just. He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you
and give relief to you who are troubled...This will happen when
the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with His
powerful angels. He will punish those who do not obey the Gospel
of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting
destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from
the majesty of His power on the day He comes to be glorified in
His holy people and to be marvelled at among au those who have
believed. " 2 Thess 1:6-10

Jesus has power on earth to forgive sins, and He has power on
earth to execute judgement upon His enemies. In the Psalms we see
both the vengeance and the love ot God.

Even in the N.T. & in the Gospels we see imprecations.
"Woe to you,...hypocrites...blind guides...blind fools...full of
greed and self indulgence...whitewashed tombs...you snakes! You
brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to Hell ? "
Matt 23

In Matt 26:23-24 Christ quotes from Ps 69 and 109 to refer to His
betrayal by Judas.

We also need to acknowledge that Christ's prayers of blessing are
not for all. In John 17:6-9 it is clear that Christ is only
praying to the elect of God - those who have:
"obeyed your Word"... "accepted" God's Word ... and have
"believed ". (see Luke 10:8-16 - Those who reject the
message of God's kingdom will be judged.)


5. May we pray the imprecatory Psalms?

Martin Luther pointed out that when one prays: "Hallowed be Thy
Name, Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done " then "he must put all
the opposition to this in one pile and say: 'Curses, maledictions
and disgrace upon every other name and every other kingdom. May
they be ruined and torn apart and may all their schemes and
wisdom and plans run aground' . "

To pray tor the extension of God's kingdom is to solicit the
destruction of all other kingdoms, eg: Dan 2:44: "The God of
heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed ... it
will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it
will itself endure forever. "

* Advance and victory for the Church means defeat and retreat for
the kingdom of darkness. *

There is a life & death struggle between two kingdoms. The Church
cannot exclude hatred tor satan's kingdom from its love for God's
kingdom. God's kingdom cannot come without satan's kingdom being
destroyed. God's will cannot be done on earth without the
destruction of evil. The glory of God demands the destruction of
evil. Instead of being influenced by a sickly sentimentalism
which insists upon the assumed, but really non-existent, rights
of man - we should focus instead upon the rights of God.

Note Psalm 83 where the Psalmist prays against those who "plot
together" against God and His people:
"Cover their faces with shame so that men will seek your Name O
Lord... Do to them as You did to Midian, as you did to Sisera and
Jabin at the river Kishon, who perished at Endor and became like
refuse on the ground. "

The story of Sisera in the book of Judges (Chapter 4 and 5)
provides a vivid example of God's judgement on the wicked. Sisera
"cruelly oppressed the Israelites for twenty years" and they
"cried to the Lord for help" Judges 4:3. In response to those
prayers: "The Lord routed Sisera and all his chariots and army by
the sword, and Sisera abandoned his chariot and fled on foot...
All the troops of Sisera fell by the sword; not a man was left. "
Judges 4:15-16

The account then goes on to describe how Sisera escaped to the
tent of Jael where she lulled him into a false sense of safety
and then drove a tent peg through his temple with a hammer. The
song of victory by Deborah and Barak celebrated the crushing of
the head of Sisera in graphic detail (Judges 5:25-27). And it is
this that Psalm 83 implores God to again do to His enemies.. "As
you did to Sisera ..."


6. The blessings of obedience and the curse of disobedience

The imprecatory Psalms are fully consistent with the Law of God:
     "If you do not carefully follow all the words of this Law,
     which are written in this book, and do not revere this
     glorious and awesome Name - the Lord your God - the Lord
     will send fearful plagues on you and your descendants. He
     will bring upon you all the diseases of Egypt that you
     dreaded, and they will cling to you. The Lord will also
     bring on you every kind of sickness and disaster not
     recorded in this Book of the Law until you are
     destroyed...because you did not obey the Lord your God ...
     so it will please Him to ruin and destroy you. You will be
     uprooted from the land you are entering to possess. "
     Deuteronomy 28:58-63

The covenant God made with His people included curses for
disobedience as well as blessings for obedience. Deuteronomy 27
records the formal giving and receiving of the covenant terms in
an awesome account:
"The Levites shall recite to all the people of Israel in a loud
voice:
"Cursed is the man who carves an image or casts an idol - a thing
detestable to the Lord, the work of the craftsman's hands - and
sets it up in secret. "
Then all the people shall say, "Amen!" "
"Cursed is the man who dishonours his father or his mother...
"Cursed is the man who moves his neighbour's boundary stone...
"Cursed is the man who leads the blind astray on the roads...
"Cursed is the man who withholds justice from the alien, the
fatherless or the widow...
"Cursed is the man who kills his neighbour secretly...
"Cursed is the man who accepts a bribe to kill an innocent
person.
"Cursed is the man who does not uphold the words of the Law by
carrying them out.
Then all the people shall say, "Amen!" " Deut 27:14-26

The New Testament confirms that the inevitable consequence of
rejecting Christ is the curse. "If anyone does not love the
Lord - a curse be on him. " 1 Corinthians 16:22

(See also: Romans 12:19-21; Hebrews 1:1-3; 3:7-12; 3:1519; 10:26-
31; 12:14-29.)


7. How can we preach these prayers?

The Church of Jesus Christ is an army under orders.
Scripture constitutes the official dispatch from the Commander-
in-Chief. But we have a problem: those who are called to pass on
those orders to others are refusing to do so. How then can we
expect to be a united, effective army? Is it any wonder that the
troops have lost sight of their commission to demolish the
strongholds of the kingdom of darkness? If the Church does not
hear the battle cries of her Captain, how will she follow Him
onto the battlefield?

Pastors are commissioned to pass on the orders of the Church's
Commander, never withholding or changing His words. One whose job
is to carry dispatches to troops in wartime would face certain
and severe punishment if he dared to amend the general's orders.
The pastor's charge is of greater importance than that of a
courier in any earthly army. There's no place tor the dispatcher
to decide he doesn't agree with his Commander's strategy.

When Jesus Christ sent seventy-two disciples on a preaching
mission, He told them to proclaim the coming of God's Kingdom (Lk
10:9) - that is, to announce that people must submit to God's
rule in their lives. Jesus instructed them to pray for peace on
any house they approach, assuring them that if anyone rejected
it, the peace would return on the disciples (verse 5). But we
must consider what He said they should do if their message were
rejected - that is, if the hearers persisted in rebellion against
God's rule - "But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go
into its 'streets and say, 'Even the dust of your town that
sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this:
The kingdom of God is near"' Luke 10:11.

What would be the result of that denunciation? I tell you, it
will be more bearable on that day for Sodom [on which God sent
fire from Heaven in judgement for its wickedness] than for that
town (verse 12). Immediately Jesus added curses on Korazin,
Bethsaida, and Capernaum tor their rejection of His message
(verses 13-15). He then explained to the disciples the great
authority He had given them: "He who listens to you listens to
Me; he who rejects you rejects Me; but he who rejects Me rejects
him who sent Me " (verse 16). This is the fundamental basis tor
calling down God's curses on anyone: his persistent rebellion
against God's authority expressed in His Law and the ministry of
His servants.

We need to clearly and forcefully proclaim the war cries of the
Prince of Peace. Only then will the Church awake from its
lethargy and once again enter the battle. If we tail to pass on
the battle cry then a lack of urgency and confusion in the ranks
will be inevitable.

Like Psalm 1 our preaching needs to clearly show the blessings of
obedience and the curse of disobedience. The eternal truth is
that God cannot be mocked. Whatever a man sows - that shall he
reap (Galatians 6:7). The curses pronounced on disobedience in
Deut 28:47-53 were fulfilled in detail in Samaria (2 Kings
6:2&29) and in Judea (AD 70). The wrath of God upon covenant
breakers is real.

The "I" of the Psalms is Jesus Christ. The "we" of the Psalms
includes those of us in the Lord Jesus. The enemies are not our
own, individually, but those of the Lord and of His Church. The
Psalms are ot Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King. They record
Christ's march in victory against the kingdom of darkness. As
Christ is the author of the Psalms, so, too, is He the final
fulfilment of the covenant on which they are based. God will
answer the psalmist's prayers completely in Jesus Christ on the
final day of judgment. While on earth Jesus foretold the day when
He will say: "But those enemies of Mine who did not want Me to be
King over them - bring them here and kill them in front of Me"
Luke 19:27.

A fatal end awaits everyone who refuses to acknowledge and to
obey Jesus as King and Lord. Hearing expositions of these war
psalms of the Prince of Peace will remind His people that God's
kingdom is at war! The kingdom of darkness is being overcome by
the kingdom of Jesus Christ, a war in which each local
congregation of believers plays a vital part. You must rally your
battalion to put on the whole armour of God, including "the sword
of the Spirit, which is the Word of God " Eph 6:17. That battle-
readiness also involves "pray(ing) in the Spirit on all occasions
with all kinds of prayers and requests n Eph 6:18.

Christ teaches His army to pray for the utter destruction of the
enemies of God as the psalmist did: "Pour out Your wrath on the
nations that do not acknowledge You, on the kingdoms that do not
call on Your Name" Ps 79:6.

To deal with the very real hurts and injustices in this world it
is necessary for us to pray for God's justice. Those who are
persecuted need the comfort of these prayers.

"Let the saints rejoice in His honour and sing for joy...May the
praise of God be in their mouths and a double-edged sword in
their hands, to inflict vengeance on the nations and punishment
on the peoples, to bind their kings with fetters, their nobles
with shackles of iron, to carry out the sentences written against
them. This is the glory of all His saints. Praise the Lord. " Ps
149:5-9

Prayer is, in fact, spiritual warfare. One weapon is prayer for
conversion of spiritual enemies; another is prayer for judgement
on those who finally refuse to be converted. We handicap the army
of God when we refuse to use both of these great weapons that He
has given us. It is at all times a part of the task of the people
nf God to destroy evil.

If you have been guilty of dulling your sword, by neglecting or
undermining these psalms, repent of that sin, sharpen your sword
anew, and go forth to do battle in the Name and for the Glory of
Jesus - until "the knowledge of the Lord will cover the earth as
the waters cover the sea" Hab 2:14.

The full book "War Psalms of the Prince of Peace " is available,
at R25, from Frontline Fellowship, PO Box 74 Newlands, 7725 RSA.


PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE
Those wishing to reproduce or quote from any edition of FF News
are encouraged to do so. We only request that due acknowledgement
of the source be mentioned and that a copy be sent to us.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21566
From: daniels@math.ufl.edu (TV's Big Dealer)
Subject: Re: Deuterocanonicals, esp. Sirach


	What we call today the "Old Testament" was being written up to approx-
imately 168 BCE, according to most modern scholars.  Aside from the book of
Daniel, the whole OT predates Alexander (the Great).  These books were written
(predominantly) in Hebrew.
	There were also other books being written at about this time and later
by Greek-speaking, or "Hellenistic", Jews.  These books are those which are
reckoned by many denominations as "Apocrypha".
	Before the closing of the Writings, the third part of what is today
called the canon, all of the books were in use by Jews of the day.  However,
there were those who reckoned (based on Zech. 13) that prophecy had ceased.
This faction maintained that there were no true prophets in their day.  They
also maintained that literature of a prophetic character could not be genuine
teachings from God.
	By the time of c.65 CE, another faction had entered the mess.  Christians
had come in claiming that THEIR writings were also suitable to be read in
synagogues and used for worship.  Therefore, the Palestinian Jewish leaders
got together and stated that the books written from the time of Ben Sira (Sirach)
onward were not sacred writings.  They justified this from Zech. 13.  In
particular, they said, the writings of the Christians (called heretics) were
not inspired.
	At about 90 CE, they codified things further by closing the canon in
somewhat of an official sense at the Council of Jamnia.  A few books (Ecclesi-
astes, Song of Songs, Esther) made it in after that date, but these were those
which had been written prior to the official cut off point (the time of Ben
Sira) for inclusion that they had established in order to keep out the Christian
and Hellenistic writings.
	Jerome excluded the 'apocrypha' because they were not in use by Jews
of his day and because they were (except for Sirach) not found in Hebrew in his
time.  His criterion for separating them from the other pre-Christian writings
was not based on 'inspiration'.

	There is plenty more to say, but I do not have time.
	The passage you quote concerns the book (Rev.) in which it is found.
						Frank D.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21567
From: Rick_Granberry@pts.mot.com (Rick Granberry)
Subject: Boston C of C

Note:  the following article is submitted on behalf of someone (Frank 
daniels) who has difficulty posting to s.r.c, email replies to 
daniels@math.ufl.edu

	I am unable to post to the bitnet groups.
	Here is a capsule history of the Shepherding/Discipleship Movement in
the Churches of Christ (i.e. Crossroads/Boston):

	I could trace the Movement back as far as 1800, and indeed some of its
roots go back that far, but these were really "influences" on the Movement,
and not the actual movement, per se.
	I will start in c.1920.
	In that day, there were 'white' churches and 'colored' churches in
nearly every area (due to segregation).  Modern Pentecostalism was developing
as a predominantly 'colored' phenomenon.  Here, there was great fanaticism,
emphasis on emotional experiences, and belief in a personal guidance and
indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
	Many 'white' Protestant churches were growing into what became known
as conservative fundamentalism.  By the 1940s, the evangelical movement was
in full swing, and many groups were becoming part of it.
	When the civil rights movement grew stronger (in the 1950's and 
1960's),
many 'white' church groups began to be influenced by the 'black' churches and
by what was going on there.  This spread started in the most liberal of groups
and spread to the more conservative ones by the late '60's.  In 1969, even the
Catholic Church was displaying evidence of influence by the other 
groups...still
evident today.

	The Churches of Christ are (and were) a very conservative Protestant
group.  When the influence from outside began to reach the CofC in c.1965, it
was generally not appreciated.  Conservative groups are very strongly 
resistant
to change, and the new movement was VERY different from the CofC status quo.
	The magazines put out at that time by CofC folks tell the story as it
unfolds.  New ideas came into the CofC.  There was a big push to reach out to
college students, young adults, and teens.  Some called this the Campus 
Evangel-
ism Movement.  Emotions, generally not highly regarded in the CofC at large,
played a more important role in the new movement.  In some places, people 
began
to speak in tongues (as their Pentecostal predecessors did).
	This was met with extreme criticism from within the Churches of 
Christ.
In some places, people were fired from their jobs for speaking in tongues or 
for
advocating the "Holy Spirit Movement", another name for the new branch.  The
term "Underground Church of Christ" also came into use because these people 
had
to hide their differences (or they might be ostricised).
	There were several congregations, however, whose leaderships were
receptive to the new ideas (at least in part; the tongues-speaking never 
really
caught on).  One of these was the 14th Street Church of Christ in Gainesville,
FL.  Campus Ministry had already been regarded as important at 14th Street, 
and
the new ideas seemed to be very helpful tools for evangelism.  They also 
seemed
to put vitality into the church, which many felt had been lacking.
	In October of 1967, the 14th Street congregation hired Chuck Lucas to
be its Campus Minister.  By 1970, he would move to being the congregation's
(lead) Minister.  In the late 60's/early 70's, the congregation worked with 
many
other groups.  They held Bible discussions at Daytona Beach during Spring 
Break.
They organized talks in the fraternities on the University of Florida campus.
They also worked with UF sports people.
	In 1972, the congregation ordered a larger building to be constructed.
When it was finished, the group moved and changed its name (now no longer
appropriate).  It became the Crossroads Church of Christ from then on, a name
that would become legendary.

	By this time, Crossroads was basically the only CofC whose programs
were fully aligned to the new movement.  While they didn't start it, they 
continued it and were responsible for where it wound up going.
	By 1975, none of the other Churches of Christ in the area felt that
they could cooperate with Crossroads, due to what they recognized as doctrinal
problems at Crossroads.
	Crossroads had begun to heavily emphasize, and later require 
attendance
at all church functions.  It was seen as a good thing for each member to have
at least one close relationship, a person with whom you would share all of
your problems, pray, and get help from.  The concept was called Prayer 
Partners,
which later became Discipleship Partners and also later became mandatory.  The
leadership was assigning prayer partners to people for a while.
	The book called "The Master Plan of Evangelism" was a strong influence
on Chuck Lucas.  He (and the group) believed that it was every person's duty
and life purpose to carry out the great commission.  Crossroads was growing
in number, and numbers became VERY important (some would say all-important).
	A person who "was evangelistic" was "spiritual".  Evangelism meant
inviting people to Crossroads events; if you did this a lot and some of them
converted, then you were "spiritual".  There were sermons about how if you
bought groceries, the cashier and bag boy ought to receive invitations to
services.  Everyone at your job ought to receive invitations.  Since these
people needed Jesus, you should be "aggressive"--don't take 'no' for an
answer.
	If you did not evangelize enough, you came to be called "lazy" or
"unspiritual".
	By the end of the decade, the Prayer Partner system was integrated 
into
a structure.  The Elders and Ministers were on top (like a big pyramid).  Then
the group leaders, Bible study leaders, and members.  Everyone who came in had
someone placed over them.
	It is at this time, 1978-1980, that the bad press about Crossroads
began to circulate.  The problem with rape on the University of Florida campus
was tremendous, but Crossroads was considered a bigger and more immediate
problem.  There were many complaints about the congregation and its "pushy"
evangelistic tactics.  Crossroads was considering the other Churches of Christ
to be "dead" churches, which aggravated them; it was aggressively recruiting
out of the other church groups (denominations), which aggravated THEM.

	By this time, Crossroads had grown numerically to the point (1100)
where not only did they believe that they would soon need a new building, but
also they were sending out "planting" [create a new church] and 
"reconstructing"
[reorganize an existing church] teams to other cities.  By this time, the
Crossroads Movement was underway.
	A group was sent to the 30-member Lexington Church of Christ in 
Boston,
MA.  The team was headed up by Kip McKean, who had been converted out of a
fraternity by Crossroads (in Gainesville).  Kip held a still stronger view of
church authority, which he believed was heavily vested in the Evangelist(s),
and not so much in the Elders.  He had been fired in 1977 from the 
congregation
that he had been working at when the elders there found numerous things wrong
with his theology, including the practice of what came to be called one-over-
one
Christianity.  [Called this by critics]
	In the first year, half of the 30 people felt that they did not want 
to
be a part of the new congregation.  They left.  But others began coming into
the new Boston Church of Christ.
	Ah, but I'm ahead of myself.
	At Crossroads, the heavy-handed system had begun to take its toll on
the members.  Many have said that they felt that they were working hard, but
they were not achieving the results that were so important.  The numbers were
dropping.  From 1978, Crossroads membership declined steadily.  The leadership
began to tighten the reigns on the congregation, who was seen as being largely
"unproductive" and "unfruitful".  The "fruit" passages in the NT were 
interpreted
as referring to new converts.  If you were not bearing fruit, said John 15, 
you
would be cast into the fire!  [Boston still teaches this.]
	If you love your neighbor, you'll save his soul (invite him to church
and convert him).  If you're not doing that, you don't love your neighbor.
And if you don't love, you're in danger of backsliding.  The logical arguments
continue in this vein.
	In 1985, Chuck Lucas was fired from his job as minister, due to 
recurring
sins in his life.  These struggles were never revealed to the congregation at
large, although many people outside the congregation had heard about them.  
For
by now, there was very little contact (on a friendship level) between most
Crossroads members and those outside.  [If you have contact, your focus should
be on converting them.  Bring them to a Bible Study.]
	Chuck's replacement was Joe Woods, who was fully supportive of the
Boston system.  As Boston grew in number, they began to offer 'training' 
sessions
for other ministers.  Joe went to Boston to be trained and returned to Cross-
roads ready to emphasize the "total commitment" to the church that Boston and
Kip McKean were now emphasizing.  Eventually, in Fall of 1987, the Elders at 
Crossroads (now 2 in number--Dick Whitehead and Bill Hogle) made a decision.
Boston was demanding that all of the other churches in the movement come under
the direction of the church in Boston.  The Elders refused, citing their 
belief
that each church should be autonomous (something true in all non-Boston 
Churches
of Christ).  Perhaps there was also some degree of offense done here, since
Crossroads was no longer the 'example' to the rest of the Movement.  The group
now numbered about 800, while Boston was now larger (in membership).
	The Churches of Christ generally teach that baptism is a necessary
element of salvation.  At Crossroads, they taught what was called 'Lordship'
baptism:  you had to understand the commitment involved before you could be
baptized.  You had to 'count the cost'.  At Boston, they took this a step
further.  If at some time you became "unproductive", then your spirituality
was suspect.  People would begin to ask you if you REALLY understood what you
were getting into.  Anyone who said 'no' had their baptism deemed invalid:  
they
hadn't counted the cost properly.  They still had to be baptized.  Others 
called
this "rebaptism", and Crossroads didn't approve of this practice.
	When Crossroads announced that it would not follow Boston, many of its
members left Crossroads and went to Movement-related ministries, which were
now called Discipling Ministries.  You were either discipling (evangelizing) 
or
you were "dead".  They also used the nickname "Movement of God" for a while.
	By Summer of 1988, Crossroads was withdrawn from the Movement and now
stood alone.  They had few to no allies in the mainstream Churches of Christ,
and now none in the Movement.

	Boston, however, continued to chart its course in the direction that
they had been following.  They sent "reconstruction teams" to many cities, 
which
usually meant that they split the church there.  They stopped acknowledging 
other
churches of Christ as Christians and began to call themselves the "remnant".
The "remnant" of the Jews in the OT are those who are saved by God.  It was
felt that the "remnant" today represents all the Christians.  Sometimes they
would simply call their Movement "the church".
	They usually took the name of the city for their name, implying to the
other Churches of Christ that Boston did not recognize their existence.  Many
campuses have now formally forbidden Boston ministries from recruiting there
due to the number of complaints.  In some cases, it has been documented that
Boston ministries have lied to University officials in order to continue to 
have
access to the campus.  Any resistance that they experience is termed "perse-
cution", which all true Christians are expected to experience.  Are you really
a Christian if you're not being persecuted?
	The numbers at Boston peaked at c.3000 in 1989.  Since then, they have
fought to remain steady.  I have heard a tape of Kip McKean shouting at the
leaders for failing to fulfill the Great Commission (their life's purpose) as
God commanded them.  Their Christianity is highly centered on commands and
obedience.

	Crossroads once was called a cult.  Boston is now recognized by the
Cult Awareness Network and other national and international groups as a cult,
under a formal definition, because of the techniques which they employ.  The
term "cult" is usually differentiated from "sect" by the practice of those
techniques.  The techniques which they employ are recognized by many as being
techniques of destructive pursuasion, also used by other Shepherding
Discipleship groups.  [Robert Jay Lifton, Margaret Thaler Singer, and many
others have written about the topic.]  These techniques include guilt 
motivation,
emotional manipulation, loaded language, the aura of sacred science (a sort
of mystic element seen in everyday events), and others.

	I have no particular axe to grind against the Movement.  I have numer-
ous friends who are still part of the Movement.  I have never had a 'falling
out' with anyone in the Movement.  I disagree with many things which they 
teach.
I recognize the psychological damage done by being involved in such a system.
I hold no loyalty to the mainstream Churches of Christ and do not defend their
mistakes either.
	I want to point out, though, that unlike in many other systems which
are in other ways similar, the Leadership of the Boston Movement are as much
victims of the system as the members.  We do not have a leader who enjoys
manipulating his people.  The leaders believe what they teach, and they feel
accountable for the activites (and spiritual welfare) of the members.  When
members do not evangelize to their expectations, for example, the leaders feel
personally responsible as well.  The leaders are not out for money or power.
They want to evangelize the world in their lifetime.

	I have said too much, but there is much more to say.  There are many
examples I could give and quotes from other sources (including Boston 
bulletins)
that I could include.  But this is too long already.  You may post this if
you so desire.
						Frank D.



| "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." |
| "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."  |
| (proverbs 26:4&5)


[Believe it or not, questions about the Boston Church of Christ are
among the most commonly asked.  In order to avoid having s.r.c.
dealing with this on a continuous basis, I allow discussion only
periodically.  By now I've got a 150K FAQ file (which has both sides,
by the way).  This gives enough addition information on history that
it seems worth posting and adding to the FAQ.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21568
From: mussack@austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Subject: Re: If There Were No Hell

(Larry L. Overacker) writes:
> Q: If you knew beyond all doubt that hell did not exist and that
>    unbelievers simply remained dead, would you remain a Christian?
> 
> My contention is that if you answer this question with "No. I would
> not then remain a Christian" then you really are not one now.  
> ...  I follow Christ because it's a great way
> to LIVE life.  And I could care less what really happens after
> I die.  I believe that there will be a resurrection, but that
> won't have any effect on how I live THIS life.  ...

Ouch, this is a good question. To me, not existing is worse
than existing no matter what, so I will modify this question to be:
would I be a Christian if it made no eternal difference in my
reward or punishment? I hope this is in the same spirit you want.

I personally am very goal oriented. It is hard for me to do things
that do not achieve some goal. However, to relate this to sports, 
only after I learned to not care about the score did I become
a good basketball player. I had to learn to go all out no matter
the situation. Perhaps this lesson is relevent. After all,
only if I can give up my life can I keep it, only if I am
humble can I achieve glory. Only if I concentrate on living
my life now the best I can will I be afforded life eternal.
I think you have illuminated the true meaning of "saved by faith."

But what is my answer? Right now I would remain a Christian.
However, was that always my answer? That's the problem. Heaven
and hell are good motivators at certain stages of maturity.
And I admit there are certain times when perhaps I bite my
tongue and put up with something in the hope of a better day,
i.e. I mentally trade present happiness for future happiness.
I hope the cynics and skeptics do not read more into that
than appropriate, but I am trying to be honest.

(Scott A Mayo) writes:
> Of course. But it is a pointless question, because you cannot know
> beyond all doubt that hell does not exist, anymore than you can know
> it does, short of taking Jesus's word for it. "What If" questions are
> fun and entertaining, but probably fruitless. 

I think these kinds of questions are extremely fruitful. I guess it
depends on how one views knowledge and learning. By stripping
ideas to simple, straightforward, opposing concepts we can
determine levels of importance. By analyzing the theoretically 
absurd we can gain a better understanding of the actually absurd.

Chris Mussack

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21569
From: Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu (Fil Sapienza)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists? Apology

In article <May.11.02.37.42.1993.28189@athos.rutgers.edu> maxwell c muir,
muirm@argon.gas.organpipe.uug.arizona.edu writes:
>Instead, I'm still faced with the
>implication that atheism is some kind of aberration and that only
"broken"
>people are atheist.

Again, as the original poster of the article, I apologize if it
implied that atheism = brokenness.  Such was not my intent and
I apologize for any hurt feelings in the process.
--
Filipp Sapienza
Department of Technology Services
University of Michigan Hospitals - Surgery
Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21570
From: aaronc@athena.mit.edu (Aaron Bryce Cardenas)
Subject: Re: Mormon beliefs about children born out of wedlock

Bruce Webster writes:
>Indeed, LDS doctrine goes one step further and in some cases
>holds parents responsible for their children's sins if they have
>failed to bring them up properly (cf. D&C 68:25-28; note that this
>passage applies it only to members of the LDS church).

Hi Bruce.  How do you reconcile this practice with Ezekiel 18?
Ezekiel 18:20 "The soul who sins is the one who will die.  The son will not
share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the
son.  The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and
the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him."

Is Ezekiel 18 not translated correctly in your eyes perhaps?

Sincerely,

Aaron Cardenas

P.S. I too am bothered to see offensive words being posted on this
newsgroup.  Obscenity is out of place for anyone who wants to live by the
Bible (Eph 5:4).

Moderator:  I would appreciate your not letting posts with foul language
through, which has happened at least twice lately.  Thank you.

[I try to avoid foul language.  Bastard is certainly foul language
when shouted at someone as an insult.  But in this case it was being
used in its original technical sense.  Similarly, hell is an obscenity
in some contexts, but not when referring to the afterlife.  It is not
clear to me that bastard is foul language when it's being used in its
proper meaning.  One of today's postings quotes Deut 23:2.  Am I
to prohibit that?  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21571
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: Re:  Atheists and Hell

On Sunday 9 May 1993, Kenneth Engel writes (in substance):

  We are told that the penalty for sin is an eternity in Hell.
  We are told that Jesus paid the penalty, suffering in our stead.
  But Jesus did not spend an eternity in Hell.

This objection presupposes the "forensic substitution" theory of the
Atonement. Not everyone who believes in the Atonement understands it
in those terms. For an expansion of this statement, send the
messages
   GET GEN04 RUFF
   GET GEN05 RUFF
   GET GEN06 RUFF
   GET GEN07 RUFF
  to LISTSERV@ASUACAD.BITNET or to LISTSERV@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU

Note that the character after the "GEN" is a zero. If you want to
read my opun from the beginning, start with GEN01.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21572
From: easteee@wkuvx1.bitnet
Subject: Who Prays/Speaks in Tongues?

For those who pray in tongues,

      When is it appropriate for you to pray/speak in tongues
and why?  I just would like to gain more knowledge about this subject.

______ __   ___  ___           o  __   ___  |    Western  Kentucky    |
  /   /__) /__  /__  /     )  /  /__) /__   |       University        |
 /   /  \ (___ (___ (__/__/  /  /  \ (___   |  EASTEEE@WKUVX1.BITNET  |

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21573
From: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <May.11.02.39.05.1993.28328@athos.rutgers.edu> carlson@ab24.larc.nasa.gov  
(Ann Carlson) writes:
> In article <May.7.01.08.16.1993.14381@athos.rutgers.edu>, > Anyone who thinks  
being gay and Christianity are not compatible should 
> check out Dignity, Integrity, More Light Presbyterian churches, Affirmation,
> MCC churches, etc.  Meet some gay Christians, find out who they are, pray
> with them, discuss scripture with them, and only *then* form your opinion.
> -- 

I would absolutly love to have the time and energy to do so. The
problem is to be totally fair I would have to go throught this type of
search on every issue I belive in.  I don't have the time, resources,
or ability to do what you ask.  Maybe you should pray that God gives
me the opportunity instead of simply discrediting me because I have
not been able to talk to every gay christian.

In Christ's Love,
Bryan 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21574
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Subject: Re: Incarnation...Two minds of Christ..

Nabil wrote:
>5. Both families agree that He who wills and acts is always the one Hypostasis
>of the Logos Incarnate.

Marhaba Nabil,

If we posit two minds in Christ, the mind of the logos and the mind of the
human Jesus, then we must admit two wills.  A mind is not a mind without a
will.  I know this has been dealt with in past Church prnouncements, but there
is a philosophical problem here that should examined.

T. V. Morris argued that the Incarnation can be seen like this:

      _____________		
     (Mind of Logos)
     (	 _______   )
     (	(	)  )	Here, the mind of Jesus is circumsribed by God the
     (	( Human	)  )	Son.  God the Son has complete access to the human
     (  ( Mind	)  )	mind but the human mind only has access to the mind
     (	(	)  )	of God the Son when the Son allows access.  This 
     (	(_______)  )	explains why Jesus said even he did not know the 
     (_____________)	time of the kingdom.	

The human will acted in accordance with the divine will according to free
human decision.  But if the human will would have decided differently than
what was intended the divine will would have interceded, but this was never
the case.

He employs some very interesting analogies to support the one person/two mind
theory.  The ideas of a completely healthy version of split personality from
the field of psychology, and the intriguing ideas of being in a dream, seeing
yourself acting, knowing that is you, but also being omniscient.  

The one hypostasis would be the unity of the two minds.  Agreed.  But I am
still waiting for Morris and others to respond to the lingering problem of two
minds making two persons.  Christian analytic philosophers are breaking new
ground in explicating the rationality of Theism and the Incarnation. 

====================================          
Ted Kalivoda (tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu)
University of Georgia, Athens
Institute of Higher Ed. 

[Note that "person" is being used in a more abstact sense here than
the English.  We connect person with personality and other things that
are human attributes.  I'm not entirely sure whether I'd want to apply
personality to God, but if it is appropriate, then I think we'd have
to say that Christ had two personalities.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21575
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <May.11.02.39.05.1993.28328@athos.rutgers.edu> carlson@ab24.larc.nasa.gov (Ann Carlson) writes:

[bible verses ag./ used ag. homosexuality deleted]

>Anyone who thinks being gay and Christianity are not compatible should 
>check out Dignity, Integrity, More Light Presbyterian churches, Affirmation,
>MCC churches, etc.  Meet some gay Christians, find out who they are, pray
>with them, discuss scripture with them, and only *then* form your opinion.

also check out the episcopal church -- although by no means all
episcopalians are sympathetic to homosexual men and women, there
certainly is a fairly large percentage (in my experience) who are.  i
am good friends with an episcopalian minister who is ordained and
living in a monogamous homosexual relationship.  this in no way
diminishes his ability to minister -- in fact he has a very
significant ministry with the gay and lesbian association of his
community, as well as a very significant aids ministry.

my uncle is gay and when i found this out i had a good long think
about what the bible has to say about this and what i feel God thinks
about this.  obviously my conclusions may be wrong; nonetheless they
are my own and they feel right to me.  i believe that the one
important thing that those who wrote the old and new testament
passages cited above did NOT know was that there is scientific
evidence to support that homosexuality is at least partly _inherent_
rather than completely learned.  this means that to a certain extent
-- or to a great extent -- homosexuals cannot choose how to feel about
other people -- which is why reports of "curing" homosexuals always
chill me and make me feel ill.  please not that, although i can't cite
sources where you can find this information, there is homosexual
behavior recorded among monkeys and other animals, which is in itself
suggestive that it is inherent rather than learned, or at least that
the word "unnatural" shouldn't really apply....

please remember that whatever you believe, gays and lesbians shoul not
be excluded from your love and acceptance.  christ loved us all, and
we ALL sin.  and he himself never said anything against homosexuals --
rather it is paul (who also came out with such wonderful wisdom as
"women shouldn't speak in church" and "women should keep their heads
covered in church" -- not exact quotations as i don't have my bible
handy) who says these things.  i have a tendency to take some of the
things paul says with a grain of salt....

well, that's all i'll say for now.

>*************************************************      
>*Dr. Ann B. Carlson (a.b.carlson@larc.nasa.gov) *       O .
>*MS 366                                         *         o  _///_ //
>*NASA Langley Research Center                   *          <`)=  _<<
>*Hampton, VA 23681-0001                         *             \\\  \\
>*************************************************

vera noyes
-------
the lord is risen indeed.  let's party!
noye@midway,uchicago.edu				(vera noyes)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21576
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

>In article <May.9.05.40.15.1993.27475@athos.rutgers.edu>, Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com >(Geno ) writes:
>> [4) "Nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]" (Rev. 21.27). Therefore,
>> babies are born in such a state that should they die, they are cuf off
>> from God and put in hell, which is exactly the doctrine of St. Augustine
>> and St. Thomas.

...
>-jeff adams-

Regarding the first paragraph, I would say that I didn't write it. I
don't believe that unbaptized babies are put in Hell. I don't even
believe in Hell. At least, I don't believe in a fiery place where
there will be "gnashing of teeth".

geno

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21577
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

In article <May.11.02.37.42.1993.28189@athos.rutgers.edu> muirm@argon.gas.organpipe.uug.arizona.edu (maxwell c muir) writes:

[a lot of stuff deleted -- i'm focusing on just one point]
>Well, he got me there. I am a strong atheist, because I feel that lack of
>evidence, especially about something like an omnipotent being, implies
>lack of existence. However, I haven't met the strong atheist yet who said
>that nothing could ever persuade him. Call me a "seeker" if you like, I
>don't. 
>_Weak_ atheism is being ignore here, though. Some atheists simply say "I
>don't believe in any god" rather than my position: "I believe that no
>god(s) exist." For the weak atheist, the is no atheism to disbelieve,
>because they don't actively believe in atheism. (If you think this is
>confusing, try figuring out the difference between Protestants and
>Methodists from an atheist point of view :).

i'm a little confused about the difference between this "weak atheism",
as you put it, and agnosticism.  is agnosticism not believing or
necessarily disbelieving in anything, or what is it?  i used to be
agnostic (by this definition) -- but if weak atheism includes not
necessarily believing in God, then i guess i was one of those.  ???

actually what i have a hard time understanding is people who do not
ever decide what they believe.  i am constantly in a state of
self-examination, as it would appear many others are as well (including the
atheists, of course -- i'd assume that's why they're here!).  i guess
some people don't really consider it important to think about the
answers to "life, the universe and everything" -- any comment?  just
wondering....

>This is another fallacy many theists seem to have, that everyone believes in
>something (followed up by "everyone has faith in something"). Guess what?
>My atheism ends the moment I'm shown a proof of some god's existence. Is
>that really too much to ask?

tough call, as these things seem to be based on faith -- wish i could
help you, but i already tried once with someone who was a
self-professed agnostic-thinking-of-becoming-a -christian, and it
didn't work too well!  especially tough as i'm still mulling over
whether or not i believe in miracles (looks like another email to my
chaplain is coming up....).  all i can do is wish you the best of
luck, and please do post what you find.

>And I told you that I find faith to be intellectually dishonest. Note that
>I can only speak for myself. If you find faith to be honest, show me how.

hmm, how so?  i guess i really don't understand.  there are times, of
course, when i say to myself "of course i have absolutely no way of
knowing that what i believe in is true except the satisfaction and
sense of peace i get from it -- which of course could just be
psychological".  somehow i live with this anyway -- is this what you
mean?

the only "proof" i have is that i believe God spoke to me once --
which could of course be my own imagination.  the odd thing is,
though, that if you don't at some point start believing in something,
after a while it all gets sort of ridiculous.  maybe it's just a
question of where you draw the line.

>I have been unable to reconcile it so far. Maybe that's how I'm "broken"?
>I tell you that I have invisible fairies living in my garden and that
>you should just take my word for it. If you accept that, you are of a
>fundamentally different mind than I and I really would like to know how you
>think. All I ask for is proof of the assertion "God exists". Logical or
>physical proofs only, please. Then we'll discuss the nature of "God".

i'll only add one question -- have you read pascal?  what did you
think of him if you did?

also you may (or may not) be interested by cslewis/ _surprised by
joy_.  i'd be interested in knowing what you think of him, no sarcasm
at all intended.  (i just say this because one can never know how
one's written words will be interpreted.  i am not interested in
converting you, since i don't seem to have whatever it would take --
proof -- to do so.  i'm just interested in learning.)

>Muppets and garlic toast forever,

i like this.

>Max (Bob) Muir

cheers,
vera
________
i give you everything		disclaimer: of course i don't agree with
my sweet everything		trent reznor's (nin's) theology.  i think 
   - nine inch nails		it's interesting nonetheless.
noye@midway.uchicago.edu 	(vera noyes)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21578
From: djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

>Any attempts to make homosexuals
>feel unwelcome because of our discomfort with homosexuality is incompatible
>with Christianity.  Is our hatred so deep that rather than see someone
>try to become closer to Jesus, we need to keep them away.

This is too often true.  Many people try to place this as a "higher"
sin.  However...

>Does Jesus need
>us to screen out those guilty of a particular sin.  Do we really mistrust 
>Jesus when he says he can forgive any sin?

A big part of the problem is that many of the homosexuals and people
advocating acceptance of homosexuality in churches do not consider
(active) homosexuality a sin.  I don't often see the attitude of
"forgive me and I will try to change".  Instead I see "there's nothing
wrong with my life and I can be a good Christian, so it must be you who
have an illness because you don't accept me".  Christians can and will
accept homosexuals, just as they will accept *any* sinner.

Sure, it may be natural to some people to be homosexual - but it
is also perfectly natural for everyone to sin!  I was born with
a desire to sin, but I work to prevent myself from sinning.  It's
much less common now, but I *still* have urges to lash out in
anger.  There also may not be a sudden disappearance of sinful
desires (or ever!), so it is sad to see people leave the church
when they are discouraged that they are still homosexual after
several years.

-- 
Darin Johnson
djohnson@ucsd.edu
    "Particle Man, Particle Man, doing the things a particle can"

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21579
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Subject: Hyslop and _The_Two_Babylons_

Seeing as how _The_Two_Babylons_ has been brought up again, it is time for
me to respond , once again, and say that this book is junk.  It is nothing
more that an anti-Catholic tract of the sort published ever since the there
were protestants.  Its scholarship is phony and its assertions spurious.
-- 
C. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
                  +    but strife closed in the sod.
mangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
tove!mangoe       +    the marv'lous peace of God."

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21580
From: muirm@argon.gas.organpipe.uug.arizona.edu (maxwell c muir)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

In article <May.11.02.38.47.1993.28306@athos.rutgers.edu> Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu (Fil Sapienza) writes:
>In article <May.7.01.09.44.1993.14556@athos.rutgers.edu> maxwell c muir,
>muirm@argon.gas.organpipe.uug.arizona.edu writes:
>>of Faith (if you want to know, I feel that faith is intellectually
>>dishonest). 
>
>I'd appreciate some support for this statement.  I'm not sure
>it really makes sense to me.

I define faith as "belief, in the abscense(sp?) of evidence". I also
include in "evidence" past experiences. Because I have no past experience
in a god actually having an effect on my life and because I have never
seen evidence for any god beyond what can be explained without the
neccessity of a god or which is more convincing than the many fictional
works I have read (And other reasons), I do not believe in any god(s).
From what I have seen, some people reconcile this lack of evidence by
using faith.
It is faith in that sense (the only way I _currently_ understand the word
"faith") that I find intellectually dishonest.

>>The ambiguity of religious beliefs, an unwillingness to take
>>Pascal's Wager, 
>
>I've heard this frequently - what exactly is Pascal's wager?

Pascal's wager goes something like this:
Premise #1: Either there is or there isn't a God.
Premise #2: If God exists, He wants us to believe and will damn us for not
believing.
Premise #3: If God does not exist, then belief in God doesn't matter
because death is death, anyway.
Conclusion: Belief in God is superior to non-belief because
non-belief damns us to eternal punishment if we are wrong, while belief in
God only wastes a little time in life if we are wrong.

Sound pretty straightforward and is logically sound. The problem is,
Premise #1 presupposes 1:1 odds between belief and non-belief. This is
flat out wrong, because of the sheer number of religions out there and the
fact that, for the most part, the religions are mutually exclusive. I have
heard theists referred to as "99% atheists" because they believe in their
god (or gods) to be the _one_ god (or set of gods). The consequence of
this is "what if I pick the wrong god?" Suddenly, the odds don't look so
good because picking the wrong god or wrong doctrines of a god still
leaves you with the possibility of being wrong and being damned to another
god's version of hell.

>>	Do I sound "broken" to you?
>
>I don't know.  You point out that your mother's treatment upset you,
>and see inconsistencies in various religions.  I'm not sure if that
>constitutes broken-ness or not.   It certainly consititutes 
>disillusionment.

I don't see how "disillusionment" enters into it. You see, I presented my
mother's treatment of me to show the cause of my questioning my atheism, a
questioning which continues to this day. I had already been an atheist for
five years before having any contact with my mother's version of
Christianity. If anything, I had become somewhat disillusioned with
atheism (uh, oh, I thought, What if there *is* a God?). Yes, in a way, I
have also become disillusioned by many religions, simply because I had
thought at one time that they had all the answers, if I only found the
right one.
I'm still looking, but each time I look in a different place, I become a
little stronger in my attitude (belief, if you will, no faith, though,
it's based on the evidence of past experience) that I'll never find a
religion which has all the answers.
Sorta like looking for Easter eggs. The more time it takes you to find the
next one, the more convinced you become that you may already have found
all the eggs you're going to find.
Someone else mentioned that critisism isn't going to make me think any
more highly of Christians. I have a contrary position: Constructive
critisism will likely improve my attitude towards Christians. Abusive
critisism will turn me off.
No accusations to you, Mr. Sapienza. I merely slipped that into this post
because I forgot to reply to that one.

>Filipp Sapienza
>Department of Technology Services
>University of Michigan Hospitals - Surgery
>Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu

Muppets and Garlic Toast forever.

Max (Bob) Muir

PS I'm leaving for home on Thursday at 1:30, so this is likely my last
post here for the summer! In the meantime, thank you all for helping me
see a few more things I might have missed in my meanderings through the world!

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21581
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

In article <May.11.02.36.32.1993.28071@athos.rutgers.edu> mayne@nu.cs.fsu.edu writes:
>In article <May.9.05.40.51.1993.27526@athos.rutgers.edu> noye@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
[my stuff about dealing with defferences deleted]

>This is not at all comparable. Christianity is the main stream in
>western culture. You are trivializing the experiences of others.

i am sorry; i did not mean to.  i think i understand how your
experiences were much worse than the small bit of ridicule i have had
to put up with.  i guess i didn't really understand before; now i do.

>I remember what it was like being "different" as a Christian. We
>were told all the time that we were different, and in fact that
>only members of the our church were really Christians (though others
>who believed in God weren't as bad as atheists), so we were a small
>minority. That was nothing compared to being an atheist.

wow, pretty conservative church.  (please excuse me if this seems like
a ridiculous understatement to you.)

>The only thing comparable would be a young child being Christian
>being surrounded by staunch atheists, including parents, who
>actively persecute any religious tendancies - both actual punishments
>and, even worse, emotional blackmail. They would also have
>to have the whole mainstream society on their side. Maybe these
>conditions could have occured in the old Soviet Union* not in a
>country with "under God" in its pledge of allegiance.

(on a side note, that "under God" wasn't in there until recently -- i
believe my father, who is in his sixties, remembers saying the pledge
of allegiance without that in there.  i don't know the history behind
that though.)

emotional blackmail -- ouch.  thank goodness (i'll be neutral in my
thanks here :) ) i was raised in a completely tolerant household, so
that i could make my own decisions!

>* I doubt it even then, because children have to be taught to be
>Christians and hence must have support somewhere.

so atheism doesn't have to be taught, but christianity does.  i guess
i can see that, although i can see a child believing in some sort of
god without anything other than his/ her own imagination as a basis.
(sorry, i guess this is sort of minor)

[my query about parallel between lack of choice for homosexuals and
lack of choice for him as an atheist deleted]
>Yes. My atheism was "born of necessity." For an intellectually honest
>person belief is mostly a response to evidence. 

hmm, i wonder why i am a christian then?  this isn't a flame, this is
a real wonder.  does anyone else have opinions to offer on why you
believe in something that hasn't necessarily been "proven" to you?

>Will or wishes have
>nothing to do with it. I could choose to lie, or to be silent about
>my true beliefs. I could no more choose to believe in the God of
>Christianity than I could decide that the ordinary sky looks red to
>me. 

sounds like you are an atheist by nature, then.  or is it possible
that at least part of it is due to the apparently repressive nature of
the christianity of your childhood?  if this is getting too personal
perhaps you should ignore it, or we can take it to email.

>Still I should be clear that I'm not equating what I went through
>with what gays go through. However it is a mistake to assume that
>everyone who goes through painful experiences are broken by them.
>Happily some are made stronger, once we get past it.

this may have been a general remark; you do not sound broken to me,
but indeed stronger.

>>> I must say that I
>>>wasn't hurt by my experiences in church any more than some of my friends
>>>who didn't become atheists. I was just hurt differently.
>>
>>i'm not sure i understand this sentence -- could you explain?
>
>Not without going to details and violating the confidences of some of my
>childhood friends. Suffice it say to that religion does not guarantee
>that a person will be happy and strong emotionally, and a repressive
>upbringing can leave its scars even, or especially, on those who don't
>get free of it. I doubt that any sane and sincere person doubts that and
>I feel no need to defend it.

yes, i agree with that.  i've seen some of the damage repressive
religion can do, and as a result i intend to raise my own children as
much as i can to look around before accepting one religious stand
(atheism is included in this) and to _question everything_ -- this is
very important.

>By the way I am much happier and stronger being out of the closet. In
>the end it has been, as someone eloquently put it in private email, an
>experience of liberation rather than disillusion.

i can see that.

>Bill Mayne

cheers,
vera
______
je cherche une ame, qui			of course i don't agree with  
pourra m'aider				mylene farmer's religious views;
je suis					i just think they're interesting.
d'une generation desenchantee		(vera noyes)
    - mylene farmer			noye@midway.uchicago.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21582
From: swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com (Stan Friesen)
Subject: Re: Re:Major Views of the Trinity

In article <May.9.05.41.12.1993.27549@athos.rutgers.edu>, Bocher writes:
|> 
|> It seems that during the Middle Ages, it was customary for pastors to 
|> explain the Trinity to their parishoners by analogy to water.
|> Water is water, but can exist in three forms--liquid, ice and vapor.
|> Thus it is possible for one essence to exist in three forms.

This sounds to me like a sort of generic modalism (in the the three phases
of water are but different modes of behavior of the same physical stuff).
It certainly does not seem to me to describe the orthodox position.

[Of course, I suppose that the medieval view of water may have been
different, but now we know that the phases of water are just different
*behaviors* of the same physical stuff - different modes, not different
identities - but perhaps the medieval people did not know that].

|> And recently, the pastor of my church drew an analogy, which I
|> also found useful--A woman is often percieved by others in three
|> ways, depending on their relationship to her--a mother, a wife and
|> an employee in a business.

This is clearly Modalistic Monarchianism, since these three aspects depend
solely on point of view, and are do not really represent actual variety
within the person.

Do you now begin to see why 

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21583
From: djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

Ok, what's more important to gay Christians?  Sex, or Christianity?
Christianity I would hope.  Would they be willing to forgo sex
completely, in order to avoid being a stumbling block to others,
to avoid the chance that their interpretation might be wrong,
etc?  If not, why not?  Heterosexuals abstain all the time.
(It would be nice if protestant churches had celibate orders
to show the world that sex is not the important thing in life)

To tell the truth, gay churches remind me a lot of Henry the VIII
starting the Church of England in order to get a divorce (or is
this a myth).  Note that I am not denying that gay Christians are
Christian.
-- 
Darin Johnson
djohnson@ucsd.edu  --  Toy cows in Africa

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21584
From: pauley@tai.jkj.sii.co.jp (Martin Pauley)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary

In article <May.6.00.35.45.1993.15465@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
marka@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley) wrote:
>
>countries. That event is "approved" by the Pope. Currently,
>images of Mary in Japan, Korea, Yugoslavia, Philippines, Africa
>are showing tears (natural or blood).
...
>If you have the resources, go to one of the countries I mentioned.

In article <May.9.05.40.20.1993.27478@athos.rutgers.edu>,
mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker) wrote:
>
>1.  As far as current investigations, the Church recently declared the
>    crying statue and corresponding messages from Mary at Akita,
>    Japan as approved (I found this out about a month ago.)

I'm in Japan.
(Michael, could you give me more info about where Akita is: nearest city
would be good)

If I find it, I'll get pictures and post a digitised version if enough
people are interested.

--------------------------------
..Marty.!
Lost in Space! (or is it Japan?)
<pauley@tai.jkj.sii.co.jp>

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21585
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: homosexual issues in Christianity

In article <May.11.02.36.34.1993.28074@athos.rutgers.edu> mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (someone named Mark) writes:

>mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:
 
>>Homosexual Christians have indeed "checked out" these verses.  Some of
>>them are used against us only through incredibly perverse interpretations.
>>Others simply do not address the issues.

>I can see that some of the above verses do not clearly address the issues, 

There are exactly ZERO verses that "clearly" address the issues.

>however, a couple of them seem as though they do not require "incredibly 
>perverse interpretations" in order to be seen as condemning homosexuality.

The kind of interpretation I see as "incredibly perverse" is that applied
to the story of Sodom as if it were a blanket equation of homosexual
behavior and rape.  Since Christians citing the Bible in such a context
should be presumed to have at least READ the story, it amounts to slander
-- a charge that homosexuality == rape -- to use that against us.

>"... Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, 
>nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, 
>nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom  of God.  And such were 
>some of you..."  I Cor. 6:9-11.

The moderator adequately discusses the circularity of your use of _porneia_
in this.  I think we can all agree (with Paul) that there are SOME kinds of
activity that could be named by "fornication" or "theft" or "coveting" or
"reviling" or "drunkenness" which would well deserve condemnation.  We may
or may not agree to the bounds of those categories, however; and the very
fact that they are argued over suggests that not only is the matter not at
all "clear" but that Paul -- an excellent rhetorician -- had no interest
in MAKING them clear, leaving matters rather to our Spirit-led decisions,
with all the uncomfortable living-with-other-readings that has dominated
Christian discussion of ALL these areas.

Homosexual behavior is no different.  I (and the other gay Christians I
know) are adamant in condemning rape -- heterosexual or homosexual -- and
child molestation -- heterosexual or homosexual -- and even the possibly
"harmless" but obsessive kinds of sex -- heterosexual or homosexual --
that would stand condemned by Paul in the very continuation of the chapter
you cite [may I mildly suggest that what *Paul* does in his letter that
you want to use is perhaps a good guide to his meaning?]

	"'I am free to do anything,' you say.  Yes, but not everything
	is for my good.  No doubt I am free to do anything, but I for one
	will not let anything make free with me."  [1 Cor. 6:12]

Which is a restatement that we must have no other "god" before God.  A
commandment neither I nor any other gay Christian wishes to break.  Some
people are indeed involved in obsessively driven modes of sexual behavior.
It is just as wrong (though slightly less incendiary, so it's a secondary
argument from the 'phobic contingent) to equate homosexuality with such
behavior as to equate it with the rape of God's messengers.

I won't deal with the exegesis of Leviticus, except very tangentially.
Fundamentally, you are exhibiting the same circularity here as in your
assumption that you know what _porneia_ means.  There are plenty of
laws prohibiting sexual behavior to be found in Leviticus, most of
which Christians ignore completely.  They never even BOTHER to examine
them.  They just *assume* that they know which ones are "moral" and
which ones are "ritual."  Well, I have news for you.  Any anthropology
course should sensitize you to ritual and clean vs. unlcean as categories
in an awful lot of societies (we have them too, but buried pretty deep).
And I cannot see any ground for distinguishing these bits of Leviticus
from the "ritual law" which NO Christian I know feels applies to us.

I'm dead serious here.  When people start going on (as they do in this
matter) about how "repulsive" and "unnatural" our acts are -- and what
do they know about it, huh? -- it is a solid clue to the same sort of
arbitrary cultural inculcations as the American prejudice against eating
insects.  On what basis, other than assuming your conclusion, can you
say that the law against male-male intercourse in Leviticus is NOT a part
of the ritual law?

For those Christians who *do* think that *some* parts of Leviticus can
be "law" for Christians (while others are not even to be thought about)
it is incumbent on you *in every case, handled on its own merits* to
determine why you "pick" one and ignore another.  I frankly think the
whole effort misguided.  Reread Paul: "No doubt I am free to do anything."
But Christians have a criterion to use for making our judgments on this,
the Great Commandment of love for God and neighbor.  If you cannot go
through Leviticus and decide each "command" there on that basis, then
your own arbitrary selection from it is simply idiosyncracy.  In this
context, it is remarkably offensive to say:

>I notice that the verse forbidding bestiality immediately follows the
>verse prohibiting what appears to be homosexual intercourse.

Well, la-ti-da.  So what?  This is almost as slimey an argument as the
one that homosexuality == rape.  I know of no one who argues seriously
(though one can always find jokers) in "defense" of bestiality.  It is
absolutely irrelevant and incomparable to the issues gay Christians *do*
raise (which concern sexual activity within committed, consensual human
adult realtionships), so that your bringing it up is no more relevant
than the laws of kashrut.  If you cannot address the actual issues, you
are being bloody dishonest in trailing this red herring in front of the
world.  If *you* want to address bestiality, that is YOUR business, not
mine.  And attempting to torpedo a serious issue by using what is in
our culture a ridiculous joke shows that you have no interest in hearing
us as human beings.  You want to dismiss us, and use the sleaziest means
you can think of to do so.

Jesus and Paul both expound, very explictly and in considerable length,
the central linch-pin of Christian moral thought: we are required to
love one another, and ALL else depends on that.  Gay and lesbian Christ-
ians challenge you to address the issue on those terms -- and all we get
in return are cheap debate tricks attempting to side-track the issues.

Christians, no doubt very sincere ones, keep showing up here and in every
corner of USENET and the world, and ALL they ever do is spout these same
old verses (which they obviously have never thought about, maybe never
even read), in TOTAL ignorance of the issues raised, slandering us with
the vilest charges of child abuse or whatever their perfervid minds can
manage to conjure up, tossing out red herrings with (they suppose) great
emotional force to cause readers to dismiss our witness without even
taking the trouble to find out what it is.

Such behavior should shame anyone who claims to have seen Truth in Christ.
WHY, for God's precious sake, do you people quote irrelevant verses to
condemn people you don't know and won't even take the trouble to LISTEN
to BEFORE you start your condemnations?  Is that loving your neighbor?
God forbid!  Is THAT how you obey the repeated commands to NOT judge or
condemn others?  Christ and Paul spend ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more time in
insisting on this than the half-dozen obscure words in Paul that you are
SO bloody ready to take as license to do what God tells you NOT to do.

Why, for God's sake?

	"For God did not send the Son into the world
	to condemn the world,
	but that the world might be saved through him.
	Whoever believes in him is not condemned,
	but whoever does not believe has already been condemned
	for refusing to believe in the name of God's only Son.
	Now the judgment is this:
	the light has come into the world,
	but men have preferred darkness to light
	because their deeds were evil.
	For everyone who practices wickedness
	hates the light,
	and does not come near the light
	for fear his deeds will be exposed.
	But he who acts in truth
	comes into the light,
	so that it may be sh0own
	that his deeds are done in God."	John 3:17-21

For long ages, we (many of us) have been confused by evil counsel from
evil men and told that if we came to the light we would be shamed and
rejected.  Some of us despaired and took to courses that probably *do*
show a sinful shunning of God's light.  Blessed are those whose spirits
have been crushed by the self-righteous; they shall be justified.

However, we have seen the Truth, and the Truth is the light of humanity;
and we now know that it is not WE who fear the light, but our enemies who
fear the light of our witness and will do everything they can to shadow
it with the darkness of false witness against us.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		I say "You are gods, sons of the
mls@panix.com			Most High, all of you; nevertheless
    - or -			you shall die like men, and fall
mls@ulysses.att..com		like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21586
From: kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Does Anyone Remember . . .

Some years ago -- possibly as many as five -- there was a discussion on
numerology.  (That's where you assign numeric values to letters and then add
up the letters in words, in an effort to prove something or another.  I can
never make any sense of how it's supposed to work or what it's supposed to
prove.)

Somebody posted a long article about numerology in the Bible, saying
things like "this proves the intricate planning of the Scriptures, else
these patterns would not appear".

Then there was a brilliant followup, which was about numerology in all the
other numerology posts.  Stuff like "The word `numerology' adds up to 28,
and the word appears 28 times in the posting!  Such elegant planning!
Further, the word `truth' ALSO adds up to 28; the writer is using these
numerological clues to show us that we reach truth via numerology!"
(These examples are made up by me just as examples.)

I really liked that reply, because it did such an excellent job of showing
that these patterns can be found in just about anything.  However, I did
not save a copy of it.  I do not remember the author.  I'm only 90% sure
that it was posted to this newsgroup.

BUT, on the off chance that somebody remembers it and saved it, or that the
author is reading here, I wanted to know if anyone could send me a copy.  (I
think it should be made into an FAQ, if we can find it.)


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu
"I use not only all the brains I have, but all those I can borrow as well."
                                                          -- Woodrow Wilson

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21587
From: bruce@liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

>>>>> On 11 May 93 06:38:48 GMT, Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu (Fil Sapienza) said:

> In article <May.7.01.09.44.1993.14556@athos.rutgers.edu> maxwell c muir,
> muirm@argon.gas.organpipe.uug.arizona.edu writes:

>>The ambiguity of religious beliefs, an unwillingness to take
>>Pascal's Wager, 

> I've heard this frequently - what exactly is Pascal's wager?

Either A: God exists, or B: He doesn't.  We have two choices, either
1: Believe in God, or 2: Don't believe in God.  If A is true, then 2
brings eternal damnation, whereas 1 brings eternal life.  If B is
true, then 1 has minor inconvenience compared with 2.  Thus, it is
rational to believe in God.

This has numerous flaws, covered in the FAQ for alt.atheism, amongst
other places.

>>	Do I sound "broken" to you?

> I don't know.  You point out that your mother's treatment upset you,
> and see inconsistencies in various religions.  I'm not sure if that
> constitutes broken-ness or not.   It certainly consititutes 
> disillusionment.

Disillusionment strikes me as an excellent reason for stopping
believing in something.
--
Bruce              CMSR, University of Liverpool
Religion is myth-information

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21588
From: carlson@ab24.larc.nasa.gov (Ann Carlson)
Subject: Re: FAQ essay on homosexuality

I have some articles available on the Church and gay people, from
a pro-gay viewpoint, which might interest some of the people 
participating in this thread.  Please email me if you would like
to have me send them to you (warning, about 70k worth of material.
Make sure you have mailbox and/or disk space available.)

There are no short answers to the questions we've been seeing here
("how do you explain these verses?", "How do you justify your actions?")
If you've been asking and you really want an idea of the other people's
thinking, I encourage you to do some serious reading.  
-- 



*************************************************      
*Dr. Ann B. Carlson (a.b.carlson@larc.nasa.gov) *       O .
*MS 366                                         *         o  _///_ //
*NASA Langley Research Center                   *          <`)=  _<<
*Hampton, VA 23681-0001                         *             \\\  \\
*************************************************

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21589
From: alisonjw@spider.co.uk (Alison J Wyld)
Subject: Re: Translations

In article <May.10.05.07.52.1993.3559@athos.rutgers.edu> mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:
>
>I have a strong preference for editions that do _not_ indent the beginning
>of each verse as if verses were paragraphs.  The verse numbering is a
>relatively modern addition and should not be given undue prominence.
>

Does anyone know of an English language edition that does not show the
verse (or even chapter) numbers.  I have always thought that such an
edition would be very useful - although hard to navigate around.

I have a Scots NT that doesn't show verse numbers, and it is great to
read, particularly longer narrative passages, but my Scots isn't quite
up to doing proper study from this edition - I tend to use it to get a
"feel" for a story, particularly in the gospels, and then use an
English edition to look for details.

Alison

[The original NEB put verse numbers only in the margin.  The
Jerusalem Bible does the same, though they put a dot to mark the
boundaries between verses.   --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21590
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <May.11.02.36.59.1993.28108@athos.rutgers.edu> dps@nasa.kodak.com writes:
>In article 15441@geneva.rutgers.edu, loisc@microsoft.com (Lois Christiansen) writes:

>|>he can, especially homosexuality.  Let's reach the homosexuals for Christ. 
>|>Let's not try to change them, just need to bring them to Christ.  If He
>|>doesn't want them to be gay, He can change that.  [....]

>don't hate the people.  I don't.  I don't hate my kids when they do
>wrong either.  But I tell them what is right, and if they lie or don't
>admit they are wrong, or just don't make an effort to improve or
>repent, they get punished.  I think this is quite appropriate.  

Note the difference here. One is saying, if *Christ* disagrees with 
a Christian being gay, *Christ* can change that.

The other is saying, if *I* think being gay is wrong, that a Christian
cannot be gay, *I* need to tell them to change.


As Lois said, and as before her Paul wrote to the believers in Rome,
WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE ANOTHER'S SERVANT?

-jen

-- 

#include <stdisclaimer>  //  jenk@microsoft.com  // msdos testing

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21591
From: alisonjw@spider.co.uk (Alison J Wyld)
Subject: Re: Dreams and out of body incidents

In article <May.11.02.37.40.1993.28185@athos.rutgers.edu> dt4%cs@hub.ucsb.edu (David E. Goggin) writes:
>I'd like to get your comments on a question that has been on my mind a
>lot:  What morals/ethics apply to dreams and out-of-body incidents?
>In normal dreams, you can't control anything, so obviously
>you aren't morally responsible for your actions.  But if you can contrive
>to control the action in dreams or do an OOBE, it seems like a morality applies.
>

Well I am one of those (apparently) odd people who can sometimes
control their dreams.  For example, I might decide before going to
sleep that I want to repeat a favourite dream, or dream about a
specific place.  Or if I am having an unpleasant dream, I can often
(not always) redirect events to something more pleasant.

I guess I think that the same standards apply in these "directed"
dreams as apply in waking fantasies or real life (ref Jesus teaching
about looking at a woman lustfully being the same a committing
adultary).

When my normal dreams display themes that I would not conciously chose
to dream about, I take that as a sign that all is not well with my
"inner life" - maybe I have underlying tenstions/fears that need to be
resolved, or maybe its straightforward sin.  In either case, the cause
needs to be resolved.  

In fact, either case is pretty rare.  I don't
often remember dreams that I don't chose to have.  When I do, they
almost always tell me something important.
I also almost never dream in pictures, and especially not in colour
(in fact I've had precisely one full colour picture dream that I can
remember, and it was definately spiritually important)
I tend to dream in sound, with the odd blurred image, in black and
white.

Interesting topic - I'll be fascinated to read other responses.

Alison

PS. Just to make it clear, I don't do ( and have never tried ) OOBEs.
    I tend to think they are off limits for Christians.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21592
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: ARSENOKOITAI: NT Meaning of

This week, many of you have asked about my earlier postings on OT, NT and
Intertestiment exegesis on the homosexual issue.  I have refered you to the FAQ
files, which I find out, no longer contains them.  They are too long for me to
mail to each of you, each article, but will try to get them back on the FAQ
file.  

Because of the renewed interest on this subject, I will type, with permission,
an article by James DeYoung.  I think it is one of the best articles that I've
read todate from the conservative position.  I can't post it all at once, so it
will come piece meal and not daily.  After I'm done retyping the entire
article, I will make it available for the FAQ file.  Talk to clh.

Also, for those who can't get through to me, you may try one of these:
REXLEX@FNAL.FNAL.GOV 
LEXREX@ALMOND.FNAL.GOV
Loren Senders@ADMAIL.FNAL.GOV

                              THE SOURCE AND NT MEANING
                         OF ARSENOKOITAI, WITH IMPLICATIONS
                         FOR CHRISTIAN ETHICS AND MINISTRY


                                      James B. DeYoung
                               Professor of New Testament
                         Western Conservative Baptist Seminary
                                      Portland, Oregon

     Traditional interpretation of arsenokoitai ("homosexuals") in 1 Cor 6:9
and 1 Tim 1:10 refers to sexual vice between people of the same sex,
specifically homosexualitiy.  Some restrict the term's meaning to "active male
prostititute," but stronger evidence supports a more general translation,
namely "homosexuals."  More recently the definition "homosexual" has been
opposed on clutural and linguistic grounds, the claim being that the term
"homosexuals" is anachronistic.  In addition, criticism of the traditional
rendering says the term today includes celibate homophiles, excludes
heterosexuals who engage in homosexual acts, and includes female homosexuals. 
A concern for acts instead of the modern attention to desires was the only
factor in the ancient world.  The foregoing oppositition to the translation of
arsenokoitai by "homosexuals" has a number of debilitating weaknesses. 
Finally, this study argues that Paul coined the term arsenokoitai, deriving it
from the LXX of Lev 20:12 (cf. 18:22) and using it for homosexual orientation
and behavior, the latter of which should be an occasion for church discipline
(I Cor 5-6) and legislation in society (1 Tim 1:8-11).

                      *************************************

                                   INTRODUCTION

     Coincident with the rise of the gay rights movement in recent years has
been an increasing focus on the biblical statements regarding homosexuality or
sodomy.    As part of this focus, the meaning of the term arsenokoitai, used
twice by the apostle Paul (1 Cor 6:9,  I Tim 1:10), has received vigorous
scrutiny.    This issue is particularly crucial to contemporary society since
so much of modern ethics is shaped by biblical statements.  More particularly, 
the concern over gay rights and the place of gays or homosexuals in the church
and in society require the resolution of biblical interpretation.

     This study of historical, linguistic, and literary matters will survey and
evalutate recent proposals for the meaning of arsenokoitai and present evidence
to point to a resolution.  Several writers and their positions represent the
modern debate on this word.  Three authors, Bailey, Boswell, and Scroggs, have
provoked considerable discussion and significantly encouraged the wider
acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle in society, in the church, and in the
ministry. 


Footnotes:
_______________________
 1.  For convenience sake, the term "homosexual" is used to encompass both
same-sex orientation and same-sex behavior.  The meaning of this term is one of
the main considerations of this study.
 2. These times are differnt from just over a century ago.  Then P Fairbairn
(Pastoral Epistles [Edinburg, 1874)  891) could write of arsenokoitai thit it
is a "term for which fortunately our language has no proper equivalent." 
Unknowingly he thereby touched upon the basis for the contemporary debate and
study.  THe present writer endorses the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral
Epistles on the basis of internal and external evidence (see Donald Guthrie,
New Testament Introduction, [4th ed;  1990] 621-649, for an extensive
discussion and citation of supporters of the Pauline authorship).
 3. For example, see Scroggs' influence on M. Olson, "Untangling the Web," The
Other Side (April 1984): 24-29.  For a study suggesting a further prohibition
of homosexuality in the OT, see A. Phillips, "Unconvering the Father's Skirt,"
VT 30/1 (Jan, 1980) 38-43.  For a bibliography of other sources dealing with
arsenokoitai, see the Wisondisc Religion Indexes (NY: H. Wison Co., 1987).

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21593
From: David.Bernard@central.sun.com (Dave Bernard)
Subject: Re: SJ Mercury's reference to Fundamentalist Christian parents

In article 28120@athos.rutgers.edu, dan@ingres.com (a Rose arose) writes:

>	"Raised in Oakland and San Lorenzo by strict fundamentalist
>	Christian parents, Mason was beaten as a child.  He once was
>
>Were the San Jose Mercury news to come out with an article starting with
>"Raised in Oakland by Mexican parents, Mason was beaten...", my face would
>be red with anger over the injustice done to my Mexican family members and


Although I'm neither Fundamentalist nor Evangelical, I have often noticed
this trend in the media.  In short, it is permissable to bash Fundamentalists.
No need to substitue a nationality such as "Mexican..." try simply to 
substitute a different religion "...raised by Muslim parents," or "...raised
by Jewish parents..."  The paper simply would not do this.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21594
From: pages!bwebster@uunet.uu.net (Bruce F. Webster)
Subject: Re: Mormon temples

In article <May.11.02.38.41.1993.28297@athos.rutgers.edu>  
mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server) writes:
> I don't necessarily object to the secrecy but I do question it, since I see  
no 
> Biblical reason why any aspect of Christian worship should involve secrecy.  
> But I am interested in your claim that early Christian practices "parallel" 
> Mormon temple ceremonies.  Could you give an example?  Also, why do they only 
> parallel Mormon ceremonies?  Why don't Mormon ceremonies restore the original 
> Christian practices?  Wasn't that the whole point of Joseph Smith's stated 
> mission?
> 

I'd recommend reading _Mormonism and Early Christianity_ by Hugh Nibley,  
particularly the articles on Christ's forty-day (post-resurrection) mission,  
baptism for the dead, early Christian prayer circles, and temples (2 articles).  
..bruce..

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce F. Webster             | A religion that does not require the sacrifice
CTO, Pages Software Inc      | of all things never has power sufficient to
bwebster@pages.com           | produce the faith necessary unto life and
#import <pages/disclaimer.h> | salvation.  -- Joseph Smith
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21595
From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal F Lillywhite)
Subject: Re: Mormon temples

In article <May.11.02.38.41.1993.28297@athos.rutgers.edu> mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server) writes:

>But I am interested in your claim that early Christian practices "parallel" 
>Mormon temple ceremonies.  Could you give an example?  Also, why do they only 
>parallel Mormon ceremonies?  Why don't Mormon ceremonies restore the original 
>Christian practices?  Wasn't that the whole point of Joseph Smith's stated 
>mission?

If you want parallels the best source is probably the book _Temple
and Cosmos_ by Hugh Nibley.  It is not light reading however.

As to why these early practices "only parallel" and do not exactly
duplicate the modern LDS ceremony, there are a couple of reasons:

1.  Quite likely we do not have the exact original from ancient
times.  This stuff was not commonly known but bits and pieces
undoubtedly spread.  (Much as bits and pieces of the modern ceremony
get known.)  What we have in the 40 day literature, the Egyptian
ceremonies, and certain Native American ceremonies is almost
certainly not exactly what Jesus taught.

2.  Certain aspects of the ceremony are normally modified to fit the
situation, much as the modern ceremony has been modified to fit the
audio-visual tools now available.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21596
From: cctr114@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Rea)
Subject: Re: Portland earthquake

Paul Hudson Jr (hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu) wrote:
> In article <May.7.01.09.33.1993.14542@athos.rutgers.edu> cctr114@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Rea) writes:

>>in history seems to imply some pretty serious sin. The one of the 
>>pastors in the church I attend, Christchurch City Elim, considers 
>>that a prophesy of a natural disaster as a "judgement from the Lord" 
>>is a clear sign that the "prophesy" is not from the Lord. 
>
>I would like to see his reasoning behind this.  You may have gotten 

If I get a chance I will ask them this weekend.

>"burned" by natural disaster prophecies down there, but that
>does not mean that every natural disaster/judgement prophecy is
>false.  Take a quick look at the book of Jeremiah and it is obvious
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>that judgement prophecies can be valid.  here in the US, it seems like
>we might have more of a problem with positive prophecies, though I
>am sure there may be a few people who are too into judgement.

The words I have underlined are at the heart of the problem. A "quick
look" doesn't do justice to the depth of the book of Jeremiah. Having
studied the Jeremiah/Ezekial period solidly for over a year at one
stage of my life, I have to say that there is a great deal of underlying
theological meaning in the judgement prophesies. Let me make one point.
The clash between Jeremiah and the "false prophets" was primarily in
the theological realm. The "false prophets" understood their relatioship
to God to be based on the covenant that the Lord made with David. It is
possible to trace within the pages of the Old Testament who this covenant,
which was initially conditional on the continued obedience of David's
descendants, came to be viewed as an unconditional promise on the part
of the Lord to keep a descendant of David's upon the throne and to never
allow Jerusalem to subjegated by any foreign power. Jeremiah was not a
Judahite prophet. He was from Anathoth, across the border in what had formerly
been Israelite territory. When he came to prophesy, he came from the
theological background of the covenant the Lord had made with Israel
through Moses. The northern Kingdom had rejected the Davidic covenant
after the death of Solomon. His theology clashed with the theology of the
local prophets. It was out of a very deep understanding of the Mosaic
covenant and an actute awareness of international events that Jeremiah
spoke his prophesies. The "judgement prophesies" were deeply loaded with
theological meaning.

In my opinion, both the Portland earthquake prophesy and the David Wilkerson
"New York will burn" prophesy are froth and bubble compared to the majestic
theological depths of the Jeremiah prophesies.

--
                                                                     ___
Bill Rea                                                            (o o)
-------------------------------------------------------------------w--U--w---
| Bill Rea, Computer Services Centre, | E-Mail   b.rea@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| University of Canterbury,           | or     cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| Christchurch, New Zealand           | Phone (03)-642-331 Fax (03)-642-999 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21597
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: FAQ essay on homosexuality

In article <May.11.05.06.28.1993.5458@geneva.rutgers.edu> hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu writes:

>this came from.  Here's his response: Kinsey (see below) is the source
>of the figure 10 percent.

There was an article in USA today a few months ago showing the results
of a study that actually only about 1% were homosexual.  I saw another
figure that listed 2% as the figure.  Of course, even if it were 99%
that would have little bearing on whether or not it is a sinful behavior.
How many people have commited other acts of fornication?  How many
people have lied or sinned in other ways?

>But in all fairness, the "shameless" nature of their acts is a
>reflection of the general spiritual state of the people, and not a
>specific feature of homosexuality.

Why isn't it a specific feature of homosexuality?  Paul describes
"men with men working that which is unseemly" to describe the acts.  
Sure, there spirtual nature was depraved also, and like the other
sins, the idolatry, the other sexual immoraity, and the other sins
sprang from their depraved spiritual state which was a result of 
man's not glorifying God as God and being thankful.  Still, their
acts were shameless.

>homosexuality or even considered it acceptable in some cases.  On the
>other hand, none of these passages contains explicit teachings on the
>subject.  Rom 1 is really about idolatry.  It refers to homosexuality
>in passing.

Is everything sinful specifically elaborated on in the New Testament?
Scripture does not condemn being a drug dealer.  Being ruled by the
Spirit rather than the letter not only frees from legalism, it also
protects us from sins that are against the Spirit.  The word is a
two edged sword that cuts both ways.  

I think we must be careful before we totally throw out Leviticus.  
If the Law is reflection of God's character and true holy nature, then
those who say that God endorses homosexuality run into a problem.  
If homosexuality were "natural" (whatever that means) wholesome, 
endorsed by God, and those who oppose sexual behavior are narrow-minded
biggots, as some would have us believe, why is there a condemnation of
it in Leviticus.  This condemnation is in the midst of all the other
sex sin condemnations, and there is nothing in the text to say that this
law was limited to temple prostitution, and no good reason to believe that
this was the case.  Furthermore, male homosexual sex was a death-penalty
crime!  

Is every sin elaborated on in the New Testament?  Take a look at
I Corinthians 5.  Paul said that one of the Corinthians had broken a
law not even heard of among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's
wife.  There is a prohibition against having your father's wife in 
Leviticus.  No other new Testament verse clearly condemns it (besides
this one.)  Notice that Paul did not say that the sin was in commiting
adultery, etc.- he spoke against having one's father's wife.  

Notice also that this sexual condemnation in Leviticus is not mentioned
in the specific context of paganism either.  And there was no pagan 
coustom mentioned in I corinthians either.  As a matter of fact
taking one's father's wife wasn't even done among the Gentiles.  It was
just a plain blantant sin, whether worshipping idols was involved or
not.

>One commonly made claim is that Paul had simply never faced the kinds
>of questions we are trying to deal with.  He encountered homosexuality
>only in contexts where most people would probably agree that it was
>wrong.  He had never faced the experience of Christians who try to act
>"straight" and fail, and he had never faced Christians who are trying
>to define a Christian homosexuality, which fits with general Christian
>ideals of fidelity and of seeing sexuality as a mirror of the
>relationship between God and man.  It is unfair to take Paul's
>judgement on homosexuality among idolaters and use it to make
>judgements on these questions.

One of the reasons that some of us do not accept that common argument
is because Paul probably did face this and other problems.  Sin can
be tough to over come, especially without supernatural power.  Is
homosexual sin any more difficult to overcome that heterosexual sin,
like lusting after a married woman, or sleeping around with people of
the opposite sex?  I doubt it, and even if it is, that is no excuse.
God is greater than all of it. 

Another reason we reject it is because it ignores the supernatural
power of God to intervene in this kind of situation.  How many 
people have been set free from sin by the power of God?  Sure there
may be any groups that have tried to change homosexuals and failed.
That is a reflection on the people involved in the program, and not
God's willingness and ability to change a sinner.  Any program that
uses formulas may fail.  What people need is the power of God to
change them, whether they are involved in homosexual sin, or any other
sin.

>I claim that the question of how to counsel homosexual Christians is
>not entirely a theological issue, but also a pastoral one.  Paul's
>tendency, as we can see in issues such as eating meat and celebrating
>holidays, is to be uncompromising on principle but in pastoral issues
>to look very carefully at the good of the people involved, and to
>avoid insisting on perfection when it would be personally damaging.
>For example, while Paul clearly believed that it was acceptable to eat
>meat, he wanted us to avoid pushing people into doing an action about
>which they had personal qualms. 

I don't see how you come to that conclusion.  Paul's dealings with
pastorial issues encouraged people to give up their liberties in order
to spare others- not to allow people to continue in sin because it
was just too difficult.  Take the example of eating meat offered to idols.
Paul felt that there was nothing wrong, in an abstract sense, with
eating the meat.  Yet he advised believers to sacrifice their liberty
to eat meat in order to spare others.  

But Paul never allowed people to sin because living holy was just to
tough.  Paul wrote to "make no provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts
thereof."  (Romans 13:14)  Then he goes in to a discourse on how we
should sacrifice our own liberty in order to spare the consciences of others.

Suppose it were not a sin for people to practice homosexual acts.  
Since others consider it to be a sin, then using Paul's approach
on pastorial issues, those who would otherwise be homosexuals should 
sacrifice their liberty and be celbate or monogamously married to a
member of the opposite sex.  Paul never offers a lesser sin (homosexual
"marriage") to prevent people from engaging in what may be considered 
a more damaging sin.

>For another example, Paul obviously
>would have preferred to see people (at least in some circumstances)
>remain unmarried.  Yet if they were unable to do so, he certainly
>would rather see them married than in a state where they might be
>tempted to fornication.

Yet marriage itself is not a sin.  marriage is holy in all- and something
that God ordains, and Paul recognizes this.

> Note that in the
>creation story work enters human life as a result of sin.  This
>doesn't mean that Christians can stop working when we are saved.

Actually, Adam was put in the garden to tend to it before he fell.
After he fell he would have to toil over the ground.

>The dangers of trying to cure it are that the attempt most often
>fails, and when it does, you end up with damage ranging from
>psychological damage to suicide, as well as broken marriages when
>attempts at living as a heterosexual fail.

That is why we are dependent totally on God- what a vunerable and glorious
position to be it.  We all must be transformed by the renewing of our
minds- and that is the only way homosexuals can walk in freedom, just
like anyone else.

>but I can well imagine Paul
>preferring to see people in long-term, committed Christian
>relationships than promiscuity.  As with work -- which Genesis
>suggests wasn't part of God's original ideal either -- I think such
>relationships can still be a vehicle for people sharing God's love
>with each other.

I'm sure you can see how people with the opposing view see this 
conclusion.  It's like saying, "How should I kill myself, with gun or
aresenic?  What about the person who just is overcome with a desire to
sleep with goats?  Would it be better for him to sleep with one goat,
or all of them?  What about the person who wants to sleep with his aunts?
Would it be better for him to sleep with one aunt or all of them?  

In all these cases, the more people or animals one sleeps with, the higher
the chance that they will get a disease.  But this only deals with 
physical aspects of the question.  Whichever sin is commited, it all 
leads to spiritual death.

>Cent. actions are the same.  When Christian homosexuals say that their
>relationships are different than the Greek homosexuality that Paul
>would have been familiar with, this is exactly the same kind of
>argument that is being made about judicial oaths and tax collectors.

The issue that is most often addressed in Scripture seems to be the
actual act.  Second, isn't it historical snobbery to say that
only homosexuals of this century are capable of having "loving
relationships?"  There are ancient writings glorifying homosexual "love."
(btw, I am one who believes in refraining from making oathes.  Also,
where do you get that tax collectors are sinners.  That's certainly not
explicit.  Jesus didn't tell Zachias to quit his job.)

Link Hudson.


[I'm reluctant to comment in this in detail.  Our basic concepts of
the intention of Jesus and Paul are greatly different.  As I indicated
in the article, whatever the ambiguities of various words (and I still
think they are significant), it does seem clear that Paul considered
the homosexuality he saw around him wrong.  What you do with this fact
depends upon your basic approach to the Bible.  I'm afraid that
communication between legalist and anti-legalist Christians is even
harder than between Protestants and Catholics in the 16th Cent.  Since
you disagree with my starting point, obviously you're going to
disagree with all of the intermediate discussion and conclusions.
Sometimes discussion is still useful.  I've seen some very interesting
work on Paul done by Jews.  Obviously they don't agree with him, but
they sometimes have helpful insight into what he meant.  But I don't
see much sign for hope here.  In talk.religion.misc there's an axiom
that by the time Hitler's name is invoked, all hope for sensible
discussion is gone.  On this subject, when sleeping with goats is
invoked, I don't think there's enough basis for understanding to be
worth pursuing.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21598
From: loisc@microsoft.com (Lois Christiansen)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <May.11.02.36.59.1993.28108@athos.rutgers.edu> dps@nasa.kodak.com wrote:
> In article 15441@geneva.rutgers.edu, loisc@microsoft.com (Lois Christiansen) writes:

> |>You might visit some congregations of Christians, who happen to be homosexuals,
> |>that are spirit-filled believers, not MCC'rs; before you go lumping us all
> |>together with Troy Perry.  

> Gee, I think there are some real criminals (robbers, muderers, drug
> addicts) who appear to be fun loving caring people too.  So what's
> your point?  Is it OK. just because the people are nice?

I didn't say to visit some "nice" homosexuals.  I said "visit some congregations
of Christians..spirit-filled believers.."


Praise the Lord that we are all members of the same body.  Let us agree to
disagree.

God Bless You and See you in Heaven
Loisc

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21599
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Serbian genocide Work of God?

Vera Shanti Noyes writes:

>really?  you may be right, but i'd like proof.  as far as i know (and

"We however, shall be innocent of this sin, and will pray with earnest
entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the
numbers of His elect."
    -St. Clement, Bishop of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, 59.2, (c. 90 AD)

"Ignatius also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia,
which is worthy of all felicitation, blessed as it is with greatness by
the fullness of God the Father, predestined from all eternity for a
glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen in true
suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God..."
    -St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, Letter to the Ephesians, Address,
(c 110 AD)

"We say therefore, that in substance, in concept, in orgin and in
eminece, the ancient and Catholic Church is alone, gathering as it does
into the unity of the one faith which results from the familiar
covenants .... those already chosen, those predestined by God who knew
before the foundation of the world that they would be just."
    -St. Clement, Patriarch and Archbishop of Alexandria, Miscellanies,
7.17.107.3, (c 205 AD)

Of course the doctrine was explained more fully later on by Sts.
Augustine, Aquinas, etc., but the seeds were ther from the beginning.

>this is really confusing to me, especially since i still believe that
>christ jesus died for ALL of us.  preknowledge of obstinacy seems
>like an awfully convoluted way to account for a couple of verses.  but

I think you are reading it wrong.  I say those who are not saved are not
saved on account of their own sins.  It is not because God did not give
them sufficient grace, for He does do so, in His desire that all men
might be saved.  However, as only some are saved - and those who are
saved are saved by the grace of God, "not by works, lest any man should
boast" - the others are damned because of their obstinacy in refusing to
heed the call of God.  They are damned by their own free will and
chosing, a choice forseen by God in His causing them to be not
predestined, but reprobated instead.

>so God uses grace like margarine: he only spreads it where it's needed
>and not where it isn't?  and so there are the saved and the not-saved,
>and nothing in between.  hmmmm.

Certainly God does not distribute grace evenly.  If He did, no one could
have their heart hardened (or rather, harden their heart, thus causing
God to withdraw His grace).  But, you are correct - the world is divided
into those who God knows to be saved, and those God knows to be on the
road to perdition.  THe key is that God knows it and we do not.  Thus,
no one can boast in complete assurance that they are one of the elect
and predestined.  But no one who is a Christian in good standin should
doubt their salvation either (that shows a lack of trust in God).

>be punished after we die.  you're saying what we get after we die has
>a direct bearing on how we live now?  strange....

You must admit it is possible.  Anyway, why would you want something in
the hear and know, when you can recieve 100 fold in heaven?  Better to
lay up your treasure in heaven is what Jesus said.
This is not to condemn the rich, but simply to point out that those who
are rich are frequently very evil or immoral, so God must give them
their blessing know, as they have chosen.  Remeber, Jesus promised
tribulation in this world, and hatred of others because we are
Christians.  He did not promise heaven on earth.  He promised heaven.

>so sin is either punished now or later -- and not both?  what if it's
> sort of half-punished?  are there any grey areas in this doctrine?

Not really.  Unless you do penance here on earth, you will have to do it
in Purgatory, as Paul pointed out (1 Corinthians 3.15).  Those with
poorer works, though still done with good intentions, will only be saved
through fire (the damned will of course go into fire immeadiately, for
whatever good they did was not for God but for self (dead works)).  Of
course, the Church gives indulgences, has Confession, and Annointing of
the Sick to remove sin and the the vestiges of sin, so there is really
little excuse for ending up in Purgatory - it is a last hope for the
somewhat lazy and careless as I said above in referring to Paul.

And no comments were taken as flames.  You are one of the more polite
people I have talked to over the net.

Andy Byler

ps. As for Balkan military adventures, the old saw about that area is
that it produces more history then can be consumed locally: Alexander
the Great, WWI the Ottoman Empire, the Byzantine Empire (by which I
refer to stirfe and foreign adventures of them in general), the Balkans
wars of 1913, the Latin-Greek wars of the 1200's, etc.  Not a good place
to hop into.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21600
From: sun075!Gerry.Palo@uunet.uu.net (Gerry Palo)
Subject: Re: Portland earthquake

Austin C Archer (archau@saturn.wwc.edu) wrote:
>
>I am interested in views about the non-event of May 3. Seriously, how can a 
>Christian discriminate between "messages from God" which are to be taken 
>seriously, and those which are spurious?  Is there a useful heuristic which 
>would help us avoid embracing messages which, by their non-fulfillment are 
>proven to be false, thus causing the name of Christ to be placed in 
>disrepute? Is this a problem at all?

It is possible that the individual saw a true prophetic vision, but that he
interpreted the scale of time and space according to his material con-
sciousness, translating the supersensible perceptions of a plane above
that of time and space into an immediate worldly context -- and getting it
wrong.  Not that he did it rationally, but rather that unconsciously the
perceptions became clothed in material images, instead of remaining in the
realm of the potential and not-yet-time-space-bound.  This difficulty of
translating prophetic vision into a concrete when and where has always been
difficult, even for the prophets of old.  That is why their prophecies are
so often subject to multiple interpretations.  Likewise, the Apostles seemed
to feel that the return of the Lord was to be "very soon" in the sense of
perhaps the same generation. Yet the meaning of "very soon" has proven to
be different than they could grasp.  Prophetic vision tends to telescope
time, so that things that are far off appear to be very close.

Another possibility is that the vision was one of a real event preparing to
happen, again in the realm of the potential-but-not-yet-manifest and which
was thwarted by other forces, including possibly an act of divine mercy.

There are many concrete prophecies being made these days by devout and
sincere and sober Christians (and others too).  It seems that great coming 
events are really casting their shadow before their arrival in these 
"apocalyptic" times.  The various predictions (I'm talking about those that
appear to be sincere and sober) are hard to accept, yet hard to ignore com-
pletely.  One has the feeling "something is about to start to get ready to 
begin to commence to happen".  We are living, as the Chinese saying goes,
in interesting times.

As for how to discriminate, the Bible doesn't help much.  There is an Old
Testament passage (I forget where it is) that says you will know whether
a prophet is true by whether or not his prophecy comes to pass.  That
helps eliminate the failures after the fact, but in the case of an earth-
quake it is small comfort.  It seems to me that all prophecies that give
specific times and places and events should be suspect, not in that they
are necessarily false, but in the sense stated above, that all such visions
are subject to mistranslation from the plane of prophetic vision to the
plane of earthly time and space.

For what it is worth, Rudolf Steiner once was asked whether a modern initiate 
could see into the future and predict coming events.  His answer was that 
it would be possible but then he would have to withdraw from active parti-
cipation in them, including proclaiming what he saw.  If this is in fact
a spiritual law, then the answer to your question about how to discriminate
is that the one who makes such prophecies is probably violating that law,
knowingly or unknowingly, and as such his message should be considered
a priori to be dubious.  I.e. I would expect that those capable of making
true predictions and giving accurate expression to them would not do so in 
the way that the prophet of the Oregon earthquake did.  However, I can
sympathize with the person who published the prophecy. Given the same
overwhelming experience that he apparently had,  I too might feel impelled, 
and even commissioned by God to tell my fellow human beings about what 
I had seen.

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)


[Do any of our church historian readers know whether there's any
more prophecy now than there has been in the past?  I don't get
that impression.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21601
From: seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson)
Subject: Re: What WAS the immaculate conception

In article <May.9.05.39.52.1993.27456@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes:
[referring to Mary]
>She was immaculately conceived, and so never subject to Original Sin,
>but also never committed a personal sin in her whole life.  This was
>possible because of the special degree of grace granted to her by God.

I have quite a problem with the idea that Mary never committed a sin.
Was Mary fully human?  If it is possible for God to miraculously make 
a person free of original sin, and free of committing sin their whole
life, then what is the purpose of the Incarnation of Jesus?  Why can't
God just repeat the miracle done for Mary to make all the rest of us
sinless, without the need for repentance and salvation and all that?

I don't particularly object to the idea of the assumption, or the
perpetual virginity (both of which I regard as Catholic dogma about which
I will agree to disagree with my Catholic brothers and sisters in
Christ), and I even believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, but this
concept of Mary's sinlessness seems to me to be at odds with the
rest of Christian doctrine as I understand it.

==
Seanna Watson   Bell-Northern Research,       | Pray that at the end of living,
(seanna@bnr.ca) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada       | Of philosophies and creeds,
                                              | God will find his people busy
Opinion, what opinions? Oh *these* opinions.  | Planting trees and sowing seeds.
No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.          |
I knew I'd left them somewhere.               |  --Fred Kaan

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21602
From: David.Bernard@central.sun.com (Dave Bernard)
Subject: Re: Mary's assumption

>I also don't see the _necessity_ of saying the Holy Parents were some-
>how sanctified beyond normal humanity: it sounds like our own inability
>to grasp the immensity of God's grace in being incarnated through an or-
>dinary human being.  


When Elizabeth greeted Mary, Elizabeth said something to the effect that
Mary, out of all women, was blessed.  If so, it appears that this
exactly places Mary beyond the sanctification of normal humanity.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21603
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Deuterocanonicals, esp. Sirach

Michael Siemon writes:

>Furthermore, it is inaccurate to say that the Reformers "threw out" these
>books.  Basically, they just placed them in a secondary status (as Jerome
>had already done), but with the additional warning that doctrine should
>not be based on citations from these ALONE.

Protestants love to play up Jerome for all he is worth. They should
remeber that after the Decree of Pope St. Damsus I, Jerome did not
hesitate in accpeting the deuteroncanon, and quoted them as Scripture in
his later writings.  And as I have already pointed out, in a previous
letter on this subject, the Catholic Church has accepted the
deuterocanon from the beginning.  And the Protestants in the 1500's all
of a sudden revived the old theory of some, condemned by Pope, Council,
and Church, that the deuterocanon were not inspired.

Again, why must the Church of Jesus Christ adopt the canon of the
unbelieving Jews, drawn up in Jamnia in 90 AD, in countering the
Christian use of the Septuagint.                 ^^^^^

Andy Byler

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21604
From: richw@mks.com (Rich Wales)
Subject: Re: Mormons and eternal marriage (was Re: Mormon Temples)

David Hammerslag asked:

	How do you (Mormons) reconcile the idea of eternal marriage
	with Christ's statement that in the resurrection people will
	neither marry nor be given in marriage (Luke, chapt. 20)?

Several explanations for this seeming contradiction have been proposed,
but most LDS scholars whose opinions I have studied take more or less
one of the following three positions:

(1) Jesus was talking to a group of people (Sadducees) who were trying
    to trip Him up with what they felt was a silly hypothetical situa-
    tion that ridiculed the concept of a resurrection (something they
    didn't believe in).  These people -- and those associated with them
    ("Now there were with us seven brethren", Matt. 22:25) -- would not
    be receptive to such higher blessings as eternal marriage.  Hence,
    the people in the story would likely not be married in the eterni-
    ties; but that doesn't mean other, more faithful people could not
    have this blessing.

(2) Jesus was making a distinction between the state or condition of
    =being= married, and the process of =becoming= married.  The latter
    activity (marrying and giving in marriage) will not take place in
    the eternities, because all eternal marriages will be taken care of
    before then.

(3) The account as we have it (in all three of the synoptic Gospels) is
    missing something that would make its real meaning clearer.  Note
    that we (LDS) do not believe in Biblical inerrancy, so we do not in
    general feel obliged to reconcile each and every Bible text with
    modern revelation through Joseph Smith and other latter-day proph-
    ets.  Nor are we particularly upset that the account in question
    was not significantly revised in the "Joseph Smith Translation" or
    "Inspired Version" of the Bible, since we do not believe this work
    was completed or that failure to revise a passage in the JST con-
    stitutes divine approval of that passage as it stands in the KJV.

-- 
Rich Wales <richw@mks.com>       //      Mortice Kern Systems Inc. (MKS)
35 King St. N. // Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2J 2W9 // +1 (519) 884-2251

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21605
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Deuterocanonicals, esp. Sirach

Barney Resson writes:

>On these counts, the apocrapha falls short of the glory of God.
>To quote Unger's Bible Dictionary on the Apocrapha:
>1. They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and
>anachronisms.

So do other parts of the Bible when taken literally - i.e. the Psalms
saying the Earth does not move, or the implication the Earth is flat
with four corners, etc.  The Bible was written to teach salvation, not
history or science.

>2. They teach doctrines which are false and foster practices
>which are at variance with sacred Scripture.

What ones?  Paryers for the dead or the intercession of saints? (Which
are taught in 2 Maccabees, Sirach, and Tobit)

>3. They resort to literary types and display an artificiality of
>subject matter and styling out of keeping with sacred Scripture.

By your own subjective judgement.  This falling short is your judgement,
and you are not infallible - rather the Church of Jesus Christ is (see 1
Timothy 3.15).

>4. They lack the distinctive elements which give genuine
>Scripture their divine character, such as prophetic power and
>poetic and religious feeling.

More subjective feelings.   This is not a proof of anything more than
one persons feelings.

>But the problem with this argument lies in the assumption that
>the Hebrew canon included the Apocrapha in the first place, and
>it wasn't until the sixteenth century that Luther and co. threw
>them out. The Jewish council you mentioned previously didn't
>accept them, so the reformation protestants had good historical
>precedence for their actions. Jerome only translated the
>apocrapha under protest, and it was literally 'over his dead
>body' that it was included in the catholic canon.

As I have written time and again, the Hebrew canon was fixed in Jamnia,
Palestine, in 90 AD.  60 years after the foundation of the one, holy,
catholic, and apostolic Church.  Furthermore, the opinons of Jerome do
not count.  He was neither the Church, or the Pope, or an ecumenical
council, or a council in general, or an insturment of the Magisterium of
the Church.  He was a private individual, learned admittedly, but
subject to erro of opinion.  And in exlcuding the deuterocanon, he
erred, as Pope Damsus, and the Council of Carthage, and the tradition of
the Fathers, clearly shows, as I pointed out in my previous post.

>How do you then view the words: "I warn everyone who  hears the
>words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to
>them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
>And if anyone takes away from this book the prophecy, God will
>take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the
>holy city" (Rev 22.18-9)

I suggest you take heed of the last part of the statement, if you want
to take it in the sense you are taking it, that taking away from the
book will cause you to lose heaven.

>It is also noteworthy to consider Jesus' attitude. He had no
>argument with the pharisees over any of the OT canon (John
>10.31-6), and explained to his followers on the road to Emmaus 
>that in the law, prophets and psalms which referred to him - the 
>OT division of Scripture (Luke 24.44), as well as in Luke 11.51
>taking Genesis to Chronicles (the jewish order - we would say
>Genesis to Malachi) as Scripture.

The order of the Canon is unimportant, it is the content that matters. 
None of Jesus' statments exlcude the deuterocanon, which were
interspersed throughout the canon.  And remeber, there are some
completely undisputed books, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiatses, Song
of Songs, Job, etc. that are not quoted in the New Testament, which is
not taken as prejudicial to their being inspired.

Andy Byler

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21606
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

Eugen Bigelow writes:

>It is also noteworthy to consider Jesus' attitude. He had no
>argument with the pharisees over any of the OT canon (John
>10.31-6), and explained to his followers on the road to Emmaus 
>that in the law, prophets and psalms which referred to him - the 
>OT division of Scripture (Luke 24.44), as well as in Luke 11.51
>taking Genesis to Chronicles (the jewish order - we would say
>Genesis to Malachi) as Scripture.

You should remember that in Adam's transgression, all men and women
sinned, as Paul wrote.  All of humanity cooperativley reblled against
God in Adma's sin, thus, all are subject to it, and the sin is
transmitted from generation to generation.

Andy Byler

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21607
From: tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard)
Subject: Re: Satan kicked out of heaven: Biblical?

In article <May.7.01.09.04.1993.14501@athos.rutgers.edu> easteee@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>Hello all,
>     I have a question about Satan.  I was taught a long time ago
>that Satan was really an angel of God and was kicked out of heaven
>because he challenged God's authority.  The problem is, I cannot
>find this in the Bible.  Is it in the Bible?  If not, where did it
>originate?
>Wondering,
>Eddie
 
Hi Eddie, many people believe the battle described in Rev 12:7-12
describes the casting out of Satan from heaven and his fall to the
earth.
Shalom,                             Len Howard

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21608
From: shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker)
Subject: Re: Mormon temples

In article <May.11.02.38.41.1993.28297@athos.rutgers.edu> mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server) writes:

>I don't necessarily object to the secrecy but I do question it, since I see no 
>Biblical reason why any aspect of Christian worship should involve secrecy.  

Early in Church history, the catechumens were dismissed prior to the celebration 
of the Eucharist.  It WAS secret, giving rise to the rumors that Christians
were cannibals and all sorts of perverse claims.  The actions were considered
too holy to be observed by non-Christians, as well as potentially dangerous
for the individual Christian who might be identified.

Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com)
-- 
-------
Lawrence Overacker
Shell Oil Company, Information Center    Houston, TX            (713) 245-2965
llo@shell.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21609
From: shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker)
Subject: Re: Christianity and repeated lives

In article <May.11.02.38.37.1993.28288@athos.rutgers.edu> KEVXU@cunyvm.bitnet writes:
>
>Isn't Origen usually cited as the most prestigious proponent of reincarnation
>among Christian thinkers?  What were his views, and how did he relate them
>to the Christian scriptures?

He appears to have believed that.  He had a view which was condemned by conciliar
action, which is often taken to be condemnation of the idea of reincarnation.
What was actually condemned was the doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul
before birth.  Similar, but not exactly the same thing.  

Larry Overacker (ll@shell.com)
-- 
-------
Lawrence Overacker
Shell Oil Company, Information Center    Houston, TX            (713) 245-2965
llo@shell.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21610
From: pwhite@empros.com (Peter White)
Subject: Re: Question about hell

In article <May.11.02.36.38.1993.28081@athos.rutgers.edu>, wytten@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dale Wyttenbach) writes:
|> What is the basis of the idea of hell being a place of eternal
|> suffering?  If it is Biblical, please reference.
|> 
|> Here's my train of thought: If God is using the Earth to manufacture
|> heavenly beings, then it is logical that there would be a certain
|> yield, and a certain amount of waste.  The yield goes to Heaven, and
|> the waste is burned (destroyed) in Hell.  Why is it necessary to
|> punish the waste, rather than just destroy it?
 
Luke 16 talks about the rich man and Lazarus. Matthew 25 talks about 
the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Revelations
20 and 21 reference this fire as the place where unbelievers are
thrown. Matthew 18 talks about being thrown into the eternal fire and
the fire of hell. It seems quite clear that there is this place where
a fire burns forever. From the Revelations passages it is clear that
the devil and his angels will be tormented there forever. From the
Matthew 25 passage it doesn't seem abundantly clear whether the
punishment of unbelievers is everlasting in the sense of final or
in the sense of continual. 
 
From Dale's question, I come away with the suggestion that hell,
if it were short, might be an acceptable alternative to living
forever with the Source of Life, Peace and Joy i.e. the 
unbeliever ceases to exist. Whereas, if punishment goes on
continually, then one should have a greater motivation to avoid it.
It definately seems to me that hell is something we want to avoid
regardless of its exact nature. 

There seem to be two main questions in Dale's thought:
What is God's main plan on earth?
Why is continual punishment a necessary part of hell as opposed
to simply destroying completely those who refuse God?

I believe that God's main plan is to have a genuine relationship
with people.

The nature of hell and the reasons for its nature seem a lot more
difficult to ascertain. It does seem clear that hell is something
to avoid. At a minimum, hell is the state one is in when one has
nothing to do with God.

In the Bible, I am not aware of any discussion about the specifics of
hell beyond the general of hot, unpleasant and torment. For instance,
it is not discussed how (if at all) the rich man can
continually stay in the fire and still feel discomfort or pain or
whether there is some point at which the pain sensing ability is
burned up. If you can forgive the graphicalness, if you throw a
physical body into a fire, assuming the person starts out alive,
at some fairly quick point, the nerves are destroyed and pain is
no longer sensed. It is not stated what occurs when at the judgement,
the unbelievers, (who are already physically dead) are cast into hell
i.e. they no longer have a physical body so they can't feel physical
pain. What could be sensed continually is that those in hell are
to be forever without God. 
 
The Lazarus/rich man parable is told with the idea of having the listener
think in physical terms in order to get the point that some people
won't listen to God even after he rises from the dead. The point of
the parable is to reach the hard-hearted here who are not listening
to the fact of the resurrection nor the Gospel about Jesus Christ.
It seems reasonable to also draw from the parable that hell is
not even remotely pleasant.
-- 
Peter White
disclaimer: None of what is written necessarily reflects 
     			a view of my company.
	Phil    I want to know Christ and the power of his
	3:10 	resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in
	NIV		his sufferings, becoming like him in his death	

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21611
From: dps@nasa.kodak.com (Dan Schaertel,,,)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article 28328@athos.rutgers.edu, carlson@ab24.larc.nasa.gov (Ann Carlson) writes:
>Anyone who thinks being gay and Christianity are not compatible should 
>check out Dignity, Integrity, More Light Presbyterian churches, Affirmation,
>MCC churches, etc.  Meet some gay Christians, find out who they are, pray
>with them, discuss scripture with them, and only *then* form your opinion.

If you were to start your own religion, this would be fine.  But there
is no scriptural basis for your statement, in fact it really gets to
the heart of the problem.  You think you know more than scripture.
Your faith is driven by feel goodism and not by the Word of God.  Just
because they are nice people doesn't make it right.  You can start all
the churches you want and it won't change the fact that it is wrong.
That is not to imply that gays don't deserve the same love and
forgiveness that anyone else does.  But to call their behavior right
just because they are nice people is baseless, and it offers Satan a
perfect place to work because there is no check on what he is doing.

[I suspect Ann was suggesting that you look to see whether the
Spirit is alive among them, not whether they are nice people,
though there's something to be said for being nice too... --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21612
From: creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)
Subject: Defending the Faith IV conference


   Enclosed is an advertisement for the Defending the Faith IV
conference to be held at Franciscan University of Steubenville (Ohio)
June 25-27.  I attended DTF III last year, and plan to go again this
year.  I would recommend it highly to Catholic interested in
apologetics.  There will be lots of music, well-known Catholic speakers,
fellowship, as well as Eucharistic Liturgies Friday and Sunday.

   Registration is $85 per person, but I believe financial aid is
available if you need it.  Housing in residence halls (each of which has
its own Blessed Sacrament chapel), if desired, is $30/person for double
occupancy for two nights ($30 total). Reservations can also be made for
you at the very nearby Holiday Inn.  I think it was $47 a night there
for my single room.  Meals are available at the cafeteria (Friday dinner
through Sunday lunch) for $38 or $32, with or without breakfast,
respectively.

   Franciscan University of Steubenville is located in eastern Ohio on
US Route 22, 1/2 mile west of the Ohio River and Ohio Route 7.  Greater
Pittsburgh International Airport is less than one hour (35 miles) from
campus.

   Feel free to e-mail me if you have any question I can answer.

   Here is the agenda, as typed in by a friend of mine:

Friday afternoon special:

Reflections on C.S. Lewis, a preliminary session with Walter Hooper.
Walter Hooper is one of the foremost international experts on the
writings of C.S. Lewis.  In 1963, he served as secretary to C.S. Lewis,
and he has since edited 18 of Lewis' literary works for publication.
Walter was ordained a priest in the Church of England in 1965, serving
in Oxford, England, until he entered the Catholic Church in 1988.

----------------
Friday evening, opening session:
In Search of the Truth: Finding the Fullness of Faith
Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz.

Know Your Rites
Kimberly Hahn.
-------------------
Saturday Morning
Apologetics Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry
Karl Keating

C.S. Lewis: My Signpost to the Catholic Church
Walter Hooper

Mass
Bishop Bruskewitz, celebrant
Fr. Ray Ryland, homilist

---------------------------
Saturday afternoon:

The Mystery of Femininity: Why It Excludes the Priesthood
Dr. Alice von Hildebrand

Men Make Better Fathers: Masculinity and the Male Priesthood
Dr. Peter Kreeft

----------------------------
Saturday evening:

When Do Catholics Hear the Gospel?
Dr. Thomas Howard

The Catholic Gospel: Not Just Saving Sinners
Scott Hahn

-----------------------------
Sunday morning:

There's No Place Like Rome: The Pilgrimage of Two Protestant Pastors
Panel.

Mass
Fr. Ray Ryland, celebrant
Fr. Michael Scanlan, TOR, homilist


-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

   Here is the ad that appeared in _The Catholic Answer_:

                DEFENDING THE FAITH IV CONFERENCE

                    CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHING:

              KNOW WHY YOU BELIEVE  June 25-27, 1993

   Times have changed.  Major Catholic doctrines are misunderstood and
attacked.  Like never before, believers need to know the reasons behind
the Catholic Church's teaching.  As our first pope urged: "Always be
ready to give a defense for the hope that is within you" (I Peter 3:15).

   Grab your notebooks and get ready for an unforgettable spiritual and
intellectual weekend.  This year's conference will candidly confront the
hardest questions and objections about the Catholic faith.  Deepen your
understanding of Church teaching with _Scott_ and _Kimberly Hahn, Dr.
Thomas Howard, Karl Keating, Dr. Alice von Hildebrand, Dr. Peter
Kreeft,_ and _Fr. Ray Ryland_.

   Cut throught the confusion and doubt, and be better equipped to give
a defense for the hope that is within you.

   Join us at _Defending the Faith IV_, the fourth in a series of annual
conferences designed to strengthen the life of Catholics and others
interested in the Catholic faith.  It can help _you_ know why you
believe.


Call toll free today:				Franciscan University
800/437-TENT					   of Steubenville
or 614/283-6314				   Steubenville, Ohio 43952-6701

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21613
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse

I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome
all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you. 
Luke 10:19

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21614
From: rlhunt@amoco.com (Randy L. Hunt)
Subject: LOVE in the morning: by Malcolm Smith Ministries

----- Begin Included Message -----

The following teaching is brought to you on behalf of Malcolm Smith
Ministries, a ministry dedicated to leading believers everywhere into a
knowledge of the love of God.  If you would like more info on the ministry,
and/or would like to comment on whether you found this teaching beneficial,
e-mail to Randy Hunt at rlhunt@hou.amoco.com.


LOVE IN THE MORNING  (Psalm 90:14)

by Malcolm Smith

Moses wrote this prayer at a weary time in the history of Israel. A generation
before the time of its writing, the people of Israel had stood at Kadesh,
gateway to Canaan, and made the fateful choice to go their own way rather
than God's way. They refused an adventure of faith in God which would
have given them Canaan, the homeland of promise. God honored their
decision, and said they would wander in the desert only a few miles from the
land of promise until they were all buried in the sand. The young decision-
makers of that fateful day were between twenty and thirty years old, and
destined to be dead within forty years... bleached bones in the desert by the
time they were seventy-- eighty, at the most. The lives of these wanderers
had been unending sadness. Moses described it as ending each year with a
sigh (v. 9). The fact that they knew, give or take a few months, when they
were going to die, underscored the meaninglessness of their existence.
Whatever heights of success they reached, they would be a heap of bleached
bones within forty years.  The only ones to live outside of that depression of
hopeless disbelief were Joshua and Caleb, who had stood against the nation
at Kadesh and had God' s promise of one day entering the land. The
forty-year period was finally drawing to an end. The new generation, those
who were children at Kadesh, were now grown and eager to take the
inheritance their parents had refused to enjoy. In the light of this, Moses
prays...it is time for a new day to begin and the days of misery to be over.
All these years, as Moses had walked with these moaning and complaining
people through the wilderness of their exile, he had carried a double burden.
His was not only the sadness of living in less than what could have been; but
he also knew why they had chosen as they had at Kadesh.  The problem was
that they were ignorant of the character of their God. If asked. "Who is your
God?" they would have described Him as the God who is Power. When
Aaron had created their concept of God in an idol. he chose a calf. or young
bull--a symbol of power, of virility. In their minds, God was the young bull
who had impaled Pharaoh on his horns and gored Egypt's gods as He led
Israel to Sinai.  But when man worships a God of power, His miracles grow
thin and even boring. After miracle food on the desert floor and water
gushing miraculously from the solid rock through the desert wasteland, the
God of Almightiness becomes "ho-hum --What' s next on the miracle menu?"
And a God of power can be as unpredictable as a young bull calf. He might
be all they need, but then...who knows? If He has all power, He has a right
to do whatever He wants, whenever He wants. The only person these people
had known who had absolute power was Pharaoh, and men's lives had hung
on the whim of his moods, which could change with the wind. They believed
God could work His wonders on their behalf, but they did not know HIM
and, so, could not trust Him. Israel had a God based on what He DID, His
acts; Moses knew the heart of God, the motivation behind the acts. From the
day of his encounter at the burning bush, Moses had been fascinated by God.
At Sinai, he asked to be shown His glory...to know who He really was. He
had seen what God had done; he wanted to know who God was. This
request was granted, and Moses was given a glimpse of God's glorious
Person. He had come to know the heart of God as compassion and
lovingkindness (Exodus 34:6,7). The word "lovingkindness" is not to be
understood as a human kind of love. It speaks of the kind of relationship
arising out of the making of a covenant. It can only be understood as the
love that says, "I will never leave you nor forsake you." Lovingkindness is as
tenacious as a British bulldog; when the world walks out, this love digs in its
heels and refuses to leave.And it is not human romantic love, based on
feelings and rooted in emotions. It is a love of covenant commitment and,
therefore, operates quite apart from feelings. God's love is not an emotion
that wavers day by day; it is the total commitment of His Being to seek our
highest and best, and to bring us to our fullest potential as humans. God
does not see something good and beautiful in us which arouses His feelings
of love toward us...we do not woo Him and cause Him to fall in love with
us! If that were the case, the first ugly, sinful thing we did would cause Him
to reject us.  He is Love, and He loves us because of who He is-- not
because of who we are. He does not love what we do, but He is committed
to us, pursuing us down every blind alley and bypath of foolishness. He will
not let us go. His is a love that is not looking for what it can get out of us--
but a committed love that searches for opportunities to give to us. It is
saying to the recipient, "For as long as we shall live, I am for you."  The God
who has revealed Himself to man through Scripture and, finally, in Jesus--in
His coming, and in His death and resurrection--is the God who is
lovingkindness. Thus He loves us and gives Himself to us...He will never
leave us nor forsake us.  Tragically, many believers have never seen Him as
love; they see Him as power. No one will come to faith by just seeing
miracles. Miracles point to who He is, and that is when faith springs in the
heart.  Israel did not see God as lovingkindness; they saw His acts of power.
Moses knew His ways, the kind of God He was, and the love that He had for
these people. Because of their total lack of understanding of His love, they
could not trust Him to be their strength in taking the land. Faith is born out
of knowing the love He has for us; it is the resting response to the One who
gives Himself to us. He is not the force, and to call Him the Almighty is to
miss His heart. He is Love who is the Almighty and the Infinite Force.  If
man is to make force or raw power work for him, he must depend on
knowing the forrnula and have faith in it. But the power that issues from
love demands faith in the Person of love Himself. The forty years of
meaningless wandering was a monument to a people who had never come to
know the God of love.  At this point, with the new generation and the
possibility of enjoying all that God promised, Moses prays verse 14. The
language Moses uses is reminiscent of a baby having slept secure in its
mother's love, now waking to look up into the delight of her eyes. It is
waking to the consciousness of being loved... watched over, cared for,
protected, fed, and cleaned, day and night, by the mother. Suppose we were
to ask, "What has the baby done to deserve this?" or, "Have arrangements
been made for the child to repay the parents for this inconvenience?" Our
questions would be considered unnatural, even immoral. The child was
conceived in love, anticipated and prepared for with love's excitement, a love
that has been to the gates of death to bring it into being. The parents' love is
unconditional, spontaneous...it has nothing to do with the looks of the child
or its performance. So God is love. He loves us unconditionally,
spontaneously. We were conceived in His imagination and fashioned after
His image, to be brought to where we are at this moment by the blood of the
Lord Jesus. It is slanderous, and immoral, to even ask what we must do to
earn and deserve that love. The child discovers its personhood and identity
through the eyes and touch, through the cuddles, of its parents' love. It is a
scientific fact that a baby who is not touched and held will probably die or, if
it survives, will have severe emotional problems. And a person who has been
held and loved will still never know the true meaning of life without the
embrace and knowledge of love from God. Moses prays that the new
generation will learn to wake every morning, resting with total confidence in
the love of God. and will receive all His promises and blessings with joy and
gladness. Significantly, Moses prays that they will be SATISFIED with His
love. "Satisfied." in the Hebrew language. is a rich picture word describing
being filled with an abundance of gourmet food. It is also used to describe
the earth after the rain has soaked it and all the vegetation has received
enough water. Moses prays that they will awaken every morning to be
drenched in the life-giving love of God. That sense of satisfaction is the
lifelong quest of every man and woman. When we are satisfied in our
deepest selves, many of our emotional--and even our physical--problems
disappear. Man seeks that sense of satisfaction which comes from feeling
that he is fulfilled as a human being...his hours have meaning, which make
sense out of the ordinary and mundane. Apart from God, man seeks this
satisfaction through intellectual pursuit, through the exciting of the
emotions, and through the feeding of his body...he will even seek it in
religious exercise. But man will always be dissatisfied until he is responding
to the love of the living God. Only in knowing God's love will the rest of life
make sense. As the forty years drew to a close and the land of promise again
became the inheritance to be taken, Moses prayed this psalm. I find it
fascinating that he  should pray and ask God for a daily revelation of His
love. Considering the awe with which the people held Moses. one would
think he could have lectured them on the subject of lovingkindness and, by
the knowledge they gained, they would live in it. But Moses knew
better. God is the only one who can make known to us His love. We won't
find it in a religious lecture or a formula which we can learn and use to
manipulate Him. Nor is it in a beautiful poem to titillate our emotions and
give us God feelings. It is God, himself, the Lover, who must open our eyes
and satisfy us with His love. This prayer is man, in helplessness, asking God
to make the love He is real in our hearts. Moses' prayer was partially
answered in the next generation and seen in the exploits of faith which
worked by love in The Book of Judges. But it would not be answered in its
fullest dimensions until the coming of the Holy Spirit, who pours out the
love of God in our hearts (Romans 5:5). In the history of the early Church,
we read of the Holy Spirit "falling upon" the believers. This is an ancient
expression that, in modern English, means to give a bear hug. It is used in
Luke 15 to describe the father running to the prodigal and "falling on his
neck and kissing him." The Holy Spirit is God hugging you in your deepest
self and smothering you with divine kisses at the deepest level of your
being. This is not a one-time experience to be filed in our spiritual resumes.
Moses prayed that morning by morning we would awaken to the realization
that we are loved. The world, and much of our religious training, has taught
us to perform in order to be accepted. We have spent far too long living in a
state of doing in order to find satisfaction for ourselves...to find acceptance
and love from others, and from God. We now come humbled to receive love
we cannot earn...to be still and let Him tell us we are loved: to let the Holy
Spirit descend into us, pouring out the love of God. We come in stillness to
think on and repeat His words of love to our minds. which have been jaded
with the doctrine of "perform to be accepted." We begin to realize that He
loves us as we are, and gives meaning and purpose to all of life. I challenge
everyone reading this to begin each day, from the moment you open your
eyes, by celebrating the God of love and praying this prayer. You may not
feel anything, but SOMETHING ALWAYS HAPPENS. I was X-rayed the
other day. I did not see or feel anything, but I noted that the technicians kept
behind protective walls. They know you cannot be exposed to those rays
without being affected. So it is as we consciously begin our day knowing
that we are loved. Such experiential knowledge will produce, according to
Moses, "joy and gladness all our days." Joy is the result of a life that is
functioning as God intended us to function when He made us. You might say
that joy is the hum of an engine that is at peak performance. Man' s highest
performance is to rest in the love God has for him... the hum will be joy, and
the result will be endless creativity arising from the sense of meaning he now
has in life. Stop wandering in the wilderness. Be satisfied with His love and,
in joy, day by day, receive all His promised blessings.


----- End Included Message -----

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21615
From: swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com (Stan Friesen)
Subject: Re: SJ Mercury's reference to Fundamentalist Christian parents

In article <May.11.02.37.07.1993.28120@athos.rutgers.edu>, dan@ingres.com (a Rose arose) writes:
|> In the Monday, May 10 morning edition of the San Jose Mercury News an
|> article by Sandra Gonzales at the top of page 12A explained convicted
|> killer David Edwin Mason's troubled childhood saying,
|> 
|> 	"Raised in Oakland and San Lorenzo by strict fundamentalist
|> 	Christian parents, Mason was beaten as a child.  ...
|> 	[other instances of child abuse deleted]
|> 
|> Were the San Jose Mercury news to come out with an article starting with
|> "Raised in Oakland by Mexican parents, Mason was beaten...", my face would
|> be red with anger over the injustice done to my Mexican family members and
|> the Mexican community as a whole.  ...
|> 
|> Why is it that open biggotry like this is practiced and encouraged by the
|> San Jose Mercury News when it is pointed at the christian community?

Perhaps because there is a connection here that is not there in the Mexican
variant you bring up.

That is, many (not all) extreme fundamentalist Christians use the excuse of
teaching their children Biblical morality to justify this sort of mistreatment.
I do not see many Mexicans using their Mexican heritage as an excuse for abuse.

It is indeed this judgemental, controlling legalism of many fundamentalist
Christians that has led me to reject that branch of our faith as not true
to the Gospel of Christ, the gospel of love.

I have seen this sort of thing too often, even amoung my own relatives, to
believe there is no relationship.  Judgementalism often leads to overly
strict, and thus abusive, discipline of children.
[This is not restricted to just Christian fundamentalism, it is found in
many extreme sects of other legalistic religions].

|> Can a good christian continue to purchase newspapers and buy advertising in
|> this kind of a newspaper?  This is really bad journalism.
|> 
I, too, am a Christian.  But I do not condone the use of the Bible to justify
this sort of abuse.  I believe that it is only by exposing the horrors of
the misapplication of the Biblical concept of discipline that such abuses
can be stopped.

Just because someone is also a Christian does not mean we must identify
eith them. This sort of sin needs to be made public.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21616
From: swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com (Stan Friesen)
Subject: Re: MAJOR VIEWS OF THE TRINITY

In article <May.11.02.37.09.1993.28123@athos.rutgers.edu>, you write:
|> 
|> [I fear orthodox theologians have been overly in love with paradox, to
|> the extent that well-meaning people think they've just flat-out
|> confused.  There's no problem with things being both 3 and 1, e.g.  if
|> the 3 are different parts of the 1.  ...
|> But they're in some way
|> different aspects, modes, or whatever, of one God.  If you accept
|> economic trinitarianism, it's possible that you don't have any
|> substantive difference with the standard view.  Is it possible that
|> you just don't find the neo-Platonic explanation illuminating?
|> --clh]

I would put it stronger than that.  I consider it nonsense.

Simply put, I do not see any way that a "Platonic essence" could have
any *real* existance.  "Essence" in the Platonic sense does not have
any referent as far as I can tell - it is just an imaginary concept
invented to provide an explanation for things better explained in
other ways.

So, to attribute an 'essence' to God is to attribute to him something that
does not exist!!  Thus the orthodox Platonic formulation seems to leave
the unity of God in limbo, since it is based on a non-existant 'essence',
thus failing to avoid the very problem it was supposed to address.

Thus, to me, the unity of God must be primary, and the triality must be
secondary, must be modal or aspectual (relating to roles, or to modes
of interaction), since otherwise there is no meaning to saying God is one.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com

[I think one can read Augustine as saying something consistent with
your comments.  His "De Trinitate" -- which has been very influential
in the West -- defines the distinction among the persons relationally.
You're probably at one extreme of orthodox views, but I'm not sure
your views are necessary incompatible with the Trinity.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21617
From: poram@ihlpb.att.com
Subject: Re: Dreams and out of body incidents

In article <May.11.02.37.40.1993.28185@athos.rutgers.edu> dt4%cs@hub.ucsb.edu (David E. Goggin) writes:
>
>I'd like to get your comments on a question that has been on my mind a
>lot:  What morals/ethics apply to dreams and out-of-body incidents?

Dave - you might like to read a book by Florence Bulle "God
Wants You Rich & Other Enticing Doctrines", which discusses
OOBEs in one of her chapters.

In the Bible we have examples of men caught up in the Spirit (eg
Ezekiel, Paul). I believe that also this experience is
counterfeited by Satan - so that for example yoga and other
eastern medatitive techniques can be used to induce the soul to
leave the body and float off. Someone tried to sell me a book in
Los Angeles airport entitled "Easy Journeys to Other Planets"
which uses such techniques.

The occultic trance of a medium sometimes involves such body
departure - the book "The Challanging Counterfeit", about a
former medium who gets saved, tells how the author, on his last
trance, was attacked by evil spirits who tried to kill him
while returning to his body at the end of the seance
because of his interest in Christianity and how he was supernaturally
protected by the Lord.

There may be some similarities in mind-altering drugs and the
phenomena of 'tripping'.

As regards the connection between body and soul, there is an
interesting verse in Ecclesiastes. In a passage talking about
old age, the preacher writes "Then man goes to his eternal home
and mourners go about the streets. Remember Him--before the
silver cord is severed." (12.5-6) My understanding of this
silver cord is that it is something that attaches body and soul
in a manner somewhat similar to an umbilical cord or an
astronaut's air-line to his spaceship.
When a person goes out of body this silver cord still attaches
the soul whereever it goes - and is vulnerable to being broken:
astral projection can be dangerous! Bulle, I think, reports a
case of a yogi off on an OOBE who was found dead in his
apartment, with no apparent external cause.

Barney Resson
"Many shall run to and fro, & knowledge shall increase" (Daniel)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21618
From: klrklr@iastate.edu (Kevin L Rens)
Subject: Re:Christian Reformed

Does anyone belong to or know any facts about the
              Christian Reformed Church?

[It's one of two major heirs to the Dutch Reformed tradition in the
U.S. The other is the Reformed Church in America.  The CRC is
more or less a spinoff from the RCA.  It was unclear to me from
my reference exactly the differences between them are.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21619
From: wagner@grace.math.uh.edu (David Wagner)
Subject: Re: Baptism requires Faith

"Aaron" == Aaron Bryce Cardenas <aaronc@athena.mit.edu> writes:

Aaron> Colossians 2:11-12 "In him you were also circumcised, in the
Aaron> putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done
Aaron> by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised
Aaron> with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him
Aaron> from the dead."

Aaron> In baptism, we are raised to a new life in Christ (Romans 6:4)
Aaron> through a personal faith in the power of God.  Our parent's
Aaron> faith cannot do this.  Do infants have faith?  Let's look at
Aaron> what the Bible has to say about it.

Yes, let do.  Try: 

"And if anyone causes one of these little ones *who believes in me*
to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea
with a large millstone tied around his neck."  Mark 9:42

"Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them,
for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.  I tell you
the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God
like a little child will never enter it."

The Colossians passage does not make faith a requirement
for baptism.  It merely says that in baptism we are born again,
regenerated, and resurrected through faith.  In the case
of an infant I would say that baptism works faith in the
heart of the infant--through the power of the word.

The Colossians passage does make baptism a spiritual circumcision.
Circumcision was the means by which a male infant was made
a part of God's covenant with Israel.  It was commanded to be
performed on the eighth day.  The early church understood this,
and even debated whether baptism had to be performed on the
eighth day, or if it could in fact be done earlier.

Aaron> Romans 10:16-17 "But not all the Israelites accepted the good
Aaron> news.  For Isaiah says, 'Lord, who has believed our message?'
Aaron> Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the
Aaron> message is heard through the word of Christ."

Aaron> So then we receive God's gift of faith to us as we hear the
Aaron> message of the gospel.  

And the gospel is surely preached at any infant's (or adult's)
baptism.  Indeed, in a very real sense, the sacraments are
the Gospel made tangible.

Aaron> Faith is a possible response to hearing
Aaron> God's word preached.  Kids are not yet spiritually,
Aaron> intellectually, or emotionally mature enough to respond to
Aaron> God's word.  

How do you know they are not yet mature enough to have faith?
Do you know this on the basis of God's Word, or from your own
reason?

Faith is also described as a gift from God, Ephesians 2:8,9. 
He gives faith to infants just as he gives it to adults, through
the power of the gospel, Romans 1:6.

Aaron> If you read all of Ezekiel 18, you will see that God doesn't
Aaron> hold us guilty for anyone else's sins.  So we can have no
Aaron> original guilt from Adam.

Here you show that you just don't understand original sin--
you are arguing against a straw man.
Maybe you've been talking to Catholics too much.  I don't
know.  But original sin does not consist of God's imputation
of Adam's guilt to us.  It consists of our inheritance of
Adam's sinful nature.  It is actual sin.  See for example,
the Augsburg Confession, Article II, and the Apology of the
Augsburg Confession, Article II, and, for extra credit,
John Knox's `The Scots confession', Article III.

Aaron> Now then that we have a little more background as to why
Aaron> original sin is not Biblical, let's look at some of the
Aaron> scriptures used to support it.

Aaron> Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through
Aaron> one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to
Aaron> all men, because all sinned--"


Ask yourself this question.  "Do infants ever die?"  Then ask
yourself, "If infant baptism is not valid, then where was the
Christian Church during all the centuries when almost all 
of the baptisms were performed on infants?  Were Luther, Melancthon,
Calvin, Zwingli, Hus, Knox, Andrae, and Chemnitz Christians?


Aaron> Psalm 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time
Aaron> my mother conceived me."

Aaron> This whole Psalm is a wonderful example of how we should humble
Aaron> ourselves before God in repentance for sinning.  David himself
Aaron> was a man after God's own heart and wrote the Psalm after
Aaron> committing adultry with Bathsheba and murdering her husband.
Aaron> All that David is saying here is that he can't remember a time
Aaron> when he wasn't sinful.  He is humbling himself before God by
Aaron> confessing his sinfulness.  His saying that he was sinful at
Aaron> birth is a hyperbole.  The Bible, being inspired by God, isn't
Aaron> limited to a literal interpetation, but also uses figures of
Aaron> speech as did Jesus (John 16:25).  For another example of
Aaron> hyperbole, see Luke 14:26.

Who are you to say what is literal and what is not?  Is a literal
interpretation manifestly absurd in Psalm 51 by reason of direct
contradiction with a clear passage from the Word of God?

You might also compare Genesis 8:21, "The LORD smelled the
pleasing aroma and said in his heart, `Never again will I curse
the ground because of man, even though every inclination of
his heart is evil from childhood...."

Aaron> We see
Aaron> that he did grow and become wiser in Luke 2:40 and 2:52.  The
Aaron> implication is that Jesus did wrong things as a child before he
Aaron> knew to choose right over wrong.

You are a long way from proving this (rather monstrous) assertion.
All you can say is that Jesus grew in wisdom and in stature.  A
conclusion that he did wrong as a child is based on an extrapolation
of reason, not on a direct revelation in Scripture.

David H. Wagner			"But mad reason rushes forth and,
a confessional Lutheran		because Baptism is not dazzling like
				the works which we do,
				regards it as worthless."
				--Martin Luther, Large Catechism,
				--Fourth Part, Baptism.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21620
From: revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille)
Subject: Re: SOC.RELIGION.CHRISTIAN

Anni Dozier (dozier@utkux1.utk.edu) wrote:
: After reading the posts on this newsgroup for the pasts 4 months, it 
: has become apparent to me that this group is primarily active with 
: Liberals, Catholics, New Agers', and Athiests.  Someone might think 
: to change the name to:  soc.religion.any   - or -  perhaps even
: soc.religion.new.  It might seem to be more appropriate.
: Heck, don't flame me, I'm Catholic, gay, and I voted 
: for Bill Clinton.  I'm on your side!                      

Since when did conservative, protestant, old-time religion believers get
an exclusive francise to christianity?  Christianity is, and always has
been, a diverse and contentious tradition, and this group reflects that
diversity.  I, fo one, am not ready to concede to _any_ group- be they
"liberal" or "conservative", catholic, protestant, or orthodox, charismatic
or not- the right to claim that they have _the truth_, and everyone else
is not "christian."

revdak@netcom.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21621
From: jeubank@mail.sas.upenn.edu (Judith Eubank)
Subject: Re: a few questions

Arthur Clarke may have quoted the comment about knowing you're to be
hanged in the morning concentrating a man's mind wonderfully, but the
source of the comment is Samuel Johnson.

(Pardon me if you already knew that.)

-----je

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21622
From: sfp@lemur.cit.cornell.edu (Sheila Patterson)
Subject: Re: SOC.RELIGION.CHRISTIAN

In article <May.12.04.26.55.1993.9901@athos.rutgers.edu>, dozier@utkux1.utk.edu (Anni Dozier) writes:
|> After reading the posts on this newsgroup for the pasts 4 months, it 
|> has become apparent to me that this group is primarily active with 
|> Liberals, Catholics, New Agers', and Athiests.  Someone might think 
|> to change the name to:  soc.religion.any   - or -  perhaps even
|> soc.religion.new.  It might seem to be more appropriate.
|> Heck, don't flame me, I'm Catholic, gay, and I voted 
|> for Bill Clinton.  I'm on your side!                      

My sentiments exactly... which is why I'm unsubbing from this group.
This is the 3rd 'christian' discussion list I have ever belonged to
and once again I'm being chased away by the strife, anger, discontent,
lies, et al .

As Paul (Saul) said, 'I come to preach Christ, and Him crucified'
Don't let the simple beauty of faith in God get overshadowed by heady
theological discussions or thousands of lines of post-incarnation
trappings of some church.


As for the atheists/agnostics who read this list: if you aren't
christian and if you have no intention of ever becoming one why on
earth do you waste your time and mine by participating on a christian
discussion list ?

I will continue to search for christian discussion (prayerful, spirit-filled,
kind, humble, patient, etc.) in other circles.  

-- 
  Sheila Patterson, CIT CR-Technical Support Group
  315 CCC - Cornell University
  Ithaca, NY  14853
  (607) 255-5388


[I'm afraid that any discussion group containing people with different
views tends to turn into arguments about the largest differences
present.  So talk.religion.misc spends a lot of time on
Christian/atheist arguments, soc.religion.christian spends a lot of
time on arguments among different christian groups, and the bitnet
Catholic group spends a lot of time on arguments between conservative
and liberal Catholics.  Personally I would prefer to have a set of
somewhat more specialized groups, at least as an alternative.  Liberal
and conservative Protestant and Catholic would handle most of the
traffic, though there are certainly significant groups (e.g.
Orthodox).  Of course it may be that most of our readers like the
arguments.  I certainly find it painful moderating them.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21623
From: aidler@sol.uvic.ca (E Alan  Idler)
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

muddmj@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:

>> But, haven't "all sinned, and come short of the glory
>> of God" (Romans 3:23)?
>> Those that cite this scripture to claim that even
>> babes require baptism neglect that "sin is not imputed
>> when there is no law" (Romans 5:13).
>>
>> Therefore, until someone is capable of comprehending
>> God's laws they are not accountable for living them.
>> They are in the book of life and are not removed until
>> they can make a conscious decision to disobey God.
>>
>> A IDLER

>If babies are not supposed to be baptised then why doesn't the Bible
>ever say so.  It never comes right and says "Only people that know
>right from wrong or who are taught can be baptised."
>        What Christ did say was :

>        "I solemly assure you, NO ONE can enter God's kingdom without
>         being born of water and Spirit ... Do not be surprised that I
>         tell you you must ALL be begotten from above."

>Could this be because everyone is born with original sin?

(I presume you are quoting John 3:3-7.)

1.  My King James Bible says "Except a man be born of water 
and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" 
(John 3:5).  (Here "man" == "adult").
(However, this could be a quibble between translations.)

2.  We can also analyze to whom the Lord is addressing:
"Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again"
(John 3:7).  Here Jesus is clearly directing his remarks
to Nicodemus -- a ruler of the Jews (not a child).

3.  We can ask ourselves why the Lord would even 
introduce the concept of spiritual re-birth through
baptism if newborn babies weren't free from sin?

A IDLER

[Yup, in John 3:5 "man" is not in the original.  A better translation
is "no one can enter...", as in NRSV.  Of course in 3:7, Jesus is
addressing the person who came to him.  There are other places in the
NT where he deals with children.  They've been mentioned in other
postings.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21624
From: sun075!Gerry.Palo@uunet.uu.net (Gerry Palo)
Subject: Re: Christianity and repeated lives

In article <May.11.02.38.37.1993.28288@athos.rutgers.edu> KEVXU@cunyvm.bitnet wr
ites:
>While this is essentially a discussion of reincarnation in the context of
>Christianity Gerry Palo has made some comparisons to Asian religious
>beliefs on this topic which have simplified the Asian idea of karma
>to the point of misrepresentation.
>
I realized that my generalizations would probably have problems
under scrutiny from various  Asian points of view.  They need to be 
discussed in detail, indeed. But for the purposes of this newsgroup 
and thread  thus far and in this newsgroup, I risked oversimpli-
fication.  My main purpose was to emphasize that I was not coming
from a Buddhist or Hindu point of view.  As you observed, the
main context is that of Christianity.  But by all means, add comments
and corrections as you find them.

I wrote a longer reply addressing some of your points, but decided
to not post it. Perhaps it would be more appropriate for soc.religion.
eastern. Instead I just add the following couple of items about karma 
and reincarnation as I see the matter from an anthroposophical and 
a Christian point of view.

1. Karma is not simple reward and punishment dealt out by a "judging
   deity".

2. Reincarnation is not the same as being born again.

3. Reincarnation is not the same as the resurrection of the body.

4. Reincarnation and karma do not contradict the fundamental teachings
   of Christianity about God, the fall, the being. incarnation, death,
   and resurrection of Christ, his coming again, sin, grace, forgiveness, 
   salvation, and the last judgement.

>Isn't Origen usually cited as the most prestigious proponent of reincarnation
>among Christian thinkers?  What were his views, and how did he relate them
>to the Christian scriptures?
>
>Jack Carroll

Origen's work was mostly lost. He was not anathematized, to my knowledge, 
but his writing comes down largely in fragments and quotations from enemies.
Perhaps someone else can comment on Origen.  I don't know if there
is a specific statement about reincarnation from him, but from what I do
know about him he probably did hold to the teaching in one form or another.

I don't know too much about the history of the idea of reincarnation in
the Church. However, I heard an interesting story about Pope John Paul II
from an astronomer who teaches at the University of Cracow.  The Pope likes
to go to Poland for a scientific conference every couple of years so he
can relax and talk Polish to friends and fellow countrymen.  My acquaintance,
an anthroposophist, related the fact that Woitila knew about Steiner and
Anthroposophy from his early days.  Before he became a priest he was an
actor in a dramatic company in Cracow whose leader was a pupil of Steiner
and based his acting and directing methods on Steiner's indications.  Part
of the work was the study of the basic works of anthroposophy.  Well,
going to this conference with him a few years ago, the astronomer and another
Polish anthroposophist thought they would ask the Pope what he thought about
Anthroposophy.  They chickened out at the last minute, but one of them did ask
him what he thought about reincarnation.  The Pope smiled and said, 
"Actually there have been quite a few good Catholics who believed in 
reincarnation," and he proceeded to name several from the earliest times
to modern times.  Then he changed the subject. My Polish friend did not
say whether Origen was among those he mentioned.

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com) 

[As far as I know Origen himself was not anathematized.  He was
controversial, but avoided outright condemnation during his lifetime.
However some of his views were condemned at a Council in Alexandria in
400 and two councils in Constantinople in 543 and 553.  I am fairly
sure the preexistence of souls is one of the doctrines condemned.
--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21625
From: dike@scic.intel.com (Charles Dike)
Subject: Re: Mormon Temples


	From: dhammers@pacific.? (David Hammerslag)

	How do you (Mormons) reconcile the idea of eternal marriage with 
	Christ's statement that in the resurrection people will neither 
	marry nor be given in marriage (Luke, chapt. 20)?

Footnotes in some bibles reference this verse to the Book of Tobit.
Tobit is in the Septuagint. Goodspeed published it in a book called 
"The Apocrypha". Most any bookstore will have this. At any rate, the Jews 
of Christ's day had this book. It is a story mostly centered around the
son of Tobit who was named Tobias. There was a young lady, Sarah, who had 
entered the bridal chamber with seven brothers in succession. The brothers 
all died in the chamber before consumating the marriage.

Tobias was entitled to have Sarah for his wife (3:17) because Tobias was
her only relative and "...she was destined for [Tobias] from the beginning"
(6:17).

Tobias took her to wife and was able to consumate the marriage. The 
seven husbands would not have her as a partner in heaven. That does not 
eliminate Tobias, her eighth husband. Tobit is a fun and interesting 
story to read. It's kind of a mythical romance. It's a little shorter 
than Esther.

The LDS also have scriptures that parallel and amplify Luke 20. Most 
notably Doctrines and Covenants 132:15-16.

	"Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry 
	her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as
	he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage
	are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of 
	the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they 
	are out of the world.

	"Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor 
	are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which
	angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are 
	worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of 
	glory."

 
Cordially,
Charles Dike

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21626
From: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes)
Subject: Kingdom theology

Until recently I always understood the term "kingdom theology" to mean the 
theology of the kingdom of God, but now I have discovered that there is a 
new and more specialized meaning. I gather that it is also called "Dominion 
theology", and that it has to do with a belief that Christians must create a 
theocratic form of government on earth before Christ will come again.

I have not come across anyone who believes or advocates this, but I am told 
that it is a very widespread belief in the USA.

Can anyone give me any more information about it?

Here are some of my questions:

1. Is it the teaching of any particular denomination? If so, which?
2. Where and when does it start?
3. Are there any particular publications that propagate it?
4. Are there any organizations that propagate it?

============================================================
Steve Hayes, Department of Missiology & Editorial Department
Univ. of South Africa, P.O. Box 392, Pretoria, 0001 South Africa
Internet: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za         Fidonet: 5:7101/20
          steve.hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
FAQ: Missiology is the study of Christian mission and is part of
     the Faculty of Theology at Unisa

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21627
From: aidler@sol.uvic.ca (E Alan  Idler)
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

In article <May.10.05.07.56.1993.3582@athos.rutgers.edu>, 
muddmj@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
> > Therefore, until someone is capable of comprehending 
> > God's laws they are not accountable for living them. 
> > They are in the book of life and are not removed until 
> > they can make a conscious decision to disobey God. 
> > 
> > A IDLER 
> 
> If babies are not supposed to be baptised then why doesn't the Bible 
>> ever say so.  It never comes right and says "Only people that know 
> right from wrong or who are taught can be baptised." 
>         What Christ did say was : 
> 
>         "I solemly assure you, NO ONE can enter God's kingdom without 
>          being born of water and Spirit ... Do not be surprised that I 
>          tell you you must ALL be begotten from above." 
> 
> Could this be because everyone is born with original sin? 

In some earlier discussions on this thread I may have
given the impression that even though children didn't 
require baptism it wouldn't hurt if they were.
To the contrary, when you baptize children before
they are capable of comprehending it you deny them 
their opportunity to demonstrate their desire to
serve God.

Have any of you considered that children are not
accountable for sin because they are not capable of 
repentance?
Peter said to a group of "men and brethren," "Repent
and be baptized every one of you" (Acts 2:38).
Notice that he specified that if they *repent* then 
they may be *baptized*.

In following Peter's instructions people must first
demonstrate repentance (a forsaking of their sins and 
a desire to obey God's commands) *before* they are 
eligible to be baptized.

Since young children are not capable of repenting,
they are not eligible for baptism.
And since God is both just and merciful "sin is not 
imputed when there is no law" (Romans 5:13), young 
children are not accountable for what they can't 
comprehend.

A IDLER

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21628
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock)
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

In article <May.12.04.29.14.1993.9997@athos.rutgers.edu> mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker) writes:

>	My feeling on baptism is this:  parents baptize their baby so that the
>	baby has the sanctifying grace of baptism (and thus removal of original
>	sin) on its soul in the event of an unexpected death.

You are right, Michael.

In John 3:5, Jesus says, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the
kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit."  That's really what
He said, and He meant it.  That verse is the definition of baptism.  I don't
have the law book in front of me, but there is a canon law that urges
parents to baptize their children within one week of birth for the very
reason that you state.


-- 
Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock 
Catechist
gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21629
From: wjhovi01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu (Bill Hovingh, LPTS Student)
Subject: Re: hate the sin...

scott@prism.gatech.edu (Scott Holt) writes:
> "Hate the sin but love the sinner"...I've heard that quite a bit recently, 
> often in the context of discussions about Christianity and homosexuality...
> but the context really isn't that important. My question is whether that
> statement is consistent with Christianity. I would think not.

I'm very grateful for scott's reflections on this oft-quoted phrase.  Could
someone please remind me of the Scriptural source for it?  (Rom. 12.9 doesn't
count, kids.)  The manner in which this little piece of conventional wisdom is
applied has, in my experience, been uniformly hateful and destructive.

billh

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21630
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: Re: Public/Private Revelation (formerly Re: Question about Virgin Mary

(Marty Helgesen) writes:

   When an alleged private revelation attracts sufficient attention,
   the Church may investigate it.  If the investigation indicates a
   likelihood that the alleged private revelation is in fact from God,
   it will be approved.  That means that it can be preached in the
   Church.  However, it is still true that no one is required to
   believe that it came from God.  A Catholic is free to deny the
   authenticity of even the most well attested and strongly approved
   private revelations, such as those at Fatima and Lourdes.  (I
   suspect that few if any Catholics do reject Fatima and Lourdes, but
   if any do their rejection of them does not mean they are not
   orthodox Catholics in good standing.)

It may be a bit much to say that a Catholic is free to deny what
happened at Fatima.  That's a bit strong, it is sort of like saying
that a Catholic is free to deny that Hong Kong exists.  What a
Catholic *is* free to do is to deny the truth of Fatima, without being
called a heretic.  You can be labeled other things for such an
offense, but not a heretic.

Theologians make a basic distinction as far as the degree of assent
one must give to events like Fatima and Lourdes.  Things revealed by
God through Jesus Christ or His Apostles must be given the assent due
to a revelation of God: total and unswerving.  Fatima and Lourdes
demand our assent as much as any other well-attested event in human
history.  Perhaps a bit more, given the approval of the Church.

"Approval" of an apparition by the Church principally means that
whatever happened was in harmony with the Catholic Faith.

I personally think of private revelations as our Lord's way of telling
us what to do at particular periods in history.  He gave us all the
doctrines, etc., 2000 years ago, but we can always use some help in
knowing how exactly to apply what He gave us.

Catholic devotion to the Sacred Heart was a result of a series of
apparitions to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, for example.  The problem
at the time was extreme moral rigorism that was turning our Lord into
someone without a heart.

The Fatima apparitions were a warning of an impending crisis in the
Church (we are living it), and what to do to save the most souls
possible in such a situation.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21631
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: Re: The Bible on the Immaculate COnception

In article <May.12.04.29.48.1993.10041@athos.rutgers.edu> JEK@cu.nih.gov writes:

	+  I will put enmity between you [the Serpent] and the woman, and
	+ between your seed and her seed, she [can also be read he] shall
	+ crush your head and you shall bruise her [or his] heel.
	+ -Genesis 3.15

   In the Hebrew of Genesis 3:15, the gender is clearly masculine.

	+ HE shall crush your head, and you shall bruise HIS heel.

   The Latin has feminine forms, only by an accident of grammar.

I have yet to see an adequate explanation of St. Jerome's translation
of Genesis 3:15.  His Latin clearly uses the feminine, but I don't
know why, since the Hebrew is clearly masculine.  If anyone knows of a
scholarly treatment of this puzzle, I would appreciate hearing from
you.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21632
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: Re: Baptism requires Faith

(Aaron Bryce Cardenas) writes:

   Romans 10:16-17 "But not all the Israelites accepted the good news.  For
   Isaiah says, 'Lord, who has believed our message?'  Consequently, faith
   comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word
   of Christ."

   So then we receive God's gift of faith to us as we hear the message of the
   gospel.  Faith is a possible response to hearing God's word preached.  Kids
   are not yet spiritually, intellectually, or emotionally mature enough to
   respond to God's word.  Hence they cannot have faith and therefore cannot
   be raised in baptism to a new life.

Catholics view the effects of Baptism slightly differently, and that's
one primary reason why they baptize babies.  They believe that Baptism
produces a change in the soul of the baby, quite independently of any
volitional act on the part of the baby.  This change in the baby's
soul gives the infant certain capabilities that he would not have
without Baptism.  Since the infant does not have the use of his
intellect and will yet, these new faculties are dormant.  But as the
child gets older, the gifts of Baptism come more and more into play.

   Ezekiel 18:20 "The soul who sins will die.  The son will not share the
   guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.  The
   righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the
   wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him."

   If you read all of Ezekiel 18, you will see that God doesn't hold us guilty
   for anyone else's sins.  So we can have no original guilt from Adam.

Adam was given a number of gifts by God.  The chief among them was
what Catholics call "sanctifying grace".  (In the New Testament, the
word used for this is "charity".)  By his sin, Adam lost this grace.
He didn't lose it just for himself, however, he lost it for the whole
human race.  Because once he lost it, he couldn't pass it on to his
descendents.

That's why Catholics baptize babies.  Through his Original Sin, Adam
lost sanctifying grace for all his descendents.  Christ instituted
Baptism to give it back to everyone.

Babies are not being punished for anything they personally did; they
are simply lacking in something they need, in order to enter Heaven.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21633
From: sdittman@liberty.uc.wlu.edu (Scott Dittman)
Subject: Definition of Christianity?

Although simplistic I have always liked the fact that "a Christian is one
who not only believes in God, but believes God."  After all the name was
first given externally to identify those who "preached Christ and Him
crucified" to pay the price of their rebeliion and shortcomings before
God.  God said this was His son -- I belive Him.
-- 
Scott Dittman                    email: sdittman@wlu.edu
University Registrar             talk: (703)463-8455   fax: (703)463-8024
Washington and Lee University    snail mail:  Lexington Virginia 24450

[It's certainly a good things for Christians to follow.  But as
a definition it may be a bit hard to apply.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21634
From: kolassa@genesee.bst.rochester.edu (John Kolassa)
Subject: Re: Definition of Christianity?

In article <May.12.04.28.31.1993.9972@athos.rutgers.edu> clh writes:
>
>[Often we get into discussions about who is Christian.  Unfortunately
>there are a number of possible definitions.  Starting from the 
>broadest, commonly used definitions are:

>3) The next level is an attempt to give a broad doctrinal definition,
>which includes all of the major strands of Christianity, but excludes
>groups that are felt to be outside "historic Christianity."  This is
>of course a slippery enterprise, since Catholics could argue that
>Protestants are outside historic Christianity, etc.  But I think the
>most commonly accepted definition would be based on something like the
>Nicene Creed and the Formula of Chalcedon.

Are you sure you want to include Chalcedon here?  I presume that you 
mean the description of Jesus as fully human and fully devine.  Almost 
everyone would consider the majority of Copts and Armenians, and the 
Jacobites, as Christians, yet for 15 centuries it has been maintained 
that they disagree with the Formula of Chalcedon.  Those that wouldn't 
consider them Christians are most likely to object that these communities 
don't require a personal commitment to Jesus, which is only tangentially 
related to the Formula of Chalcedon.  
-- 
Thanks, John Kolassa, kolassa@bio1.bst.rochester.edu

[As I understand the recent discussion here, the Copts for all
practical purposes accept Chalcedon.  They talk about one nature
rather than two, but the issue seems to be one of terminology rather
than substance.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21635
From: seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."

In article <Apr.29.01.29.24.1993.8394@geneva.rutgers.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
>In article 4220@geneva.rutgers.edu, seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson) writes:
>[deletia- Recovery programs, etc]
>
>I do need you to show me that there is such a thing as
>a "spiritual need"; to do that it may be necessary to show
>me that *spirits* (souls, whatnot) exist; God is not
>important to that as far as I can tell.
>
I get the feeling that we are debating at cross-purposes--that we
do not see the same fundamental assumptions, and this perhaps makes
my answers orthogonal to your questions.  I will try again.

Perhaps you believe that nothing exists aside from objectively
observable and provable things.  In that case, I cannot show you
that there is such thing as a spirit or a spiritual need--these 
things do not exist in the realm of the objective, but in the
realm of the subjective.

>OTOH, if you wish you can simply (but explicitly, please)
>*assume* spirits exist, and then show me that they would
>have needs, and that a.a. handles these needs in some way.
>You can assume God exists too if that will help. I'll play along.
>
(By a.a., I assume you mean Alcoholics Anonymous, and not alt.atheism ;)
I would not say that AA "handles" spiritual needs.  Rather I would say
that AA (and other 12-step programs) help people come to terms with their
needs--ie that AA is facilitating the recovery, and that as part of the
recovery, they recognize their spiritual needs, and begin to rely on a "higher
power" (12-step's term) to fill them instead of whatever substance abuse
they had been accustomed to.  (Sorry, there is no objective proof here
either--no way to take 2 identical alcoholics and try to have one recover
by fulfilling spiritual needs, and one without and externally compare the
difference--we are talking about the virtually infinite complexity of
*people* here.)

>But I should say, if God is a necessary component
>of your "spiritual needs" then I truely do not understand at
>all. It sounds to me like *spirits* have needs that should be
>fulfilled by God, but can be "masked" in other ways (drugs etc).
>If this is the case, then you can leave out God: just describe
>the problem, not the solution.
>
Spiritual needs could be defined as things that people need in addition to
physical requirements like air, food, sleep, etc.  These are things like
the need for love and acceptance, and the need for meaning in life.  If 
one denies the existence of spiritual things, one would presumably call 
these "emotional needs". The reason Christians call them spiritual needs 
is that they have aspects that are not fulfillable except by spiritual 
means--ie a person could be loved and accepted by many people, and do 
many meaningful things, but still have a need for love, which can only be
satisfied by the love of God.  Now the problem is that there are people who
accept the existence of these needs, and people who reject them.  Since I
believe in absolute truth, some of these people are right, and the others
are wrong.  So here are the 2 possibilities:

1) If Christians are right, then we all have spiritual needs--ie
we all need God.  Those who do not realize that they need God are 
deluded--they just haven't recognized it yet.

2) If Christians are wrong, spiritual needs are an artefact of our brain
chemicals.  Well-adjusted and properly-integrated personalities do not
have such things.  Christians are simply using the concept of God and 
spiritual needs to mask their own inadequacies.

I hate to belabour the point, but the existence of spirits and spiritual
needs cannot be objectively demonstrated or proven, just like the existence
of God cannot.  And yes, this means that there is a risk that all my subjective
evidence is manufactured by my brain chemicals.  But on the other hand, I 
could venture into solipsism and say that there is a risk that everything that
I appear to objectively know is really manufactured by my brain chemicals.

I suspect this is an unsatisfactory answer to a request for evidence and
demonstration of the existence of spirits and spiritual needs, but my assertion
is that such things are not objectively demonstrable.  As I have said before, 
I myself am on the Christian side of agnosticism, having been pushed off the 
fence by subjective evidence.  (And no, I was not raised a Christian, so it 
is not a case of simply accepting what I was indoctrinated with.)

==
Seanna Watson   Bell-Northern Research,       | Pray that at the end of living,
(seanna@bnr.ca) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada       | Of philosophies and creeds,
                                              | God will find his people busy
Opinion, what opinions? Oh *these* opinions.  | Planting trees and sowing seeds.
No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.          |
I knew I'd left them somewhere.               |  --Fred Kaan

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21636
From: nichael@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Subject: Re: Deuterocanonicals, esp. Sirach

poram@ihlpb.att.com writes:
   On these counts, the apocrapha falls short of the glory of God.
   To quote Unger's Bible Dictionary on the Apocrapha:
   1. They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and
   anachronisms.
   2. They teach doctrines which are false and foster practices
   which are at variance with sacred Scripture.
   3. They resort to literary types and display an artificiality of
   subject matter and styling out of keeping with sacred Scripture.
   4. They lack the distinctive elements which give genuine
   Scripture their divine character, such as prophetic power and
   poetic and religious feeling.

First, to point out the obvious: While #4 would clearly be a highly
subjective issue, one would be hard pressed to point to another book
of the OT (or for that matter the NT) that doesn't, on some issues, in
some way, fail one or more of the first three of these tests.

Second, one factor the Deuterocanonicals share is the lateness of
their composition.  I don't recall the exact dating of all of the
books, but most --if not all-- were written after the latest of the
canonical books (i.e. Daniel).

Furthermore, while the Deuterocanonical may or may not have been
originally written in Greek, they are clearly deeply _Hellenistic_ in
nature.  Both of these features probably figured heavily in the
rejection of these books from the various canons.

These may not be strict and uniformly applicable criteria by which to
judge the canonicity of these books, but, as these discussions have
shown, I think the one thing we can see is that there _are_ no purely
objective standards for determining canonicity.

Nichael
;(and (funcall (get 'smurfy-smile-icon 'like-predicate) 'lisp) (sys::honk))

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21637
From: nichael@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Subject: The Long Text of Acts [was: Variants in the NT Text]

[To the moderator: I posted this about a week ago but it never showed
                   up (locally) on the net.  If this has already
                   actually been posted, please fill free to flush
                   this copy.  --N]

From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
>Does anyone now where an English translation of the long recension of
>the Acts of the Apostles can be found?

1] A english translation of this can be found in:
   "The Acts of the Apostles, translated from the Codex Bezae, with an
   introduction on its Lucan Origin and Importance", J. M. Wilson
   (London, 1923).

2] Another work that might be useful is:
   "The Acts of the Apostles, a Critical Edition with Introduction and
   Notes on Selected Passages", Albert C. Clark (Oxford, 1933;
   reprinted 1970).

(This is an edition of text of Acts that makes the assumption that the
text in Codex Bezae is the more authentic.  I don't know if it
actually contains an english translation or not.)

3] Another useful that discusses many of the variants in detail is:
   "The Theological Tendency of the Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in
   Acts", Eldon J Epp (Cambridge, 1966).

4] The most recent reference I found was an edition in French from the
early '80s.  (I can supply the reference if anyone's interested.)

5] Now, many of the works are going to be difficult to find.  So if
you're interested in examining the differences in the long recension
an excellent (and easily obtainable) discussion can be found in:
   "A Textual Commentary on the Greek NT", Bruce Metzger (United Bible
   Society, 1971).

Metzger's book serves as a companion volume to the UBS 3rd edition of
the Greek NT.  It contains a discussion on the reasoning that went
behind the decisions on each of the 1440 variant readings included in
the UBS3.  Furthermore, notes on an addition 600 readings are
included in aTCotGNT (the majority of these occur in Acts).

In particular in the introduction to the section on Acts Metzger writes:
   "[An attempt was made] to set before the reader a more or less full
   report (with an English translation) of the several additions and
   other modifications that are attested by Western witnesses ...
   Since many of these have no corresponding apparatus in the
   text-volume, care was taken to supply an adequate conspectus of the
   evidence that supports the divergent readings." (p 272).

>I understand that one of the early codexes, Vaticanus and Siniaticus has
>this version of Acts.  It would be interesting to know what the
>differences are between the long and the short forms.

6] Most of the copies of the text of Acts that we have (including the
ones in Vaticanus and Siniaticus) adher pretty closely to the shorter
(or Alexandrian) version.  The longer version to which you refer is
usually called the "Western" version and its main witness is the Codex
Bezae (althought there are a few other rather fragmentary sources).

7] As far as size, the difference is that in Clark's edition
(mentioned above) the book of Acts contains 19,983 words whereas the
text edited by Westcott and Hort (a typical Alexandrian text) contains
18,401 words; i.e. a difference of about 8-1/2%.

8] To answer the obvious questions, no, there are no major revelations
in the longer text nor major omissions in the shorter text.  The main
difference seems to "expansion" of detail in the Western text (or, if
you prefer "contractions" in the Alexandrian).  The Western text seems
to be given to more detail.  There are some interesting specific
cases, but this probably not the place to go into it in detail.

9] The discussion over the years as to which of these versions is the
more authentic has been hot and heavy.  If there is anything
approaching a modern consensus it is (i) that neither text represents
purely the "authentic" version, (ii) each variant reading has to be
examined on its own merits however, (iii) the variant in the
Alexandrian text is the "better" more often than not.

N

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21638
From: aaronc@athena.mit.edu (Aaron Bryce Cardenas)
Subject: Re: Jacob and Esau

JEK@cu.nih.gov writes:
>I wrote that the Apostle Paul, in Romans 9, speaks of God as
>choosing Jacob over Esau, and adds that this is not as a result of
>anything that either child had done, since they had not been born
>yet.

It's my understanding that Romans 9:13 "As it is written, Jacob have I
loved, but Esau have I hated." refers not to the two individuals, but
rather to their offspring, the tribe of Jacob and the tribe of Esau

See Obadiah, for example.  In fact, if you scan through the OT, you
will find similar references to the two tribes.

- Aaron Cardenas
aaronc@athena.mit.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21639
From: Mail.Server@mozart.cc.iup.edu (mserv)
Subject: Ten Commandments or Ten Discourses?

In the course of discussing the Sabbath with some folks, 
I came across something that was completely new to me, 
and I thought I'd offer it for comment.

To keep this as brief as possible, let me state my 
observation as a declarative statement, and then whoever 
wants to can comment on it.  Basically, what I think 
I've observed is that the phrase "the Ten Commandments", 
as used by Moses, is not a reference to Ex. 20:1-17, but 
rather a reference to ten distinct discourses from Ex. 
20:1 through Ex. 31:18.  That is, the phrase "the Ten 
Commandments" should more accurately be translated "the 
Ten Discourses", of which the passage we call the "Ten 
Commandments" is really only the first.

I'm not completely convinced that the above is true, but 
for purposes of discussion, let me argue it as though I 
was sure.

Arguments supporting the above idea:

1)  There aren't really ten commandments in Ex. 20:1-17.  
In order to get 10 commandments, you have to get two of 
them out of verses 3-6, and the verses themselves do not 
support such a division because they are all about not 
worshipping other gods.  That is, verse 3 commands to 
have no other gods, and verse 5 commands to not worship 
the idols mentioned in verse 4.  You can't violate 
verses 5-6 without violating verse 3, indicating that 
the whole passage is one command, and leaving us with 
only Nine "Commandments".  I could go on at length about 
this, but for now I'll just stop with this summary.

2)  There ARE ten speeches between Ex 20:1 (the beginning
of the traditional "Ten Commandments") and Ex 31:18 
(where God actually gives Moses the two tablets with the 
Ten Commandments/Discourses written on them).  I break 
these ten down as follows: 20:1-17; 20:22-26; 21:1-23:33; 
25:1-30:10; 30:11-16; 30:17-21; 30:22-33; 30:34-38; 
31:1-11; and 31:12-18.  In most cases, each of these 
passages begins with some variation of the phrase, "And 
the LORD spoke to Moses, saying..."  The exception is 
Ex. 21:1, which begins "Now these are the ordinances 
which you are to set before them..."

3)  The word translated "commandments" in the phrase 
"the Ten Commandments" isn't really the word for 
"commandment", its the word for a speech, or an 
utterance.  It's a word often used for longer discourses 
rather than individual statements; for instance, when 
combined with the word 'yom' (day), this word is 
translated "Chronicles" in such phrases as "now the rest 
of the acts of so-and-so, are they not written in the 
Chronicles of x?..."  The word for "commandment" is 
freely used throughout the books of Moses, and perhaps 
it is significant that when Moses spoke of the Ten X's, 
he appears to have avoided the word for commandment and 
chosen instead a word associated with discourses longer 
than just a single command.

4)  God tells Moses that He is going to give him the 
stone tablets "with the law and the commandments" (Ex 
24:12), yet He does not give Moses the tablets until He 
has finished all ten discourses on Mount Sinai.  If the 
Ten Commandments were only Ex. 20:1-17, it is not 
immediately clear why God would wait several days and 
nine more discourses before giving these tablets to 
Moses.  On the other hand, if we have the Ten Discourses 
written on the tablets, then it makes perfect sense that 
God would not give Moses the tablets until He had 
finished delivering all Ten Discourses.

5)  When Moses did get the tablets, he found that both 
tablets were written on both sides (Ex. 32:15).  If 
these Ten "Commandments" were only the first 17 verses 
of Ex. 20, God would have had to have written in LARGE 
letters!  Not that He couldn't have, of course, but it 
does seem more likely to me that this is a reference to 
two tablets containing ten discourses written in normal-
sized letters.

6)  In II Cor. 3, Paul seems to specifically single out 
the "commandments written on stone" as being the 
"ministry of death", "that which is fading away," and 
"the ministry of condemnation."  With the possible 
exception of the commandment about the Sabbath, it is 
difficult to see why Paul would refer to the commands in 
Ex. 20:1-17 as being temporary, "fading away"-type 
commandments.  This is less of a problem if the stone 
tablets should happen to have included all of the 
commandments from Ex 20 through Ex 31.

Arguments against this idea:

The main argument against this idea, aside from the fact 
that it contradicts a long-standing tradition, is that 
in Dt 5:22, Moses says, after quoting the commands in 
Ex. 20:1-17, "These words the LORD spoke...and He added 
no more.  And He wrote them on two tablets of stone and 
gave them to me."  This appears to identify the words 
just quoted as being the only contents of the two stone 
tablets.

That was my first impression, anyway.  However, after 
some thought, I noted that a great deal hinges on how 
you understand the phrase "These words."  If Moses meant 
"These words *which I have just related to you* were 
spoken by God" etc., then that would mean that only the 
traditional "Ten Commandments" were on the stone 
tablets.  If, however, Moses was making a parenthetical 
comment--"These words *which I AM NOW telling you* were 
spoken by God" etc.--then that's quite different.

I did note that in the Dt 5 account, Moses tells of 
being given the stone tablets BEFORE telling of the 
people asking Moses to represent them before God, 
whereas in the Exodus account, the people asked this of 
Moses between the first and second discourses, several 
days BEFORE God gave Moses the stone tablets.  This 
reinforces the idea that Moses' remarks in Dt 5:22ff 
were intended as a parenthetical remark, rather than a 
strictly chronological account of when God wrote what, 
and at what point He stopped adding to what was on the 
tablets.

Summary:  all things considered, I find it somewhat more 
likely that the nine commands in Ex 20 are really only 
the first of what Moses regarded as the Ten Discourses 
of God.  I don't know if anybody has ever espoused this 
idea before; it's brand-new to me.  So, while I lean 
towards accepting it, I would be very interested in 
hearing any comments and criticisms anyone may care to 
offer.

- Mark

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21640
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse

And do not set your heart on what you will eat or drink; do not worry about it.

Luke 12:29

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21641
From: brh54@cas.org (Brooks Haderlie)
Subject: Re: Mormon Temples

In article 28334@athos.rutgers.edu, dhammers@pacific.? (David Hammerslag) writes:

> This paragraph brought to mind a question.  How do you (Mormons) reconcile
> the idea of eternal marriage with Christ's statement that in the ressurection
> people will neither marry nor be given in marriage (Luke, chapt. 20)?

That's the whole point, David.  As spirits separated from their bodies
and living in the spirit world, they cannot undergo the ordinance of
marriage, just as they cannot be baptized, since there is no physical
body to be baptized.  We perform these ordinances as proxies for them,
in their behalf.  Thanks for asking.  Brooks

***************************************************************************
* Brooks Haderlie (brh54@cas.org) * " O be wise; what can I say more?"
* * Columbus, OH by way of Ucon, ID * - Jacob 6:12 * *
---------------------------------------------------------------------
* * These opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.  *
 *************************************************************************

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21642
From: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell)
Subject: homosexuals

Several replies to my post have said that I should get to know  
Christian homosexuals before judging them.  I maintain that I was not  
judging them by saying that homosexuality is wrong.   I would like to  
look at the responces to my post and make a general sterotypical  
evaluation of the people who responded to the side of Christianity  
and homosexuality being compatible (admitedly not all are homosexuals  
but I know that many are from their e-mail responces).  I don't  
normally make sterotypical assumptions about groups of people, but  
since I have been asked to by many of the opposing veiw point I will.

So far people have made wild assumptions, put me down because I don't  
have the resources of others, and even reverted to name calling.  If  
you don't think this is an acurate representation then those of you  
who are homosexual Christians show me the diffrence.

In Christ's Love,
Bryan

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21643
From: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell)
Subject: Homosexuality

Recently an e-mail to me mentioned:

(Technically, the messengers aren't even human so
it *can't* be a case of "homosexuality" -- even of rape.) [...]

The Jude reference to Sodom is also meaningful only in the context of
the Sodomites' "lust" for the "other flesh" of angels.  Again,
application to homosexual behavior in general, or to the position of
gay Christians is largeely specious.
***
Are angels "flesh"? No. I feel that this is saying that it was because
of their lust after other men, who are flesh( or of this world).

what are other opinons on this? I haven't heard much about this verse  
at all.

In Christ's Love,
Bryan
--

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21644
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: Hell

On 20 April, Stephen McIntyre writes:

 > I would rather spend an eternity in Hell than be beside God in
 > Heaven knowing that even one man would spend his "eternal life"
 > being scorched for his wrongdoings....

Stephen, I suspect that when you and I use the word "Hell," we have
different concepts in mind. When you encounter references to Heaven
in terms of crowns and harps and golden streets, I trust that you do
not suppose (or suspect Christians of supposing) that the golden
streets are to be taken literally, still less that they are what the
concept of Heaven is all about. Why then should you suppose that
about the "fires" of Hell?
     Have you read the novel ATLAS SHRUGGED? Do you remember the
last description of James Taggart, sitting on the floor beside the
Ferris Persuader? This comes close to a description of what is meant
by Hell in my circles. If the image of fire is often used in this
connection, there are two reasons that occur to me.
     The first reason is that it conveys the idea of Hell as
something that any rational being would earnestly wish to avoid (as
any rational being would wish to avoid the fate of James Taggart --
but the latter image is meaningful only to those who have read ATLAS
SHRUGGED, a smaller audience than those who have played with
matches).
     The second reason is the history of the Hebrew word "Gehenna,"
one of the words translated "Hell" in the New Testament. It refers
to the valley of Hinnon, outside Jerusalem. In early days, it was a
place where the Canaanites offered human sacrifices (burned alive)
to Molech. Later, it was made a garbage or refuse dump, where fires
burned continually, consuming the trash of the city of Jerusalem.
"To be cast into Gehenna" or "to burn in Gehenna" thus became a
metaphor for "to be rejected or discarded as worthless."

Lest you think that identifying Hell with the fate of James Taggart
is my own private fancy, I commend to you the book THE GREAT
DIVORCE, by C S Lewis. It discusses Heaven (no harps) and Hell (no
flames). It is shorter than ATLAS SHRUGGED, and available at most
bookstores and libraries.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21645
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: hate the sin...

Interesting point.  The Bible doesn't say "hate the sin".
It tells to avoid sin, resist sin, even, when necessary, denounce sin.
But not hate.


-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

[The following passages all talk about God or people God approves of
hating sin or some other action.  Ps 119:113 also talks about hating
the sinner.  I believe there are other passages that would talk about
hating someone who is evil, but I didn't turn them up in this search
(which was on the word "hate" in the KJV, though I've crosschecked
each passage in the NRSV).

Ps 97:10, 101:3, 105:25, 119:104, 113, 128, 163, , 139:21-22
Prov 6:16, 8:13
Isa 61:8
Amos 5:15
Zec 8:17
Rev 2:6

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21646
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Subject: Re: Satan kicked out of heaven: Biblical?

[This is a response to a request for a Biblical reference about Satan
being a fallen angel.  --clh]

Isaiah 14:12

[A common reading of this passage is that it's referring to
the King of Babylon, using mythological language ironically,
because of his claims.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21647
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Subject: ****CHRISTIANITY IN CRISIS**** by Hank Hanegraaff


                       "CHRISTIANITY IN CRISIS"
                                    by: Hank Hanegraaff



         "Controversy for the sake of controversy is a sin.
            Controversy for the sake of truth is a divine command."
                                       -Dr. Walter Martin


Dr. Walter Martin personally selected Hank Hanegraaff to succeed him
as President of the Christian Research Institute -- the largest 
evangelical counter-cult organization in the world. In this skillful, 
careful treatment of an explosive subject, Hanegraaff documents and 
examines how the beliefs of the Word of Faith movement clearly 
compromises and confuse the essentials of the historic Christian 
faith. For the first time ever, this large and influential movement
is legitimately labeled as cultic.

In this book, Hanegraaff discusses such leaders of the Word of Faith 
movement as E.W. Kenyon and the Twelve Apostles of "another gospel" 
(Gal 1:6-9) (Kenneth E. Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, Frederick
K.C. Price, John Avanzini, Robert Tilton, Marilyn Hickey, Paul (David) 
Yonggi Cho, Charles Capps, Jerry Savelle, Morris Cerullo, and Paul and 
Jan Crouch).

The book is now available through Harvest House Publishers and should
be in most Christian Book Stores soon. You can order a hard-back copy 
through CRI for $14.99 by calling 1-800-443-9797 and avoid retail 
mark-ups.

The Christian Research Journal, which is a quarterly publication by CRI 
has an article in it's most recent issue just released called, "What's 
Wrong With The Word Faith Movement?" This is a good article that will 
inform you of each of the teachers above, and tide you over until your 
book arrives. If you are interested in receiving the Journal yourself, 
you can order it from CRI at the number above for $14 a year. It is the 
best source of the most-accurate and well-researched info in Christiandom 
today.


[If we're going to have a discussion of book here (and this is the
third posting so far), I'd like people to say enough about its
contents for people to decide whether it's worth reading.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21648
From: pduggan@world.std.com (Paul C Duggan)
Subject: Re: Baptism requires Faith

In article <May.12.04.26.21.1993.9879@athos.rutgers.edu> aaronc@athena.mit.edu (Aaron Bryce Cardenas) writes:
>Colossians 2:11-12 "In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of
>the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by Christ, having been
>buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the
>power of God, who raised him from the dead."
>
>In baptism, we are raised to a new life in Christ (Romans 6:4) through a
>personal faith in the power of God.  Our parent's faith cannot do this.  Do
>infants have faith?  Let's look at what the Bible has to say about it.

I don't think the issue of whether infants have faith is relevant or not.
Certainly they *can*, as the example of John in utero proves. I find the
translation of Col 2 above odd in terms of the circumcision of christ,
which the KJV and RSV put in terms of Christ's cricumcision which we, in
union with him *participate* in putting off the body of sins of the flesh.

Also, perhaps cor 2:12 is dividing the act of burial with him in baptism,
which can be independant of faith, from the experience of rising with
Christ by faith. Who says both are by faith? This interpretation has the
advantage of explaining those who are faithlessly baptized, for whom their
baptisim is not benefit, but serves to put them into the kingdom nonetheless.

Like the israelites (all of them, children included) who were baptized in
the cloud and in the sea, it was of no advantage because they did not add
to their baptism faith and obedience.

Baptism does not impart faith, nor is it done strictly speaking on the
basis of the faith of the parent, but because of the covcenant promise of
God. It imparts grace, the grace of the kingdom, which can be a
punishement in disguise if there is later apostacy.


>
>Romans 10:16-17 "But not all the Israelites accepted the good news.  For
>Isaiah says, 'Lord, who has believed our message?'  Consequently, faith
>comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word
>of Christ."
>
>So then we receive God's gift of faith to us as we hear the message of the
>gospel.  Faith is a possible response to hearing God's word preached.  Kids
>are not yet spiritually, intellectually, or emotionally mature enough to
>respond to God's word.  Hence they cannot have faith and therefore cannot
>be raised in baptism to a new life.

Do you teach a child to pray the Lord's prayer? Do you expect them to not
steal? They *can* have faith appropriate to their condition. And in the
new covenant, we shall no longer say: know the lord, for they shall all
know him from the least unto the greatest Heb 8:11.

>If you read all of Ezekiel 18, you will see that God doesn't hold us guilty
>for anyone else's sins.  So we can have no original guilt from Adam.

But also according to Ezekiel 18, God will not hold innocent anyone on the
basis of anyone elses innocense. Thus Jesus could not be our federal head
any more than adam, *IF* that's what ezekiel is talking about. Shall you
make ezekiel 18 contradict the second commandemnt as well?


  >
>Ezekiel 18:31-32 "Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committted,
>and get a new heart and a new spirit.  Why will you die, O house of Israel?
>For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord.
>Repent and live!"
>
>The way to please God is to repent and get a new heart and spirit.  Kids
>cannot do this.  Acts 2:38-39 says that when we repent and are baptized, we
>will then receive a new spirit, the Holy Spirit.  Then we shall live.

Ezekiel 36:25-26 indicates that this new heart will be given by God,
in the context of the sprinkling of water in baptism. It is the action of
God puting them into his new order, and not a question of"personal"
faith as such.


>Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and
>death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all
>sinned--"
>
>Sin and death entered the world when the first man sinned.  Death came to
>each man because each man sinned.  Note that it's good to read through all
>of Romans 5:12-21.  Some of the verses are easier to misunderstand than
>others, but if we read them in context we will see that they are all
>saying basically the same thing.  Let's look at one such.
>
But the death that came to all because of sin is not just their personal
death, but the dead state (originbal sin). We are in a covenant of death,
because adam, our federal head gave over his dominion to the devil and death.


>Psalm 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother
>conceived me."
>
>This whole Psalm is a wonderful example of how we should humble ourselves
>before God in repentance for sinning.  David himself was a man after God's
>own heart and wrote the Psalm after committing adultry with Bathsheba and
>murdering her husband.  All that David is saying here is that he can't
>remember a time when he wasn't sinful.  He is humbling himself before God
>by confessing his sinfulness.  His saying that he was sinful at birth is
>a hyperbole.  The Bible, being inspired by God, isn't limited to a literal
>interpetation, but also uses figures of speech as did Jesus (John 16:25).
>For another example of hyperbole, see Luke 14:26.

While this psalm is figurative in it's language, it is not hyperbolic, and
the one does not necessarily imply the other. There is not other
hyperbolic language in this psalm. What v 5 is likely refering to is 
what is symbolized by the OT cleanliness laws (which make intercourse and
childbrith both acts which caus uncleannes and seperation from God). The
whole psalm is in the language of OT ritual (hyssop, cleansing, burnt
offering, etc) David's sin with bathsheba included this element, as he
did not ritually cleanse himself when he should have. 

But what was symbolized by the OT ritual was the truth that sin was 
passed generationally. That's why the organ of generation had to be
cut. That's why brith was unclean. Uncleanness was death, and all babies
were born dead, and needed to be washed to newness of life, which we have in
baptism today.

paul duggan

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21649
From: pduggan@world.std.com (Paul C Duggan)
Subject: Re: hate the sin...

In article <May.12.04.27.07.1993.9920@athos.rutgers.edu> scott@prism.gatech.edu (Scott Holt) writes:
>Hate begets more hate, never love. Consider some sin. I'll leave it unnamed
>since I don't want this to digress into an argument as to whether or not 
>something is a sin. Now lets apply our "hate the sin..." philosophy and see
>what happens. If we truly hate the sin, then the more we see it, the 
>stronger our hatred of it will become. Eventually this hate becomes so 
>strong that we become disgusted with the sinner and eventually come to hate
>the sinner.

Though you can certaily assert all this, I don't see why it necessarily
has to be the case. Why can't hate just stay as it is, and not beget more?
Who says we have to get disgusted and start hating the sinner. I admit
this happens, but I donlt think you can say it is always necessaily
so.

Why can we not hate with a perfect hatred?

>In the summary of the law, Christ commands us to love God and to love our 
>neighbors. He doesn't say anything about hate. In fact, if anything, he 
>commands us to save our criticisms for ourselves. So, how are Christians
>supposed to deal with the sin of others? I suppose that there is only one
>way to deal with sin (either in others or ourselves)...through prayer. We

Certainly we should love even our enemies. Amos 5:15 says to hate the evil
and love the good. This can't contradict Christ's teaching. I think we tie
up both hate and love with an emotional attitude, when it really should be
considered more objectively. Surely I don't fly into a rage at every sin
I see, but why can I not "hate" it?

paul duggan

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21650
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: The crowd before Pilate

In a post of 29 April (?), considering disasters as instances of the
judgements of God in history, Andy Byler spoke of

 > the desire of the Jerusalem mob who crucified the Lord that
 > "His blood be upon us."

Vera Noyes replied (02 May),

 > I will not comment here for fear of being heavily flamed.

I invite them both (and other interested parties as well) to read my
comments on this verse of Scripture. To obtain them, send the
message GET CHOOSING BARABBAS to LISTSERV@ASUACAD.BITNET or to
LISTSERV@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU. Putting it briefly, I think that the
significance of the demands of the Jerusalem crowd has usually been
greatly misunderstood, both by Christian and by anti-Christian
readers.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

[You should send email to that address, with the contents of the
message being a single line containing the GET command.  The
subject line is apparently ignored, at least by ASUVM.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21651
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: Trinity

James Green writes:

 > Can't someone describe someone's trinity in simple declarative
 > sentences that have common meaning?

I offer him four attempts.

First is an essay by me (largely indebted to Attempts Two and
Three), obtainable by sending the message GET TRINITY ANALOGY to
LISTSERV@ASUACAD.BITNET or to LISTSERV@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU

Second is a couple of books by Dorothy L Sayers: a play called THE
ZEAL OF THY HOUSE, and a non-fiction book called THE MIND OF THE
MAKER.  The play can be found in the book FOUR SACRED PLAYS, and
also in various other collections, including one called RELIGIOUS
DRAMA (Meridian Books) and one called BEST PLAYS OF 1937.

Third is the book MERE CHRISTIANITY by C S Lewis, particularly the
last section, called "Beyond Personality".

Fourth is a book called THEOLOGY FOR BEGINNERS, by the Roman
Catholic writer Frank Sheed. I will say that I do not find Sheed's
approach altogether satisfying, but I know some persons whose minds
I respect who do.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21652
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Subject: Re: _Christianity In Crisis_ by Hank Hanegraaff

In article <May.12.04.27.23.1993.9926@athos.rutgers.edu> af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.) writes:
>Has anyone read this important book?  If so, what are your feelings about it?
>
>Frank
>-- 
>"If one wished to contend with Him, he could not answer Him one time out
> of a thousand."  JOB 9:3


Hi Frank:

I've read it a couple of times and I think that it is excellent.
Christiandom has needed this book for some time now. I suggest that
*every* Christian read it.

According to Hank, they printed 15 times more than Harvest House
usually prints for the first printing, and it still sold out in
the first week. It is in it's second printing, and most Christian
book stores have waiting lists. You can order it directly from CRI
at 1-800-443-9797.

-tony

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21653
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: hate the sin...

In article <May.12.04.27.07.1993.9920@athos.rutgers.edu>, scott@prism.gatech.edu (Scott Holt) writes:
>"Hate the sin but love the sinner"...I've heard that quite a bit recently, 
>often in the context of discussions about Christianity and homosexuality...
>but the context really isn't that important. My question is whether that
>statement is consistent with Christianity. I would think not.
>
>Hate begets more hate, never love. Consider some sin. I'll leave it unnamed
>since I don't want this to digress into an argument as to whether or not 
>something is a sin. Now lets apply our "hate the sin..." philosophy and see
>what happens. If we truly hate the sin, then the more we see it, the 
>stronger our hatred of it will become. Eventually this hate becomes so 
>strong that we become disgusted with the sinner and eventually come to hate
>the sinner. In addition, our hatred of the sin often causes us to say and 
>do things which are taken personally by the sinner (who often does not even 
>believe what they are doing is a sin). After enough of this, the sinner begins
>to hate us (they certainly don't love us for our constant criticism of their
>behavior). Hate builds up and drives people away from God...this certainly
>cannot be a good way to build love.

I don't agree, but I can only speak for myself.  I have a good friend
whose lifestyle is very sinful.  Do I hate the things she does to herself
and others?  Yes.  Do I hate her?  Absolutely not.  In fact, she tells me
repeatedly that I am the best friend she has in the world.  I care about
her very much despite the fact that I hate how she lives her life.

It's very easy to fall into the progression you describe above.  I've
felt it with my friend more than once.  There is a very important 
part of Christianity that you've overlooked above and makes it possible
to "love the sin but hate the sinner."  Before I look at someone
else's life and sin, I look to myself and am as disgusted by what I see
in *me* as I see in others, probably more.  Self-righteousness is
contradictory to Christianity and is what makes the progression you
describe happen.  If a Christian can truthfully quote Paul and say, "Wretched
man that I am!" [Romans 7:24 (NASB)], that Christian will be able
to love the sinner and hate the sin.  If we have the attitude of the Pharisee 
who said, "I thank Thee that I am not like other men..." [Luke 18:11 (NASB)],
we will hate both.

  -- Scott at Brandeis

	"But God demonstrates His     "The Lord bless you, and keep you;
	 own love for us, in that      the Lord make His face shine on you,
	 while we were yet sinners,    and be gracious to you;
	 Christ died for us."	       the Lord lift up His countenance on you,
				       and give you peace."
		-- Romans 5:8 [NASB]		-- Numbers 6:24-26 [NASB]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21654
From: mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker)
Subject: Re: New thought on Deuterocanonicals

>	2.  It is more likely than not that when St. John (or whomever) wrote
>		the book of Revelation WHAT WAS THEN CONSIDERED SCRIPTURE was
>		** NOT ** the same thing you and I are holding in our hands!

>		Revelation was almost certainly written durin the reign of 
>	Domition (sp?), A.D. 80-96.  Thus it could be argues that we are all
>	in sin if we accept 2 Peter as scripture, since it was "added" to the
>	book after the composition of Revelation, when we are told to add 
>	nothing more.

	Okay, I went back and looked:  sure enough, my hunch was right.
	
		2 Peter was most likely written between 100-120 A.D.
		
		Revelation was almost certainly written between 80-96 A.D.
		
		Odds are the gospel of John was written around 90 A.D.
		
		Best dates for Luke and Acts are around 80 A.D., maybe later.
		
	Again, this is from footnoted information in the New American Bible,
	the best translation I've come across in regards to giving complete
	historical information about each book.
						- Mike
						)

[Of course the folks who you're arguing with almost certainly do
not accept 2 Peter as being pseudonymous.  In that case they'd
have to date it far earlier than this.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21655
From: aidler@sol.uvic.ca (E Alan  Idler)
Subject: Re: New thought on Deuterocanonicals

mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker) writes:

>	Often times (most recently on this list in the last few days) I've
>heard the passage from revelation:

>	"...whoever adds to the sacred words of this book...whoever removes
>	 words from this book..."    

>	 I feel this is ridiculous for two reasons:

[ 2 good reasons deleted.  AI]

>	If one takes the translation of "this book" in REV 18:22 (or somewhere
>	around there) to mean "all of scripture", then all of us are likely
>	holding something that is in violation of this command.

It's even worse than that --

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I 
command you, neither shall ye diminish 
from it" (Deut. 4:2).
Shall we rip out every page from our 
Bibles beginning from Joshua through
Revelation?

A IDLER

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21656
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: Goedel and the ontological argument

Fred Gilham asks whether it is true that Goedel wrote a version of
the ontological argument for the existence of God.

Yes, it is true. Someone has published a rebuttal pointing out
certain flaws in the argument, and recently Professor C Anthony
Anderson, of the Philosophy Department of the University of
Minnesota, has written a revised version of the argument, perhaps
free of flaws, and at any rate free of the flaws complained of in
the original version. He has sent me a copy, which I still have (I
saw it last week when I was looking for something else), and when it
surfaces again I can supply particulars. My guess is that it is
being published (or already has been) in the Journal of Symbolic
Logic.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21657
From: mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Subject: Re: Definition of Christianity?

In article <May.12.04.28.31.1993.9972@athos.rutgers.edu> autry@magellan.stlouis.sgi.com (Larry Autry) writes:
>I have enrolled in "The History of Christianity" at a college here in
>St. Louis. The teacher of the class is what I consider to be
>closed-minded and bigotted on the subject of what the definition of
>Christianity is.  His definition is tied directly to that of the
>Trinity and the Catholic church's definition of it and belief in
>Jesus Christ is not sufficient to call one's self a Christian.
>
What you call "the Trinity and the Catholic church's definition
of it" is precisely the result of the first Christians getting
together and trying to find an acceptable answer to your
question "what is a Christian?". I can't see what you are
objecting to: someone is saying what historians of all beliefs
would agree on, and you are calling him a closed-minded bigot?

You really ought to say what you mean by "belief in Jesus
Christ". It is not a wording that is sufficient to describe a
Christian. Muslims believe in Jesus Christ although they
believe he was a prophet and not the incarnated Son of God. But
followers of Eastern religions might be quite happy to say that
Jesus was the incarnation of God - along with large numbers of
other historical and mythical figures.

So perhaps you ought to rephrase your question and say
precisely what it is in the traditional definitions of what it
is to be a Christian, as handed down by the Universal Church,
you object to but regard as unnecessary for being a Christian.

Matthew Huntbach

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21658
From: tony@scotty.dccs.upenn.edu (Anthony Olejnik)
Subject: How to dispose of old blessed palms?

What is the proper way to dispose of old blessed palms?
I`ve have a bunch that I`ve been holding onto.  In addition,
my mom has been giving me her's.  I used to give them to my
uncle who would burn them (and leave the ashes to seep into the
ground).  Should I do the same?  Could I just bury them?  Could
I add them to my compost bin?

Thanks in advance.

--tony

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21659
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: ARSENOKOITAI 2 -Bailey/Boswell

[continuing with Dr. DeYoung's article-]
 
               SURVEY OF NEW INTERPRETATIONS OF ARSENOKOITAI

D.S. Bailey

     D.S. Bailey was perhaps the trailblazer of new assessments of the meaning
of arsenokoitai.  He takes the term in I Cor 6:9 as denoting males who actively
engage in homosexual acts, in contrast to malakoi ("effeminate"), those who
engage passively in such acts.*4   However, he insists that Paul knew nothing
of "inversion as an inherited trait, or an inherent condition due to
psychological or glandular causes, and consequently regards all homosexual
practice as evidence of perversion" (38).  Hence Bailey limits the term's
reference in Paul's works to acts alone and laments modern translations of the
term as "homosexuals."  Bailey wants to distinguish between "the homosexual
*condition* (which is morally neutral) and homosexual *practices*" [italics in
source].  Paul is precise in his terminology and Moffatt's translation
"sodomites" best represents Paul's meaning in Bailey's judgment (39).  Bailey
clearly denies that the homosexual condition was known by biblical writers.

J. Boswell

     The most influential study of arsenokoitai among contemporary authors is
that of John Boswell.*5    Whereas the usual translation*6  of this term gives
it either explicitly or implicitly an active sense, Boswell gives it a passive
sense.

      In an extended discussion of the term (341-53), he cites "linguistic
evidence and common sense" to support his conclusion that the word means "male
sexual agents, i.e. active male prostitutes."  His argument is that the arseno-
part of the word is adjectival, not the object of the koitai which refers to
base sexual activity.  Hence the term, according to Boswell, designates a male
sexual person or male prostitute.  He acknowledges, however, that most
interpret the composite term as active, meaning "those who sleep with, make
their bed with, men."  Boswell bases his interpretation on linguistics and the
historical setting.  He argues that in some compounds, such as paidomathes
("child learner"), the paido- is the subject of manthano, and in others, such
as paidoporos ("through which a child passes"), the paido- is neither subject
nor object but simply a modifier without verbal significance.  His point is
that each compound must be individually analyzed for its meaning.  More
directly, he maintains that compounds with the Attic form arreno- employ it
objectively while those with the Hellenistic arseno- use it as an adjective
(343).  Yet he admits exceptions to this distinction regarding arreno-.

     Boswell next appeals to the Latin of the time, namely drauci or exoleti. 
These were male prostitutes having men or women as their objects.  The Greek
arsenokoitai is the equivalent of the Latin drauci;  the corresponding passive
would be parakoitai ("one who lies beside"), Boswell affirms.  He claims that
arsenokoitai was the "most explicit word available to Paul for a male
prostitute," since by Paul's time the Attic words pornos ("fornicator") and
porneuon ("one committing fornication"), found also in the LXX, had been
adopted "to refer to men who resorted to female prostitutes or simply committed
fornication."*7

     In the absence of the term from pagan writers such as Herodotus, Plato,
Aristotle, and Plutarch, and from the Jewish writers Philo and Josephus,
Boswell finds even more convincing evidence for his affirmation that
arsenokoitai "did not connote 'homosexual' or even 'sodomite' in the time of
Paul" (346).*8   He also demonstrates its absence in Pseudo-Lucian, Sextus
Empiricus, and Libanius.  He subsequently finds it lacking in "all discussions
of homosexual relation" (346)*9  among Christian sources in Greek, including
the Didache, Tatian, Justin Martyr, Eusebius,*10    Clement of Alexandria,
Gregory of Nyssa, and John Chrysostom.  Chrysostom is singled out for his
omission as "final proof" that the word could not mean homosexuality.*11 

     Boswell next appeals to the omission of the texts of I Cor and I Tim from
discussions of homosexuality among Latin church fathers (348).*12   Cited are
Tertullian, Arnobius, Lactantius, and Augustine.  The last named uses
"circumlocutions."  Other Latin writers include Ausonius, Cyprian, and Minucius
Felix.  The term is also lacking in state and in church legislation.  By the
sixth century the term became confused and was applied to a variety of sexual
activities from child molesting to anal intercourse between a husband and wife
(353).

     Having surveyed the sources, Boswell concludes, 

   There is no reason to believe that either arsenokoitai or malakoi connoted
   homosexuality in the time of Paul or for centuries thereafter, and every
reason
   to suppose that, whatever they came to mean, they were not determinative of
   Christian opinion on the morality of homosexual acts (353).

It is clear throughout that Boswell defines arsenokoitai to refer to male
prostitutes.  He even goes so far as to conclude that Paul would probably not
disapprove of "gay inclination,"  "gay relationships,"  "enduring love between
persons of the same gender," or "same-sex eroticism"  (112, 166-17).


________________________________________________________
4.  D.S. Bailey,  Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. (London:
1975) 38.
5.  J.  Boswell, Christianity,  Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (Chicago:
1980).
6.  Several tranlation of I Tim 1:10 are:  KJV, "them that defile themselves
with mankind";  ASV,  "Abusers of themselves with men";  NASB,  "homosexuals";
RSV, NKJV, NRSV, "sodomites";  NEB, NIV, "perverts"; GNB, "sexual perverts"; In
I COr 6:9 these occur:  KJV, "abusers of themselves with mankind"; ASV,
"Abusers of themselves with men";  NASB, RSV, "homosexuals"; NKJV, "sodomites";
 NEB, "homosexual persversion."  The RSV and NEB derive their translation from
two Greek words, malakoi and arsenokoitai which GBN has as "homosexual
perverts."  NRSV has the two words as "male prostitutes" in the text, and
"sodomites" in the footnote.  The active idea predominates among the
commentators as well;  it is the primary assumption.
7.  Boswell, Christianity 344.  Yet this was no a word "available to Paul for a
male prostitute," for it does not occur at all in any literature prior to Paul
(as a serach in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae using IBYCUC confirms).  If Paul
coined the term, it would have no prior history, and all such discussion about
its lack of usage in contemporary non-Christian and Christian literature is
meaningless.
8.  Again this would be expected if Paul coined the word.
9.  The key phrase here apparently is "discussoin," for Boswell admits later
(350 n.42) that it occurs in quotes of Paul but there is no discussion in the
context.  Hence the implication is that we cannot tell what these writer
(Polycarp "To the Philippian 5:3"; Theophilus "Ad Autolycum 1.2, 2.14";Nilus
"Epistularum libri quattuor 2.282";  Cyril of Alexandria "Homiliae diversae
14"; "Sybilline Oravle 2.13") meant.  Yet Polycarp, who was a disiple of Hohn
the Apostle and died about A.D. 155, argues in the context that young men
should be pure.  He uses only the three terms pornoi, malakoi, and arsenokoitai
from Paul's list.  This at least makes Boswell's use of "all" subjective. 
Apparently Clement of Alexandria "Paedogogus 3.11"; Sromata 3.18"; also belong
here.

10..  Yet Eusebius uses it in "Demonstraionis evangelicae 1."
11.  Either Boswell is misrepresenting the facts about Chrysostom's use of
arsenokoitai and its form (about 20) in the vice lists of I Cor 6 or I Tim 1,
or he is begging the question by denying that the word can mean homosexual when
Chrysostom uses it.  Yet the meaning of arsenokoitai is the goal of his and our
study, whether in the lists or other discussions.  Boswell later admits (351)
that Chrysostom uses the almost identicl form arsenokoitos in his commentary on
I Cor.  Although Boswell suggests that the passage is strange, it may be that
Paul is seeking to make a refinement in arsenokoitai.  
12.  Apparently Jerome is a significant omission here, since he renders
arsenokoitai as "masculorum concubitores," corresponding "almost exactly to the
Greek" (348 n.36).

footnotes:
_______________________
 5.  D.S. Bailey,  Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. (London:
1975) 38.
 6.  J.  Boswell, Christianity,  Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (Chicago:
1980).
   Several tranlation of I Tim 1:10 are:  KJV, "them that defile themselves
with mankind";  ASV,  "Abusers of themselves with men";  NASB,  "homosexuals";
RSV, NKJV, NRSV, "sodomites";  NEB, NIV, "perverts"; GNB, "sexual perverts"; In
I COr 6:9 these occur:  KJV, "abusers of themselves with mankind"; ASV,
"Abusers of themselves with men";  NASB, RSV, "homosexuals"; NKJV, "sodomites";
 NEB, "homosexual persversion."  The RSV and NEB derive their translation from
two Greek words, malakoi and arsenokoitai which GBN has as "homosexual
perverts."  NRSV has the two words as "male prostitutes" in the text, and
"sodomites" in the footnote.  The active idea predominates among the
commentators as well;  it is the primary assumption.
 7.  Boswell, Christianity 344.  Yet this was no a word "available to Paul for
a male prostitute," for it does not occur at all in any literature prior to
Paul (as a serach in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae using IBYCUC confirms).  If
Paul coined the term, it would have no prior history, and all such discussion
about its lack of usage in contemporary non-Christian and Christian literature
is meaningless.
 8.  Again this would be expected if Paul coined the word.
 9.  The key phrase here apparently is "discussoin," for Boswell admits later
(350 n.42) that it occurs in quotes of Paul but there is no discussion in the
context.  Hence the implication is that we cannot tell what these writer
(Polycarp "To the Philippian 5:3"; Theophilus "Ad Autolycum 1.2, 2.14";Nilus
"Epistularum libri quattuor 2.282";  Cyril of Alexandria "Homiliae diversae
14"; "Sybilline Oravle 2.13") meant.  Yet Polycarp, who was a disiple of Hohn
the Apostle and died about A.D. 155, argues in the context that young men
should be pure.  He uses only the three terms pornoi, malakoi, and arsenokoitai
from Paul's list.  This at least makes Boswell's use of "all" subjective. 
Apparently Clement of Alexandria "Paedogogus 3.11"; Sromata 3.18"; also belong
here.

 10.  Yet Eusebius uses it in "Demonstraionis evangelicae 1."
 11.  Either Boswell is misrepresenting the facts about Chrysostom's use of
arsenokoitai and its form (about 20) in the vice lists of I Cor 6 or I Tim 1,
or he is begging the question by denying that the word can mean homosexual when
Chrysostom uses it.  Yet the meaning of arsenokoitai is the goal of his and our
study, whether in the lists or other discussions.  Boswell later admits (351)
that Chrysostom uses the almost identicl form arsenokoitos in his commentary on
I Cor.  Although Boswell suggests that the passage is strange, it may be that
Paul is seeking to make a refinement in arsenokoitai.  
 12.  Apparently Jerome is a significant omission here, since he renders
arsenokoitai as "masculorum concubitores," corresponding "almost exactly to the
Greek" (348 n.36).
Next:
R. Scroggs

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21660
From: maridai@comm.mot.com (Marida Ignacio)
Subject: Re: Bernadette dates


    |JEK@cu.nih.gov writes:                                            
    |Joe Moore writes:                                                 
    |                                                                  
    | > Mary at that time appeared to a girl named Bernadette at       
    | > Lourdes.  She referred to herself as the Immaculate Conception.
    | > Since a nine year old would have no way of knowing about the   
    | > doctrine, the apparition was deemed to be true and it sealed   
    | > the case for the doctrine.                                     
    |Bernadette was 14 years old when she had her visions, in 1858,    
    |four years after the dogma had been officially proclaimed by the  
    |Pope.                                                             
    |                                                                  
    | Yours,                                                           
    | James Kiefer

I forgot exactly what her age was but I remember clearly
that she was born in a family of poverty and she did not
have any education, whatsoever, at the age of the apparitions.
She suffered from asthma at that age and she and her family were
living in a prison cell of some sort.

She had to ask the 'Lady' several times in her apparitions about 
what her name was since her confessor priest asked her to do so.  
For several instances, the priest did not get an answer since 
Bernadette did not receive any.  One time, after several apparitions
passed, The Lady finally said, "I am the Immaculate Conception".
So, Bernadette, was so happy and repeated these words over and
over in her mind so as not to forget it before she told the
priest who was asking.  So, when she told the priest, the
priest was shocked and asked Bernadette, "Do you know what
you are talking about?".  Bernadette did not know what exactly
it meant but she was just too happy to have the answer for
the priest.  The priest continued with, "How did you remember
this if you do not know?".  Bernadette answered honestly that
she had to repeat it over and over in her mind while on her
way to the priest...

The priest knew about the dogma being four years old then.
But Bernadette did not know and yet she had the answer which
the priest finally observed and took as proof of an authentic
personal revelation of Our Lady to Bernadette.

(Note: This Lady of Lourdes shrine has a spring of water which
our lady requested Bernadette to dig up herself with her
bare hands in front of pilgrims.  At the start little
water flowed but after several years there is more water 
flowing.)

-Marida
 "...spreading God's words through actions..."
 -Mother Teresa

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21661
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse--King James. Compare this with previous version from NIV.

But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet
from fear of evil.

Proverbs 1:33

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21662
From: af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.)
Subject: Re: _Christianity In Crisis_

From Bit.listserv.christia

Zane writes...
 
From: FACN34B@SAUPM00.BITNET (zane of dhahan)
>Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Christianity in Crisis
Date: Wed May 12 14:43:19 1993
 
"Frank, first of all, thanks for all of the great Scripture verses.  It
was a pleasure to read them."
 
MY REPLY...
You are welcome, Zane.
 
Zane...
"I am sure nothing that I will say will change your mind about it... but I
would like to ask you if the book in question really does anything for you.
I mean, were you all caught up in the word/faith thing, but now that you
have read the book you've been rescued from all of the error and pain that
will result in your Christian life?"
 
MY REPLY...
(1) When I first became a Christian, I entered into the Word/Faith
    movement.  It was easy.  I wasn't grounded in the Word of God and sound
    doctrine.  When I visited Christian book stores, the cheapest books I
    could find to buy were the .50 and $1.00 books by Hagin and others.
    Consequently, I began receiving Hagin's monthly magazine (and they
    still send it to me), and also Copeland's (also, still sent to me).
    It wasn't until I read a booklet by Jimmy Swaggart called _Hyper Faith:
    The New Gnosticism_ that I began to realize the teachings I were
    partaking of were error.  I started reading the Bible more and studying
    more.  Sure enough, Jimmy was right in many points.  As part of my
    experience, I am alerting Christians, particularly new Christians, that
    these teachings are heretical and they need to do as the Bereans did in
    Acts 17:11 - check these teachings out with Scripture!
 
(2) My brother in law was involved in a Word/Faith "cult" in my area - it's
    leader is real good friends with Benny Hinn.  Rather then going into
    much detail about this, suffice it to say he was deceived, mistreated, and
    has now fallen into atheism.  I'm still praying for him (Phil. 1:6).
 
(3) The assistant pastor at the church I teach adult Sunday School in has been
    a `follower' of Copeland for 15 years.  He has thousands of tapes by the
    Faith teachers.  In the class recently, I quoted several of the teachers'
    heretical statements to his surprise.  Since then, I've been able to talk
    to him at length about these issues.
 
(4) The leader of the Women's Group at my church is a Benny Hinn `fan'.
    Recently, I found that she has been lending _Good Morning, Holy Spirit_ to
    women in the church.  That prompted my quotes in Sunday School, as well as
    my lending CIC to people in the church.
 
I'm well aware of the abuses and heresies perpetrated in this movement and
have an urgency in my heart and life to warn people about the heresies.
What heresies?
    A. Jesus became sin - took on the very nature of the devil, and became
        one with him.
    B. Jesus' death on the cross wasn't enough to atone.
    C. Jesus was dragged to hell after His death, was beat and abused by
        Satan and demons, thus finishing our atonement.  Satan was ruling
        over Him there.
    D. Jesus was `born-again' in hell.
    E. Jesus died spiritually, lost His divinity, and reassumed it after
        the resurrection.
    F. We are gods.
 
These are heresies.  Documentation will be provided re: these teachings
upon request.
 
Zane...
"Or what does it do for you?  Is it preventing you from going out and
joining up with the word/faith movement which you'd been contemplating
joining for so long, but now that you've read the book, you've been saved
from all of that?"
 
MY REPLY...
It wasn't _Christianity In Crisis_ that helped me; it was a booklet by
Swaggart that I mentioned above.  But CIC is MUCH, MUCH better - tremendous
documentation and insights.
 
Zane...
"I don't have a nice Scriptural answer for why I believe it is at best un-
profitable for Christians to engage in this type of activity - heresy hunting."
 
MY REPLY...
Why do you call it "heresy hunting"?  "Hunting" implies it isn't readily
accessible or available.  This movement is the fastest growing movement in
Christendom.  Hagin has sold over 40 million books and booklets.  Hinn has sold
more books in the last couple of years than Swindoll and Dobson combined.  Fred
Price has the largest church in terms of seating capacity in the USA.  Doesn't
sound like much "hunting" is needed.
 
It is Scriptural to expose doctrinal error.  I gave some verses to you before.
More can be given.  Most of the epistles were written due to error (doctrinal,
practical) in the churches.  The early church had numerous councils to expose
error and heresy.  It's not a new thing.  Remember Luther?
 
Zane...
"I would like to point out though, that historically those who hunt heretics
often end up causing a bigger mess than the heretics... but this is my un-
documented opinion."
 
MY REPLY...
(1) If you can provide documentation, it would be appreciated.
(2) Read Ephesians 4:11-16, esp. vss. 13 and 14 and tell me what causes
    disunity and immaturity in the body.
 
EPH 4:13-14 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of
the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness
of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried
about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning
craftiness of deceitful plotting....
 
Disunity, contrary to popular opinion, isn't caused by exposing error; it's
caused by error.
 
Zane...
"There are many who probably give no place for seeing the Scriptures as
documenting a Spiritual development or growth in its writers - but I would
suggest that the fiery Paul of the letter to the Galatians mellows and
matures into the one who loses all for the sake of Love in the End."
 
MY REPLY...
Most scholars believe Paul wrote 2 Timothy last.  Let's examine his admonitions
to Tim to ascertain how mellow he had become...
 
2TI 1:13-15 Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me,
in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was
committed to you, keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us. This you know, that
all those in Asia have turned away from me, among whom are Phygellus and
Hermogenes.
 
2TI 2:15-18 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does
not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane
and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. And their
message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who
have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already
past; and they overthrow the faith of some.
 
2TI 2:24-26 And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all,
able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if
God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and
that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having
been taken captive by him to do his will.
 
2TI 3:6-9 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make
captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts,
always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as
Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of
corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith; but they will progress no
further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was.
 
2TI 3:12-17 Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer
persecution. But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving
and being deceived. But you must continue in the things which you have learned
and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from
childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise
for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by
inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be
complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
 
2TI 4:2-5 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince,
rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come
when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires,
because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and
they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.
But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an
evangelist, fulfill your ministry.
 
2TI 4:14-15 Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm. May the Lord repay him
according to his works. You also must beware of him, for he has greatly
resisted our words.
 
Zane...
"The picture I have of Paul is not of one who goes out of his way to destroy
the ministry of wolves... but of one who teaches the sheep, with many tears,
the necessity of absolutely not allowing themselves to be transformed into
wolves to protect themselves."
 
MY REPLY...
ACT 20:26-31 "Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the
blood of all men. "For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel
of God. "Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which
the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He
purchased with His own blood. "For I know this, that after my departure savage
wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. "Also from among
yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the
disciples after themselves. "Therefore watch, and remember that for three years
I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.
 
Zane...
"For all the warning Paul does, it is of note that he never once drops a name
of a wolf....  - but I will admit he cries in his beard at the end over those
who have abandoned him - everyone in Asia wasn't it ?"
 
MY REPLY...
Paul mentioned names...
 
1TI 1:18-20 This charge I commit to you, son Timothy, according to the
prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may wage the good
warfare, having faith and a good conscience, which some having rejected,
concerning the faith have suffered shipwreck, of whom are Hymenaeus and
Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.
 
2TI 1:15 This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me, among
whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
 
2TI 2:16-18 But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more
ungodliness. And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus
are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the
resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some.
 
2TI 4:10 for Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world, and has
departed for Thessalonica--Crescens for Galatia, Titus for Dalmatia.
 
2TI 4:14-15 Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm. May the Lord repay him
according to his works. You also must beware of him, for he has greatly
resisted our words.
 
So did John...
 
3JO 1:9-10 I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the
preeminence among them, does not receive us. Therefore, if I come, I will call
to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And
not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids
those who wish to, putting them out of the church.
 
Jesus also singled out teachings and doctrines...
 
REV 2:14-16 "But I have a few things against you, because you have there those
who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block
before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit
sexual immorality. "Thus you also have those who hold the doctrine of the
Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. 'Repent, or else I will come to you quickly
and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth.
 
REV 2:20-23 "Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow
that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My
servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. "And I
gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent.
"Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her
into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. "I will kill her
children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches
the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your
works.
 
Zane...
"I question too, the purposes of those who write books and build ministries
on the faults - deliberate or otherwise - of others.  Maybe if they would
wander around in the desert eating locust and honey, or barely cakes...with
no worldly goods at stake, money to be made, or no reputations to maintain...
I would question their motives - conscious or otherwise - less."
 
MY REPLY...
I won't comment on this because it deals with the intangible motives of others.
But even if they had bad motives, remember what Paul said...
 
PHI 1:15-18 Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also
from good will: The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely,
supposing to add affliction to my chains; but the latter out of love, knowing
that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. What then? Only that in
every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I
rejoice, yes, and will rejoice.
 
Zane...
"If we want to be true to the admonitions of Scripture - many of which you
list - about protecting ourselves and the flock from wolves and winds of
doctrines, I suggest we start by allowing the wolf-program in our own noetic
pasture to be nailed to the Cross."
 
MY REPLY...
Please explain.
 
Zane...
"Secondly, I suggest any heresy hunting be restricted to our own fellowships -
which in the strict Scriptural sense is the local city-church."
 
MY REPLY...
If heresy was not being propagated over the mass media, then it may not be
needed to go mass media with the exposure.  Unfortunately, heresy is being
taught not just in Copeland's church or Hagin's or Hinn's or Price's, but all
over the radio, in print, etc.  No pastor or church leader knows what materials
the sheep are feeding on outside the church.  It's imperative that leadership
be made aware of this, and CIC does just that.
 
Also, let's examine a passage of Scripture...
* EPH 4:11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some
evangelists, and some pastors and teachers,
* EPH 4:12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the
edifying of the body of Christ,
 
These ministry gifts that the Lord installs in the church are not just for one
individual church, but for "the body of Christ".
Paul was an apostle - he traveled all over distilling his message.  He was also
a teacher -
1CO 4:17 For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and
faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach
everywhere in every church.
1CO 7:17 But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each
one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches.
 
Also -
1CO 12:28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second
prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps,
administrations, varieties of tongues.
 
* EPH 4:13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of
the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness
of Christ;
 
Notice that the "Five-Fold" ministries are going to be around "till" the church
is in "unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God to a perfect
man".  This, I believe will not occur fully until the Lord Jesus returns (see
1Cor. 13:9-12).  But God wants the body to continue on maturing.  What hinders
maturity and unity of the body?
 
* EPH 4:14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried
about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning
craftiness of deceitful plotting,
 
It's clear that false doctrine, integrated into the church "by the trickery of
men" causes (1) disunity [the thing we are striving for] and (2) spiritual
immaturity - the church continues in spiritual childhood when Christians are
"tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine".
 
The "Five -Fold" ministry, of which there does not appear to be clear
Scriptural denominational boundaries ("pastors" appear responsible for their
individual flock), is to deal with these doctrines (when necessary) in their
struggle to equip the body.
 
All believers are called to do this to a degree...
JUD 1:3-4 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our
common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend
earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. For
certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this
condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny
the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.
 
Zane...
"If you'll notice, in Scripture the heresy hunters that went from Church to
Church and area to area, were the "bad guys" and they went after the "good guy"
namely Paul - who they considered to be the arch heretic."
 
MY REPLY...
They were themselves heretics trying to discredit Paul who was preaching
contrary to what they taught!
 
Zane...
"Let's face it, the wolves are here for a reason.  And we are here for the
Reason.  And let's hope the wolves become sheep, and the sheep, lambs."
 
MY REPLY...
Yes!
2TI 2:24-26 And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all,
                                                           ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  ~~
God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having
been taken captive by him to do his will.
 
AMEN!


Frank
-- 
"If one wished to contend with Him, he could not answer Him one time out
 of a thousand."  JOB 9:3

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21663
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius A. Lecointe)
Subject: Christianity and holy things

Ezek 22:26 God seems to be upset with the priests who have made no
difference between the holy and the profane.  This brought to my mind a
sermon I heard recently in which the speaker said "God's second name does
not begin with a D" referring, I believe, to use of God's holy name and
titles as swear words.  I was also reminded of the experience of Moses at
the burning bush when God told him "Take off your sandals, for the place
where you are standing is holy ground."

These and other texts seem to imply that God's people must treat holy
things differently from other "common" things, or "make a difference"
between holy and common things.

The obvious questions are 

What makes something holy? and How are Christians (primarily) supposed to
make this difference between holy and common things?  (e.g. God's name,
the Holy Spirit, the Holy Bible, etc.)

Darius

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21664
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse

but whoever listens to me will live in safety and be at ease, without fear of
harm." 
Proverbs 1:33

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21665
From: mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker)
Subject: Re: On Capital Punishment

gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock) writes:

>Regarding the new draft of the Universal Catechism:

>	In procuring the common good of society the need could arise
>	that the aggressor be placed in the position where he cannot
>	cause harm.  By virtue of this, the right and obligation of 
>	public authorities to punish with proportionate penalties,
>	including the death penalty, is acknowledged.  ...
>	...  To the degree that means other than the death
>	penalty and military operations are sufficient to keep the
>	peace, then these non-violent provisions are to be preferred
>	because they are more in proportion and in keeping with the
>	final goal of protection of peace and human dignity.  

		EXACTLY!!  Read that one sentence in there..."to the degree
	that means other than the death penalty and military operations are
	sufficient to keep the peace, then these non-violent provisions are to
	be preferred..."

	I don't believe that it is necessary for us to murder criminals to keep
	the peace; the Church in the United States feels the same way, thus the
	reason that the Catholic Church has opposed every execution in this
	country in recent memory.

>As is clearly shown by this excerpt, the Church's teaching on capital
>punishment remains today as it has always been in the past - in total
>accord with my sentiment that I do not disagree with the use of deadly
>force in those cases for which this option is justifiable.  

	So what is justifiable?  As you stated very explicitly from the new
	Catechism, the only justifiable case is when it is necessary to keep
	the peace.  Since that does not apply *at all* to this country, the
	logical conclusion (based on your own premises) is that one must be
	opposed to *any* form of capital punishment in America.


		Just my opinions.
				Mike Walker
				Univ. of Illinois

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21666
From: faith@world.std.com (Seth W McMan)
Subject: Re: homosexual issues in Christianity

In article <May.11.02.36.34.1993.28074@athos.rutgers.edu> mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server) writes:

>I can see that some of the above verses do not clearly address the issues, 
>however, a couple of them seem as though they do not require "incredibly 
>perverse interpretations" in order to be seen as condemning homosexuality.
...
>Would someone care to comment on the fact that the above seems to say
>fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of God?  How does this apply
>to homosexuals?  I understand "fornication" to be sex outside of
>marriage.  Is this an accurate definition?  Is there any such thing as
>same-sex marriage in the Bible?  My understanding has always been that
>the New Testament blesses sexual intercourse only between a husband
>and his wife.  I am, however, willing to listen to Scriptural evidence
>to the contrary.

If we take things this literally then we must also forbid women from
speaking in church. Paul while led by the holy spirit was human and could
err. I find it interesting that CHRIST never discussed the issue of
homosexuality, certainly it existed back then and if it was a serious
transgression CHRIST would have condemned it. 
I find it disturbing that the modern church spends its energy trying
to stamp out something that CHRIST didn't consider worth a single word
of condemnation. CHRIST repeatedly warns us against judgement. 
Don't we risk "judgement in equal measure" when we condemn people who 
GOD himself did not judge when he walked on the earth?

-- 
   |         The love of CHRIST is contagious!       
 --+--                                          
   |                                                

[I should not that many of our readers do in fact advocate forbiding
women from speaking in church.  This is an issue we have discussed
in the past, and I'm not interested in redoing.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21667
From: cox@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (Sherman Cox)
Subject: Re: hate the sin...

scott@prism.gatech.edu (Scott Holt) writes:

>"Hate the sin but love the sinner"...I've heard that quite a bit recently, 
>often in the context of discussions about Christianity and homosexuality...
>but the context really isn't that important. My question is whether that
>statement is consistent with Christianity. I would think not.

>Hate begets more hate, never love. Consider some sin. I'll leave it unnamed
>since I don't want this to digress into an argument as to whether or not 
>something is a sin. Now lets apply our "hate the sin..." philosophy and see
>what happens. If we truly hate the sin, then the more we see it, the 
>stronger our hatred of it will become. Eventually this hate becomes so 
>strong that we become disgusted with the sinner and eventually come to hate
>the sinner. In addition, our hatred of the sin often causes us to say and 

That is an assumption on your part.  Where is your proof that one always will
degenerate into hating the sinner, because he hates the sin.

I am reminded of the Civil Rights movement in America.  It is true that many
individuals hated the proponents of racism.  It is also true that many 
individuals hated segregation and discrimination with their whole heart and
never degenerated into hating the individuals who practiced it.  Dr. King's
message was this.  Love the individual, the loving of the individual would
transform him into a friend.  However, this did not take away his hatred for
segregation.  His hatred for injustice.  


>In the summary of the law, Christ commands us to love God and to love our 
>neighbors. He doesn't say anything about hate. In fact, if anything, he 
>commands us to save our criticisms for ourselves. So, how are Christians
>supposed to deal with the sin of others? I suppose that there is only one
>way to deal with sin (either in others or ourselves)...through prayer. We
>need to ask God to help us with our own sin, and to help those we love 
>with theirs. Only love can conquer sin...hatred has no place. The best way to
>love someone is to pray for them. 

I would ask, "Did John the Baptist practice love when he criticized the Jewish
Leaders of his day?"  Did Jesus Practice love when he threw the moneychangers
out of the temple?

We must have at least a distase for sin.  We must in order to fight it in 
ourselves.  Also we must be ready for the call from God to call sin by its
right name.  Jesus loved everyone, but he called sin by its right name.

It is true that love for others is to guide every step of our walk, but it is
also true that sometimes the love for God calls us to stand up for truth.

--
"Competition is the law of the jungle.
 Cooperation is the law of civilization."  --  Eldridge Cleaver

Sherman Cox, II		scox@uahcs2.cs.uah.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21668
From: ossm1jl@rex.re.uokhsc.edu (Justin Lee)
Subject: Re: Satan kicked out of heaven: Biblical?

[Someone asked about Biblical support for the image of Satan as
a fallen angel.  Rev 12:7-9 and Enoch have been cited.  --clh]

There is also a verse in Luke(?) that says He[Jesus] saw Satan fall
from Heaven.  It's something like that.  I don't have my Bible in
front of me or I would quote it directly, but it's a pretty obvious
reference to Satan's expulsion.

Justin

[I believe the reference is to Luke 10:18.  The context of the passage
makes it possible that Jesus is referring to Satan being defeated by
Jesus' mission, rather than a previous fall from heaven.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21669
From: maureen@scicom.alphacdc.com (Maureen Brucker)
Subject: Is this ethical?

The following was published in the May 15th Rocky Mountain News.  I
guess I have some REAL ethical problems with the practices at this
church.  I understand that Baptism is an overriding factor.  I also
understand that this is not an honest way to proceed.  Unfortunately,
this is becoming more typical of congregations as the Second Coming is
perceived to approach.

There is a real element of disparation in this 'make it happen at any
cost' style of theology.  I wonder where TRUST IN THE LORD fits into
this equation?

Baptisms draw parents' ire -- Children at church carnival in Springs
told they'd be killed by bee stings if they didn't submit to religious
rite.

By Dick Foster -- Rocky Mountain News Southern Bureau

Colorado Springs -- Outraged parents say their children were lured to
a church carnival and then baptixed without their permission by a
Baptist minister.

Doxens of children, some as young as 8 years old and unaccompanied by
their parents, thought they were going to a carnival at the
Cornerstone Baptist Church, where there would be a big water fight,
free balloons, squirt guns and candy.

Before that May 1 carnival was over, however, children were whisked
into a room for religious instruction and told they should be
baptized.  In many cases they consented, although they or their
families are not of the Baptist faith.

The baptisms by the church have angered many parents, including
Paulette Lamontagne, a Methodist and mother of twin 8-year-old girls
who were baptized without her knowledge or consent.

'My understnading was they were going to a carnival.  I feel that's a
false pretense,' said Lamontagne.  Her daughters said the minister
told them they would be killed by bee stings if they were not
baptized.

Cornerstone church officials defended their actions.

'We take our instructions from the word of God and God has commanded
us to baptize converts.  No one can show me one passage in the Bible
where it says that parental permission is required before a child is
baptized,' said Dan Irwin, associate pastor of the Cornerstone Baptist
Church.

Church officials did not tell parents their children would be baptized
because 'they didn't ask,' Irwin said.

Many other parents also felt they were simply sending their children
to a carnival at the invitation of their children's friends who were
members of the Cornerstone Church.

Police said chhurch officials had broken on laws in baptizing the
children, but indicated the parents could pursue civil action.

-------------------------------------------
Aren't these the same behaviors we condemn
in the Hari Krishnas and other cults?

[I think the issues are more complex than the newspaper account
mentions.  First, I'm not entirely sure that parental consent is
absolutely required.  This would be extremely difficult, because of
the clear commandment to obey parents.  But if an older child insisted
on being baptized without their parents' consent, I might be willing
to do it.  However this would be a serious step, and would warrant
much careful discussion.  The problem I find here is not so much
parental consent as that there was nobody's consent.  Whether you
believe in infant baptism or not, baptism is supposed to be the sign
of entry into a Christian community.  If there isn't a commitment from
*somebody*, whether parent or child, and no intent to become part of
the Church, the baptism appears to be a lie.  Furthermore, it is
likely to raise serious practical problems.  What if the child is from
a baptist tradition?  Normally when he reaches the age of decision, he
would be expected to make a decision and be baptized.  But he already
has been, by a church claiming to be a Baptist church.  So does he get
rebaptized?  Neither answer is really very good.  If not, he's being
robbed of an experience that should be very significant to his faith.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21670
From: balsamo@stargl.enet.dec.com (Antonio L. Balsamo (Save the wails))
Subject: Re: hate the sin...


   >From: scott@prism.gatech.edu (Scott Holt)
   >Subject: hate the sin...
   >Date: 12 May 93 08:27:08 GMT

   >"Hate the sin but love the sinner"...I've heard that quite a bit recently,
   >My question is whether that statement is consistent with Christianity. I
   >would think not.  Hate begets more hate, never love.

       If you are questioning whether or not "hating sin" is consistent with
   Christianity; I ask you to consider the following Scripture:

       Romans 12:9 "Let Love be without hypocrisy.  Hate what is evil, cling
                    to what is good."

       What is it that Paul, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is
   calling us to hate?  Would God call us to do something that would
   eventually lead to hating our fellow man; especially when he commands us to
   do the opposite, to love your fellow man?

   >Consider some sin. Now lets apply our "hate the sin..." philosophy and see
   >what happens. If we truly hate the sin, then the more we see it, the
   >stronger our hatred of it will become. Eventually this hate becomes so
   >strong that we become disgusted with the sinner and eventually come to
   >hate the sinner.

       That has not been my experience.  I've not found myself hating anybody
   as a result of hating the sin that may be in their life.  As a sinner
   myself, I find myself having more compassion for the person.  Jesus too,
   since the Bible teaches that he was tempted in every way that we are, is
   able to have compassion on us when we our tempted and fall.  Jesus is our
   very example of HOW to hate the sin but love the sinner.  In the account of
   the woman caught in adultery (John 8), Jesus had compassion on the woman;
   BUT he also called her to leave her life of sin.  This is what it means to
   love sinners but hate their sin; it means loving them unconditionally,
   while at the same time calling them to leave their sin.

   >In addition, our hatred of the sin often causes us to say and do things
   >which are taken personally by the sinner (who often does not even believe
   >what they are doing is a sin).

       The blame for this can not always be laid at the feet of the
   Christian.  I have seen and been guilty of taking offense by someone merely
   pointing out my sin and calling me to repent of it.  It was not unloving
   for the Christian to call me out of sin; in fact, I believe it was the most
   loving thing that that person could have done.  He loved me enough to want
   to spare me the consequence of remaining in my sin.

   >After enough of this, the sinner begins to hate us (they certainly don't
   >love us for our constant criticism of their behavior). Hate builds up and
   >drives people away from God...this certainly cannot be a good way to build
   >love.

       Again, I don't think that you can lay the blame for this at the feet of
   the Christian.  If we have loved them as Jesus loved sinners (exemplified
   in John 8) and the sinner hates us for it, then we have done the best we
   can.  We will have extended to them the most perfect expression of love and
   they will have rejected it.

       Now it we hate the sin but forget to love the sinner, then indeed, we
   will, ourselves, be in sin.

   >In the summary of the law, Christ commands us to love God and to love our
   >neighbors. He doesn't say anything about hate.

       I would like to encourage you to do a word study on HATE in the New
   Testament.  I really think that you will be surprised.

   >In fact, if anything, he commands us to save our criticisms for ourselves.

       Criticism is very different from calling a sinner to repent.

   Hope this helps,
   In Christ,
   Tony Balsamo
--

            +--------------------------------------------------+
            |   Name: Antonio L. Balsamo             /_/\/\    |
            |Company: Digital Equipment Corp.        \_\  /    |
            |         Shrewsbury, Mass.              /_/  \    |
            | Work #: (508) 841-2039                 \_\/\ \   |
            | E-mail: balsamo@stargl.enet.dec.com       \_\/   |
            +--------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21671
From: swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com (Stan Friesen)
Subject: Re: Definition of Christianity?

In article <May.12.04.28.31.1993.9972@athos.rutgers.edu>, autry@magellan.stlouis.sgi.com (Larry Autry) writes:
|> ... the subject of what the definition of
|> Christianity is.  His definition is tied directly to that of the
|> Trinity and the Catholic church's definition of it and belief in
|> Jesus Christ is not sufficient to call one's self a Christian.
|> ...
|> So, is there common definition of what Christianity is?

The basic definition that I use is:
	The belief that Jesus was God incarnate.
	The belief that Jesus was crucified and raised from the dead
	for our salvation.
	The acceptance of Jesus as personal Lord and Savior.

This would include most Christian denominations, but exclude the Unitarians.
	
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21672
From: swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com (Stan Friesen)
Subject: Re: What WAS the immaculate conception

[Someone quoted the following.  I've removed the name because it's not
clear which name goes with which level of quote.  --clh]

>     ... And to Holy Mary, Virgin is invariably added, for that Holy Woman
>     remains undefiled.
>                 -- St. Epiphanus of Salamis, "Panacea against all heresies",
>                    between A.D. 374-377.

>     ... For the Lord Jesus would not have chosen
>     to be born of a virgin if He had judged that she would be so incontinent
>     as to taint the birthplace of the Body of the Lord, home of the Eternal
>     King, with the seed of human intercourse.  ...
>                 -- Pope St. Siricius, Letter to Anysius, Bishop of 
>                    Thessalonica, A.D. 392

On the basis of these examples I would say that Joe Moore was only wrong
in claiming Augustine as a prime mover of the sin=sex view.  These quotes
clearly equate sexuality with defilement and incontinance, even within
the marriage relationship (else they would not apply to Mary after her marriage
to Joseph).

So Joe's assignment of the reasoning behind the concept of the perpetual
virginity of Mary does seem to be supported by these quotes.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21673
From: duncans@phoenix.princeton.edu (Duncan Eric Smith)
Subject: Verse divisions

I'm wondering if anyone knows the answer to a rather trivial question which
I've been thinking about: What was the process used to divide the Bible into
verses. I believe Jerome divided the New Testament, but I've never seen any
discussion of *how* he did this. It seems rather arbitrary, as opposed to, for
example, making each sentence a verse.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21674
From: vek@allegra.att.com (Van Kelly)
Subject: Re: hate the sin...

scott@prism.gatech.edu (Scott Holt) writes:

   "Hate the sin but love the sinner"...I've heard that quite a bit recently, 
   ....  My question is whether that statement is consistent with Christianity.
   I would think not.

   Hate begets more hate, never love. ....

   In the summary of the law, Christ commands us to love God and to love our 
   neighbors. He doesn't say anything about hate. In fact, if anything, he 
   commands us to save our criticisms for ourselves. ....

   - Scott

I too dislike the phrase "Hate the sin, love the sinner".  Maybe the
definite article is also part of the problem, since it seems to give
us license to fixate on our brother's peculiar pecadillo which we have
managed to escape by a common grace of heredity, economic situation, or
culture.  Our outrage at evil is too often just a cheap shot.

That said, I don't think Scott has adequately explored the flip side
of this coin, namely the love of righteousness.  In the Beatitudes,
Jesus blessed those who hungered and thirsted for righteousness.  In
the New Testament, it is never enough just to behave well, one should
always actively desire and work for the cause of good.  In that sense,
it should be impossible to remain dispassionate about evil and its
victims, even when these are its accomplices as well.

Maybe "mourn sin, love sinners" catches the idea slightly better than
"hate", but only slightly, since grief usually implies a passive
powerless position.  A balanced Christian response needs grief, love,
and carefully measured, constructive anger.  Jesus has all three.  The
European pietists during WWII whose response to Nazi atrocities was
devoid of anger do not fare well as role models, however much love or
grief they exemplified.

My sister is an actress in New York and a Christian.  A few years
back, Jack, her long-time professional friend and benefactor, died of
AIDS, impoverished by medical bills, estranged from his family, and
abandoned by most of his surviving friends.  Only my sister and
brother-in-law were there with him at the very end.  In her grief over
Jack's death, my sister found quite a few targets for anger: callous
bureaucracies, the rigid self-protective moralism of Jack's family,
the inertia in Christians' response to AIDS, and, yes, even Jack's own
lapse in morality that eventually cost him his life.  Jack himself
shared that last anger.  Brought up with strong Christian values, he
was contrite over his brief dalliance with promiscuous sex long before
his AIDS appeared.  (I imply no moral judgement here about Jack's
innate sexual orientation, n.b.)

Maybe the hardest job is making our anger constructive.

Van Kelly
vek@research.att.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21675
From: idqm400@indyvax.iupui.edu
Subject: Knights of Columbus


	The initiations ceremony for Knights ous is almost
as secretive as that for the Mafia.

What are the phases of initation and why the secretiveness?


Dale   idqm400@indyvax.iupui.edu
                                                                

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21676
From: faith@world.std.com (Seth W McMan)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <May.13.02.31.16.1993.1569@geneva.rutgers.edu> djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson) writes:
>Ok, what's more important to gay Christians?  Sex, or Christianity?
>Christianity I would hope.  Would they be willing to forgo sex
>completely, in order to avoid being a stumbling block to others,
>to avoid the chance that their interpretation might be wrong,
>etc?  If not, why not?  Heterosexuals abstain all the time.
>(It would be nice if protestant churches had celibate orders
>to show the world that sex is not the important thing in life)

The biblical arguments against homosexuality are weak at best, yet
Christ is quite clear about our obligations to the poor. How as 
Christians can we demand celibacy from homosexuals when we walk
by homeless people and ignore the pleas for help? 
Christ is quite clear on our obligations to the poor.

Thought for the day:

MAT 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but
considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to
thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam
is in thine own eye?  
-- 
  |     The Love of Christ is contagious.
--+--  MAT 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are 
  |    like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, 
  |    but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21677
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <May.13.02.30.39.1993.1545@geneva.rutgers.edu> noye@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>[...]  i believe that the one
>important thing that those who wrote the old and new testament
>passages cited above did NOT know was that there is scientific
>evidence to support that homosexuality is at least partly _inherent_
>rather than completely learned.  this means that to a certain extent
>-- or to a great extent -- homosexuals cannot choose how to feel [...]

But one of the most basic concepts of Christian morality is that we
all have defective appetites due to original sin.  Not just
homosexuals, but everybody.  Thus we are not entitled to indulge in
whatever behavior our bodies want us to.

I think we need to keep clear the distinction between homosexual
_behavior_ (which is wrong) and homosexual _orientation_ (which is not
a sin, merely a misfortune).

[Please: NO EMAIL REPLIES.  Respond in this public forum.]
-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21678
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: eros in LXX: concluding lexicographic note

This might be better directed to s.r.c.bible-study, which I have begun
reading, but since my earlier notes were posted to this forum, I will
conclude here as well.  A week ago, I managed to find time to consult
a Septuagint Concordance and a LXX text with apparatus at the library,
and I can now usefully conclude my look at the Greek words for love as
used in the Christian background of the Septuagintal translation of the
Jewish scriptures.

The principal result is that there is a cluster of uses of the verbal
noun from _erao:_, _eraste:s_ meaning "lover."  This cluster occurs just
where one might most expect it, in the propethic image (and accusation)
of Israel as faithless spouse to YHWH.  The verses in question are Hosea
2:5,7 & 10; Jeremiah 4:30, 22:20 & 22; Lamentations 1:19; and Ezekiel
16:33, 36 &37 and 23:5, 9 & 22.

	[ Hosea seems to have originated this usage, which Jeremiah and
	  Ezekiel picked up;  Lamentations is dependent on, though not
	  likely written by, Jeremiah. ]

The "erotic" meaning (in its allegorical use, not at all literally) is
evident.  So too in English, unless you complement it with a phrase like
"of the arts" the word "lover" is going to have an overtone of sexual
relationship.  There is no surprise here, but it is worthwhile to see
that standard Greek usage *does* show up in the translations from the
Hebrew! :-)

More interestingly, and some confirmation of my guess that later Koine
usage avoided the verb _erao:_ because of its homonymy to _ero:_ (say),
_eromai_ (ask), there is an error in Codex Vaticanus (normally, a very
valuable witness) where a form of _erao:_ is used in a completely absurd
context -- 2 Samuel 20:18, where the  meaning *must* be "say."

In addition to the above (and the uses I have already mentioned in Proverbs),
Esther 2:17 uses the verb in its most natural application, 

	kai e:rasthe" ho basileus Esthe:r  --  and the King loved Esther

and, rather more interestingly, 1 Samuel 19:2 supplies a modest degree of
support to the gay appraisal of the relationship of David and Jonathan:

	kai Io:nathan huios Saoul e:[i]reito ton Dauid sphodra
	-- and Jonathan, Saul's son, loved David intensely

	[ I'm using the bracketed [i] for io:ta subscript, which I
	  don't yet have a reasonable ASCII convention for. ]

(The relevance of this to the gay issue is not anything implicit about
the "historical" facts, but just that a quasi-official translation of
the Hebrew text in the Hellenistic period makes no bones about using the
"erotic" verb in this context.  Given the quite general usage of _agapao:_
for erotic senses, this need not mean anything "more" than _agapao:_ alone
would mean, but it DOES disambiguate the relationship, as far as this
translator goes!)
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		I say "You are gods, sons of the
mls@panix.com			Most High, all of you; nevertheless
    - or -			you shall die like men, and fall
mls@ulysses.att..com		like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21679
From: max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb)
Subject: Re: earthquake prediction

In article <May.11.02.37.28.1993.28163@athos.rutgers.edu> dan@ingres.com (a Rose arose) writes:
>: >     I believe with everything in my heart that on May 3, 1993, the city of
>: >Portland, Oregon in the country of the United States of America will be hit
>: >with a catastrophic and disastrous earthquake...
>: By now, we know that this did not come to pass....

Surprise, surprise. I sure didn't lose any sleep over it, and I live there.

>Mistakes in this area are costly and dangerous.  For me, my greatest fears
>in this area would be the following:[..]
>4--were God to call me to be a prophet and I were to misrepresent God's Word,
>   my calling would be lost forever.  God's Word would command the people
>   never to listen to or fear my words as I would be a false prophet.  My
>   bridges would be burnt forever.  Perhaps I could repent and be saved, but
>   I could never again be a prophet of God.

Suppose someone said that he was sure that he would return from death,
in glory and power, flying in the clouds with the host of heaven,soon, within
the lifetimes of those then standing with him - and 2000 years went by without
any such event. [He also asserted, so they say, himself to be God.]

2 questions:

	1) Is that one of those "false prophecies" you were talking about?
	2) Does that make the speaker a false prophet?

>Speak directly.  If the Lord has given you something to say, say it.
>But, before I declare "thus sayeth the Lord", I'd better know for certain
>without a shadow of a doubt that I am in the correct spiritual condition
>and relationship with the Lord to receive such a prophecy and be absolutely
>certain, again, without the tiniest shadow of a doubt that there is no
>possibility of my being misled by my own imaginations or by my hope of gaining
>recognition or of being misled by the wiles of the devil and his followers.

Uhh,  Has it occurred to you that there is no way to know any of these
things, for certain, "without the tiniest shadow of a doubt"? That people
who thought they did have also been deluded?

Those of us who believe in actually being able to _CHECK_ our opinions
have an out - we can check against some external reality. Those who
assert that beliefs entertained without evidence, or even despite evidence
have a special virtue (ie. "faith") are out of luck -- and this is the
result.

>It's time that we christians give an example of honesty that stands out in
>contrast against this backdrop of falsehood.  When we say, "thus sayeth the
>Lord", it happens.  When we pray, prayer is answered because we prayed right.
>When we say we're christians, we really mean it.
>
>           Dan

You want to demonstrate Christian honesty? Great.
Start with the prophecy above - what can we conclude about the speaker?

	Max

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21680
From: revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

Darin Johnson (djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu) wrote:
: Ok, what's more important to gay Christians?  Sex, or Christianity?
: Christianity I would hope.  Would they be willing to forgo sex
: completely, in order to avoid being a stumbling block to others,
: to avoid the chance that their interpretation might be wrong,
: etc?  If not, why not?  Heterosexuals abstain all the time.
: (It would be nice if protestant churches had celibate orders
: to show the world that sex is not the important thing in life)

The difference is that straight members are given the choice of
abstaining or not, and celibacy is recognized as a gift, given only
to some.  Gays are told that, as a condition of acceptance, they
_must_ be celibate.  I don't believe that God gives me a forced choice
between having a relationship with God and expressing my heterosexuality
(within the context of a faithful relationship).  Nor do I believe
that God gives that forced choice to gays.  Sex or Christianity is a
false dichotomy.

: To tell the truth, gay churches remind me a lot of Henry the VIII
: starting the Church of England in order to get a divorce (or is
: this a myth).  Note that I am not denying that gay Christians are
: Christian.

For my part, gay churches remind me of blacks starting their own churches
either because they were not allowed at all in the white churches, or, at
best, only with special restrictions that did not apply to white members.

revdak@netcom.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21681
From: st2c9@jane.uh.edu (Pou Lee: The MUG@UH Fellow)
Subject: More ODB Catchy Sayings

Quotes from Our Daily Bread

Our Daily Bread is a devotional help for spiritual growth. One can spend some
ten to fifteen minutes at most reading the daily portion of scriptures and a
related short article that brings the scriptures alive in applying in today's
society. It ends with a saying at the bottom. This article is a collection
of these sayings.

Our Daily Bread is one of the many ministries/services provided by Resources for
Biblical Communication. It is FREE. To receive the literature, just write and
ask for it. The contact addresses are listed below. Write to Radio Bible Class.

Copyright 1989 Radio Bible Class, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49555-0001

Canada: Box 1622, Windsor, Ontario N9A 6Z7
Australia: Box 365, Ryde, 2112 NSW
Europe: Box 1, Carnforth, Lancs., England LA5 9ES
Africa: Box 1652, Manzini, Swaziland
Africa: PMB 2010, Jos, Nigeria
Philippines: Box 288, Greenhills, 1502 Metro Manila

Sayings with related scriptures in December/January/February 89-90 issue of Our Daily Bread

When God saves us, all our sins are forgiven, forgotten, forever!
Romans 5:1-11

Life with Christ is difficult; without Him it's hopeless.
Ecclesiastes 4:1-6

It's the sin we cover up that eventually brings us down.
Psalm 19:7-14

You're not ready to live until you're ready to die.
Acts 21:1-14

Trusting in God's power prevents panic.
Isaiah 40:6-17

The Bible is a record of man's compete ruin in sin and God's compte remedy in Christ. - Barnhouse
2 Timothy 3:10-17

Jesus can change the foulest sinners into the finest saints.
Ephesians 2:1-10

They witness best who witness with their lives.
Acts 4:23-33

God came to dwell with man that man might dwell with God.
Philippians 2:5-11

A hurting person needs a helping hand, not an accusing finger.
Psalm 109:1,2, 14-31

What you decide about Jesus determines your destiny.
John 20:24-29

We must go to sinners if we expect sinners to come to the Savior.
Romans 1:8-15

Knowing that God sees us brings both conviction and cofidence.
Job 34:21-28

God's chastening is not cruel but corrective.
Hebrews 12:4-17

When you think of all that's good, give thanks to God.
Psalm 44:1-8

Man's greatest goal: give glory to God.
1 Peter 5:5-7

God loves every one of us as if there were but one of us to love.
Romans 8:31-39

Only the bread of life can satisfy man's spiritual hunger.
John 6:28-41

Conscience can be our compass if the word of God is our chart.
1 Timothy 4:1-5

Salvation is free, but you must receive it.
Isaiah 55:1-5

If we're not as spiritual as we could be, we're not as spiritual as we should be.
2 Timonty 1:1-7

Circumstances do not make a man, they reveal what he's made of.
Matthew 1:18-25

Make room for Jesus in your heart, and he will make room for you in heaven.
Matthew 2:1-18

Heaven's choir came down to sing when heaven's king came down to save.
Luke 2:1-20

God's highest gift awakens man's deepest gratitude.
Luke 2:21-38

Serving the Lord is an investment that pays eternal dividends.
1 Peter 4:12-19

Time misspent is not lived but lost.
Psalm 39:4-13

The measure of our love is the measure of our sacrifice.
1 Peter 4:7-11

God requires faithfulness; God rewards with fruitfulness.
Luke 19:11-27

How you spend time determines how you spend eternity.
Psalm 90:1-12

If you aim for nothing, you're sure to hit it.
Daniel 1:1-8

The Christian's future is as bright as the promises of God.
Psalm 23

Christ as Savior brings us peace with God; Christ as Lord brings the peace of God.
Colossians 1:13-20

They who only sample the word of God never acquire much of a tast for it.
Psalm 119:97-104

Unless one drinks now of the "water of life", he will thirst forever!
Revelation 22:12-17

A hyprocrite is a person who is not himself on Sunday.
Daniel 6:1-10

Be life long or short, its completeness depends on what it is lived for.
Ecclesiates 9:1-12

God loves you and me - let's love each other.
2 Corinthians 13

It's always too soon to quit.
Genesis 37:12-28

The character we build in this world we carry into the next.
Matthew 7:24-29

God sends trials not to impair us but to improves us.
2 Corinthians 4:8-18

Marriage is either a holy wedlock or an unholy deadlock.
2 Corinthians 5:11-18

We are adopted through God's grace to be adapted to God's use.
Galatians 6:1-10

Our children are watching: what we are speak louder than what we say.
Proverbs 31:10-31

Union with Christ is the basis for unity among believers.
Psalm 133

Keep out of your life all that would crowd Christ out of your heart.
Romans 6:1-14

Don't try to bear tomorrow's burdens with today's grace.
Matthew 6:25-34

Pray as if everything depends on God; work as if everything depends on you.
2 Kings 20:1-7

Some convictions are nothing more than prejudices.
Galatians 3:26-29

Unless you velieve, you will not understand. - Augustine
Hebrews 11:1-6

Christ is the only way to heaven; all other paths are detours to doom.
2 Corinthians 4:1-7

Many Christians are doing nothing, but no Christians have nothing to do!
John 4:31-38

We bury the seed; God brings the harvest.
Isaiah 55:8-13

The texture of eternity is woven on the looms of time.
Ecclesiastes 7:1-6

It's not just what we know about God but how we use what we know.
1 Corinthians 8

The best way to avoid lying is to do nothing that needs to be concealed.
Acts 5:1-11

God transforms trials into blessing by surrounding them with His love and grace.
2 Chronicles 20:1-4, 20-30

Confessing your sins is no substitute for forsaking them.
Psalm 51:1-10

If you shoot arrows of envy at others, you would yourself.
Philippians 1:12-18

He who has no vision of eternity doesn't know the value of time.
Ephesians 5:8-17

He who abandons himself to God will never be abandoned by God.
Psalm 123

No danger can come so near the Christian that God is not nearer.
Psalm 121

Many a man lays down his life trying to lay up a fortune.
Matthew 6:19-24

God's grace is infinite love expressing itself through infinite goodness.
Philippians 1:1-11

One way to do great things for Christ is to do little things for others.
Romans 16:1-16

You rob yourself of being you when you try to do what others are meant to do.
Romans 12:1-8

Don't pretend to be what you don't intend to be.
Matthew 23:1-15

Meeting God in our trials is better than getting out of them.
Psalm 42

If sinners are to escape God's judgement, God's people must point the way.
Matthew 24:15-27

It's not a sin to get angry when you get angry at sin.
John 2:13-22

We prepare for the darkness by learning to pray in the light.
1 Samuel 2:1-10

Christianity is not a way of doing certain things but a certain way of doing all things.
Ephesians 5:1-7

Better to know the truth and beware than to believe a lie and not care.
Jeremiah 28

A true servant does not live to himself, for himself, or by himself.
Genesis 13

Those who do the most earthly good are those who are heavely mined.
Philippians 1:19-26

A good marriage requires a determination to be married for good.
Genesis 2:18-24

If you're looking for something to give your life to, look to the one who gave His life for you.
1 Corinthians 3:1-11

When we have nothing left but God, we discover that God is enough.
Psalm 46

God is with us inthe darkness as surely as He is with us in the light.
1 Peter 1:1-9

Some people spend most of their life at the complaint counter.
1 Thessalonians 5:12-22

Of all creation, only man can say "yes" or "no" to God.
Genesis 9:8-17

The most rewarding end in life is to know the life that never ends.
Ecclesiates 8:10-15

One of the marks of a well-fed soul is a well read Bible.
Joshua1:1-9

Because God gives us all we need, we should give to those in need.
Proverbs 14:20-31

It's never too early to receive Christ, but at any moment it could be too late.
Luke 16:19-31

God's grace keeps pace with whatever we face.
2 Corinthians 12:7-10

Coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is success.
1 Corinthians 12:12-27

When we give God our burdens, He gives us a song.
Psalm 57

Do the thing you fear, and the death of fear is certain. - Emerson
1 Corinthians 2:1-8

The best way to conquer an enemy is by the strategy of love.
Matthew 5:38-48
******************************************************************************
Loneliness is being unaware of the One who is with us everywhere.
******************************************************************************
When the Christian stays his mind on Christ, he develops a wonderful CALMplex.
******************************************************************************

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21682
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <May.12.04.27.47.1993.9935@athos.rutgers.edu> gchin@ssf.Eng.Sun.COM
writes:

>Let me say that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is
>central to Christianity. If you personally believe that Jesus Christ
>died for you, you are a part of the Christian body of believers.

>We are all still human. We don't know it all, but homosexual or heterosexual,
>we all strive to follow Jesus.  The world is dying and needs to hear about
>Jesus Christ.

>Are you working together with other Christians to spread the Gospel?

Let me salute Gary Chin for speaking the gospel which is our source
of life.  Any who will follow his example, and accept the priorities
Christ commands of us, that the weightier matters of the law are justice
and mercy and good faith, is my brother or sister in Christ, and I will
attend to such a person with humility and charity.  We may not, in the
end, agree -- siblings often don't -- but we can at least talk.


-- 
Michael L. Siemon		I say "You are gods, sons of the
mls@panix.com			Most High, all of you; nevertheless
    - or -			you shall die like men, and fall
mls@ulysses.att..com		like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21683
From: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell)
Subject: Re: homosexuality

I am going to stop reading the homosexuality posts, at least for a  
while, because of the repeated seemingly personal attacks on me via  
post/e-mail(mainly e-mail).  If anyone has a specific comment,  
suggestion, and/or note that does not contain any name calling, etc.  
that they would like for me to read, send it to me via e-mail.  I  
would like a copy of file mentioned by the moderator ragarding the  
exergetical issue of it.  I attempted to get it via ftp but was  
unable.

In Christ's Love,
Bryan

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21684
From: fortmann@superbowl.und.ac.za (Paul Fortmann - PG)
Subject: "The Word Perfect" EXE file needed

A friend of mine managed to get a copy of a computerised Greek and Hebrew 
Lexicon called "The Word Perfect" (That is not the word processing 
package WordPerfect). However, some one wiped out the EXE file, and she 
has not been able to restore it. There are no distributors of the package in 
South Africa. I would appreciate it, if some one could email me the file, or 
at least tell me where I could get it from. 

My email address is
	fortmann@superbowl.und.ac.za     or
	fortmann@shrike.und.ac.za
 
Many thanks.

In Him, Paul Fortmann

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21685
From: aidler@sol.uvic.ca (E Alan  Idler)
Subject: Re: Mormon Temples

dhammers@pacific.? (David Hammerslag) writes:

>This paragraph brought to mind a question.  How do you (Mormons) reconcile
>the idea of eternal marriage with Christ's statement that in the ressurection
>people will neither marry nor be given in marriage (Luke, chapt. 20)?

Here is the short answer: because only
certain marriages are recorded in Heaven.

Now for the long answer:

In Doctrine and Covenants section 132, the 
chapter discussing eternal marriage (and, yes,
plural marriage), the distinction between
sealings under the priesthood and other 
marriages is revealed.  

When "the children of this world marry, or are
given in marriage" when they receive "the 
resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are
given in marriage" (Luke 20:34-35).
Jesus was simply teaching that marriages "until
death do you part" are not in force after death.

However, the Doctrine and Covenants continues 
describing eternal marriage.

D&C 132:19
   And again, verily I say unto you, if a 
man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and
by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is
sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise,
by him who is anointed this power and the keys 
of this priesthood; ... [ shortened for brevity AI]
and shall be of full force when they are out of
the world; and they shall pass by the angels, 
and the gods, which are set there, to their 
exhaltation and glory in all things, as hath been 
sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a 
fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever
and ever.

The Lord told Peter "whatsoever thou shalt bind
on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt 16:19).
Do you doubt that Peter was given the power to 
perform sealings?
Peter thought so because he taught that husbands
and wives were "heirs *together* of the grace of
life" (1 Peter 3:7).

"In order to obtain the highest" (degree of
celestial glory), a man must enter into this
order of the priesthood" (D&C 131:2).
When a man and wife are sealed they truly become 
"one flesh" because their eternal "increase" 
(destinies) are enjoined completely.

Our Father has an eternal companion (and maybe
more because of the plural marriage conditions
of the law) who participated in our creation
and is equally concerned with our progress here.

There is no scriptural basis for this doctrine.
If fact, the only mention of our Mother is in
one verse of a hymn written early in the history
of the Church:

    O My Father

    I had learned to call thee Father,
    Through thy Spirit from on high,
    But, until the key of knowledge
    Was restored, I knew not why.
    In the heav'ns are parents single?
    No, the thought makes reason stare!
    Truth is reason; truth eternal
    Tells me I've a mother there.

Why don't we hear more about our Mother?

1.  Because our Father presides under Priesthood
authority (which is not a calling for Her);

2.  Because we don't all (necessarily) have the
same Mother it would be confusing for worship;

3.  Because our Father wishes to withhold Her
name and titles because of how some people
degrade sacred things.

A IDLER

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21686
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: James and Sirach

On Thursday 6 May 1993, Dave Davis writes:

 > I'm leaning... SIRACH... is more directly referenced by JAMES
 > than JOB or RUTH is... in any NT verse I've seen.

It would help if you mentioned chapter and verse from SIRACH and
from JAMES.

Job 5:13 ("He taketh the wise in their craftiness") seems to be
quoted in 1 Corinthians 3:19.

James 5:11 ("You have heard of the patience of Job"), while not a
quote, implies that James and his listeners are familiar with a
story of a man named Job who exhibited exemplary patience. It is
possible that the story they know is not that found in the Hebrew
Bible, but rather another similar and related story. (One has the
same problem with direct quotes.)

Again, Matthew 1:5 ("Boaz begat Obed of Ruth") tells us that Matthew
knew a story about a woman named Ruth who married a man called Boaz
and  became the ancestor of David. Since Ruth is not mentioned in
the OT outside the Book of Ruth, it seems likely that Matthew was
familiar with the book and respected it, and thought Ruth important
enough to be one of the few women mentioned in the genealogy.

References like this do not prove that the NT writer considered his
OT source inspired or inerrant or canonical. But neither do direct
quotes.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21687
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: certainty of canonizations

On Friday 7 May 1993, Marty Helgesen wrote:

 > Public revelation, which is the basis of Catholic doctrine, ended
 > with the death of St John, the last Apostle. Nothing new can be
 > added.

Every so often, the Pope declares that some departed Christian is
now in Heaven, and may be invoked in the public rites of the Church.
It is my understanding that Roman Catholics believe that such
declarations by the Pope are infallible. I see three possibilities:
     1) The Church has received a Public Revelation since the death
of (for example) Joan of Arc.
     2) The Church was given a list before the death of St John
which had Joan's name on it.
     3) There is no public revelation about Joan, and Roman
Catholics are free to doubt that she died in a state of grace, or
even that she is a historical character.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21688
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: Paul's "thorn in the side"

Joe Moore writes:

 > Paul repeatedly talks about the "thorn" in his side. Some think
 > it refers to lust, others pride, but who knows? Whatever the
 > thorn was, apparently it was not compatible with Christianity,
 > yet does that make his epistles any less?

Paul mentions his "thorn" (SKOLOPS, actually a sharp stake) in 2
Corinthians 12:7-9

 + And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of
 + revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of
 + Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated. Three
 + times I besought the Lord about this, that it should leave me;
 + but he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my
 + power is made perfectr in weakness."

He does not explain what it was, but it need not have been a moral
problem.  One guess is that Paul had a disorder of the eyes. He
ordinarily dictated his letters, and then added a personal note and
his signature. At the end of the letter to the Galatians, he says,
"See, I am writing in large letters with my own hand," or else, "See
what a long letter I have written with my own hand." If the former
translation is adopted, it seems that Paul could not write in the
small script of a practiced writer, but needed to make his letters
larger, and this suggests eye problems. Again, he says to the
Galatians (4:13-15),

 + You know that it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached
 + the gospel to you at first; and although my condition was a trial
 + to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an
 + angel of God.... For I bear you witness that, if possible, you
 + would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me.

Perhaps this last line means simply, "You would have done anything
for me, not withholding your most precious possessions (your eyes)."
But in that case, we would expect some wording like, "If I had
needed them." "If it were possible" sounds as though the bodily
ailment was connected with his eyes.

William Barclay, in his volume on Acts, makes a more specific
suggestion.  Before Paul preached in the highlands of Galatia, he
had been preaching in the coastal areas of Asia Minor. If he had had
a malarial attack while there, a doctor would have advised him to
leave the low country and head for the hills. Malaria might well
have given him both severe headaches and blurred vision.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21689
From: plastic@ecr.mu.oz.au (Jason_Brinsley LEE)
Subject: 25 words or less....

Everywhere we see and hear about christianity (due to its
evangalistic nature). Witnessing, spreading the gospel, etc.
But what I want to know is...

"Why should I (or anyone else) become a Christian?"

(In twenty five words or less).

	Zeros and Ones will take us there....
	peace. plastic. 1993.

[We've had enough discussions about evidence recently that it would
probably be best to respond via email.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21690
From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal F Lillywhite)
Subject: Re: Mormon beliefs about children born out of wedlock

In article <May.13.02.30.13.1993.1529@geneva.rutgers.edu> aaronc@athena.mit.edu (Aaron Bryce Cardenas) writes:
>Bruce Webster writes:
>>Indeed, LDS doctrine goes one step further and in some cases
>>holds parents responsible for their children's sins if they have
>>failed to bring them up properly (cf. D&C 68:25-28

>Hi Bruce.  How do you reconcile this practice with Ezekiel 18?
>Ezekiel 18:20 "The soul who sins is the one who will die.  The son will not
>share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the
>son.  The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and
>the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him."

Actually in D&C 68:25-28 the parents are being held accountable for
their own sins.  Specifically they are accountable for their failure
to teach their children properly.  If I fail to teach my children
that stealing is wrong then I am responsible for their theft if they
later indulge in such behavior.

This is very similar to the instructions Ezekiel was given in
Eze 3:18.  If Ezekiel failed to do his duty and warn the wicked, 
not only would the wicked die in his sins but the Lord would hold
Ezekiel responsible!  Similarly parents are responsible to teach
their children right from wrong.  I suspect most Christians (and
Jews etc.) would agree that parents have this responsibility.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21691
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one
another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with
gratitude in your hearts to God. 
Colossians 3:16

A reminder: These verses are from the New International Version. As with any
translation, faithfulness to the original Hebrew and Greek may vary from time
to time. If a verse sounds a little off occasionally, compare it with another
translation or with the original texts, if you are able to do so.

God Bless You,
Chuck Petch

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21692
From: mussack@austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Subject: Re: Dreams and out of body incidents

Ever since I was a kid and learned to tell when I was in a 
dream I have used my dreams for fantasies or working out problems.
In my dreams I have done everything from yell at my mom
to machine-gunning zombies, not to mention myriad sexual
fantasies. I have deliberately done things that I would never
do in real life. I understand the need to control ones
thoughts, but I always felt that dreams were format free,
no morals, no ethics, no physical laws, (though sometimes I would 
have to wake myself up to go to the bathroom.)

Is this an incorrect attitude? Rather than weakening my inhibitions,
I could argue that I got certain things "out of my system" by 
experiencing them in dreams. By analyzing a dream I can determine
if I have a problem with a certain situation, i.e. in a dream
something will be exagerated that I can then contemplate and
see if it really bothers me or not.

I can't believe that other people don't do the same. It seems 
silly to attach moral significance to dreams.

I think that this is entirely different from out of body
experiences, which I have never had.

Contradictions welcome.

Chris Mussack

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21693
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Subject: Reason and Homophobia

This has troubled me for a long time and needs to be dealt with.

From a long article Available through an individual on this newsgroup.

About scripture being against homosexuality:
------------------------------------------
When we  are
less homophobic we will see that what we know as gay and lesbian  people,
engaging in loving, voluntary erotic relations with each other, aren't  even
mentioned. [in the Bible, tk]
------------------------------------------

This frightens me (not in the homophobic sense, but intellectually),
especially because it was written by someone from a homosexual church.

So, if my interpretation is different than theirs, I am homophobic!  This
can't be right. Disagreement in interpretation of the Bible and/or rejection
of homosexual acts is not tantamount of homophobia.

====================================          
Ted Kalivoda (tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu)
University of Georgia, Athens
Institute of Higher Ed. 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21694
From: azamora@cs.indiana.edu (Tony Zamora)
Subject: Re: more on 2 Peter 1:20

In article <May.13.02.28.01.1993.1436@geneva.rutgers.edu> JEK@cu.nih.gov  
writes:
>      In one sense, no statement by another is subject to my private
> interpretation. If reliable historians tell me that the Athenians
> lost the Pelopennesian War, I cannot simply interpret this away
> because I wanted the Athenians to win. Facts are facts and do not go
> away because I want them to be otherwise.
>      In another sense, every statement is subject to private
> interpretation, in that I have to depend on my brains and
> expereience to decide what it means, and whether it is sufficiently
> well attested to merit my assent. Even if the statement occurs in an
> inspired writing, I still have to decide, using my own best
> judgement, whether it is in fact inspired. This is not arrogance --
> it is just an inescapable fact.

Yes, there are these two senses of interpretation, and certainly our
decision to accept Scripture as inspired ultimately rests on our own
private opinion.  However, when reading Scripture, we have to remember
that the Scriptures were given by God for our instruction, and that
the interpretation that matters is the one God intended.  For example,
if I decide that the fact that John the Baptist is Elijah teaches the
doctrine of reincarnation, I am wrong because that is not the intended
interpretation.  The prophets didn't make up this teaching; it came
from God, and we must accept it as such.  This necessarily means that
our private interpretations must take a back seat to the meaning God
intended to convey.  Certainly we must rely on our best efforts to
determine what this meaning is, but this very fact should make us
recognize that our private interpretations cannot be automatically
accepted as the infallible interpretation of God.  We need to test the
spirits to see if they are from God.  When the Holy Spirit speaks, he
says the same thing to all; he won't tell me that a passage means one
thing and tell you it means another.  If the two of us come to
conflicting conclusions, we can't both be completely right.  We know
our interpretations are reliable only when the Church as a whole
agrees on what Scripture means.  This is how we know the doctrines of
the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, etc. infallibly.  These
matters are not up for private interpretation.

This is the reason Peter goes on to talk about the deceptiveness of
the false teachers.  They preferred their own private interpretation
to the God-given teaching of the apostles.  It is through such private
interpretation that the traditions of men, so soundly denounced in
Scripture, are started.

Tony

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21695
From: tdarcos@access.digex.net (Paul Robinson)
Subject: Homosexuality is Immoral (non-religious argument)

[This was crossposted to a zillion groups.  I don't intend to
carry an entire discussion crossposted from alt.sex, particularly
one whose motivation seems to be having a fun argument.  However
I thought readers might be interested to know about the
discussion there.  --clh]

I intend to endeavor to make the argument that homosexuality is an
immoral practice or lifestyle or whatever you call it.  I intend to
show that there is a basis for a rational declaration of this
statement.  I intend to also show that such a declaration can be 
made without there being a religious justification for morality,
in fact to show that such a standard can be made if one is an atheist.

Anyone who wants to join in on the fun in taking the other side,
i.e. that they can make the claim that homosexuality is not immoral,
or that, collaterally, it is a morally valid practice, is free to do
so.  I think there are a lot of people who don't believe one can have
a rational based morality without having a religion attached to it.

This should be fun to try and figure this out, and I want to try and
expose (no pun intended) my ideas and see other people's and see where
their ideas are standing.  As I'm not sure what groups would be interested
in this discussion, I will be posting an announcement of it to several,
and if someone thinks of appropriate groups, let me know.

If someone on here doesn't receive alt.sex, let me know and I'll make
an exception to my usual policy and set up a mailing list to automatically
distribute it in digest format to anyone who wants to receive it as I'll
use that as the main forum for this.  By "exception to usual policy" is
that I normally charge for this, but for the duration the service will be
available at no charge to anyone who has an address reachable on Internet
or Bitnet.

I decided to start this dialog when I realized there was a much larger
audience on usenet / internet than on the smaller BBS networks.

To give the other side time to work up to a screaming anger, this will 
begin on Monday, May 24, to give people who want to make the response
time to identify themselves.  Anonymous postings are acceptable, since
some people may not wish to identify themselves.  Also, if someone else
wants to get in on my side, they are free to do so.  

This should be *much* more interesting than Abortion debates!

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21696
From: adamsj@gtewd.mtv.gtegsc.com
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <May.13.02.29.39.1993.1505@geneva.rutgers.edu>, revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille) writes:
> Of course the whole issue is one of discernment.  It may be that Satan
> is trying to convince us that we know more than God.  Or it may be that
> God is trying (as God did with Peter) to teach us something we don't
> know- that "God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears
> him and does what is right is acceptable to him." (Acts 10:34-35).
> 
> revdak@netcom.com

Fine, but one of the points of this entire discussion is that "we"
(conservative, reformed christians - this could start an argument...
But isn't this idea that homosexuality is ok fairly "new" [this
century] ? Is there any support for this being a viable viewpoint
before this century? I don't know.) don't believe that homosexuality
is "acceptable to Him". So your scripture quotation doesn't work for
"us".

-jeff adams-

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21697
From: sun075!Gerry.Palo@uunet.uu.net (Gerry Palo)
Subject: Re: Christianity and repeated lives

In article <May.12.04.26.40.1993.9887@athos.rutgers.edu> u9245669@athmail1.cause
way.qub.ac.uk writes (single angle brackets):

>> Jesus is talking with the
>>apostles and they ask him why the pharisees say that before the messiah can 
>>come Elijah must first come. Jesus replies that Elijah has come, but they did 
>>not recognize him. It then says that the apostles perceived that he was referi
ng 
>>to John the Baptist. This seems to me to clearly imply reincarnation.
>
>This was a popular belief in the Judaism of Jesus` time, that Elijah
>would return again (as he had been taken in to heaven in a chariot and
>did not actually die).  However Jesus was referring to John the
>Baptist not in the sense that Elijah was reincarnated as John
>(remember Elijah didn`t die) but that John was a similar prophet to
>Elijah. >

There is no question of similarity in Jesus indication about John.
The passage in Matthew is very direct.  Where Luke (1:17) reports
the angel Gabriel prophesying that John will go before Christ "in the 
power and spirit of Elias", In Matthew 11: 14, Jesus himself says of John,
   
   "And if you care to accept it, he himself is Elijah, who
    was to come".

It is interesting that Jesus prepended the words, "If you care to accept
it", as if to say that the implications of this truth, namely of rein-
carnation, I will not force on you, but for those who can accept it, here it
is.  A Jewish poster to other newsgroups on Jewish esotericism and other
topics has outlined the esoteric, cabbalistic Jewish teaching of of
reincarnation and Karma, a teaching that is little known among Jews
today, but which is apparently widespread enough in Israel that Hannah
Hurnard ("Hinds Feet on High Places") was told about it by a Rabbi
she was trying to convert back in the 1940s as a missionary in Palestine.
Thus there may well have been a small number of Jews who knew about this,
whereas the large number of people did not.  The statement of Jesus about 
John, the greatest human personality in the New Testament, is guarded
but nevertheless quite direct.  Again, the subject of reincarnation, one
way or another, is not a subject of the New Testament, nor is the fate in general
of the human being between death and the last judgement.  But there are 
occasional indications that point to it.

As for the "popular belief" that Elijah would come again, it was more than 
a popular belief, as Jesus confirms it in more than one place, and he never 
corrected those who were expecting Elijah --  for example, those who thought 
that Jesus himself be he.

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21698
From: sun075!Gerry.Palo@uunet.uu.net (Gerry Palo)
Subject: Re: Jacob and Esau (reincarnation)

In article <May.12.04.30.10.1993.10089@athos.rutgers.edu> JEK@cu.nih.gov writes:

>Gerry Palo wrote that there is nothing in Christianity that excludes
>the theory of a succession of lives.
>
>I wrote that the Apostle Paul, in Romans 9, speaks of God as
>choosing Jacob over Esau, and adds that this is not as a result of
>anything that either child had done, since they had not been born
>yet.
>
>Clearly, Paul does not believe that they had had previous lives, nor
>does he suppose that his readers will believe it. For if they had
>had previous lives, it would not make sense to say, "Neither of them
>has done anything good or bad as yet, since they are not yet born."
>

Paul's statement only asserts that that particular choice was not
a matter of karmic fulfillment of the past, just as the fate of the
man born blind (John 9) was not.  There is no question here of the
simplistic idea of karma as a machine that is the sole determiner
of one's destiny.  Even the eastern traditions, or many of them,
do not say that, as one knowledgeable poster pointed out.

And if in fact that Paul did not know about or believe in reincarnation
does not say anything one way or another about it.  Even John the Baptist,
who Jesus says emphatically is Elijah (Matt 11:14), does not appear to 
have been aware of it, at least at the point at which he was asked. But 
it is interesting that his threefold denial -- to the question whether 
he is the Christ, the Prophet (i.e. Isaiah), or Elijah, is emphatic in 
the first case and very weak in the third.

I would like to add once again that, while it is important to discuss the
different passages that may point directly to the teaching of repeated
earth lives, one way or another, what I really see as important in our
time is that the subject be revisited in terms of the larger view of
Christianity and Christian doctrine.  For the most part, those who do
accept it either reject the central ideas of Christianity or, if they
are Christians, hold their conviction as a kind of separate treasure.
I believe that Christianity has important new understanding to bring
to bear on it, and vice versa, much that is central to Christianity
takes on entirely new dimensions of meaning in light of repeated earth
lives. It has a direct bearing on many of the issues frequently discussed 
in this newsgroup in particular.

I have said openly that I have developed my views of repeated earth lives
largely from the work of Rudolf Steiner.  Not that I hold him as an
authority, but the whole picture of Christianity becomes clearer in light
of these ideas.  Steiner indicated that the old consciousness of reincar-
nation necessarily had to fade away that it could be renewed in later
times, after a time of development of the Christ idea through the first
two millenia after Christ's deed on Golgotha.  In our own time, it becomes 
important that, having received the basic gospel of salvation, our 
understanding of life and of the human being can now grow to embrace the 
significance of this idea.  For the discussions in this newsgroup, I 
have tried to focus on that which can be related as directly as possible 
to scripture and to fundamental Christian teaching and tradition.

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21699
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: tongues (read me!)

Persons interested in the tongues question are are invited to
peruse an essay of mine, obtainable by sending the message
 GET TONGUES NOTRANS
 to LISTSERV@ASUACAD.BITNET or to
    LISTSERV@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21700
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps) writes:

>   To summarize, you accused the original poster of saying if something
>is not forbidden by the Bible, then that proves it is OK; i.e. if
>something cannot be disproven, it is true.  He rather seemed to be

You are absolutely right. After reading it over again, I realized that I
misunderstood what he said. My apologies. As for the question about
slavery, I have to disagree. Slavery in those times was the same as slavery
in the US. Some may have been indentured servants, but not all. I would also
expect Paul to do a little more than just HINT about a particular slave.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21701
From: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes)
Subject: Re: Hyslop and _The_Two_Babylons_

In article <May.13.02.30.57.1993.1557@geneva.rutgers.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:

>Seeing as how _The_Two_Babylons_ has been brought up again, it is time for
>me to respond , once again, and say that this book is junk.  It is nothing
>more that an anti-Catholic tract of the sort published ever since the there
>were protestants.  Its scholarship is phony and its assertions spurious.


I have not seen this book, though I have had several people quote it in 
support of some tendentious assertions they were making, so I have become 
curious about it.

I don't want to malign this Hislop fellow, whoever he may be, as I have only 
heard the arguments at second hand, but both of the arguments seemed to turn 
on false etymology that SEEMED to be derived from Hislop.

I would be interested in knowing more about these things. 

The first one claimed that the word "church" was derived from the Greek 
"cyclos", and that it was therefore related to the worship of "Circe".

I don't know if Hislop is the source of this assertion, but it does seem to 
be based on false etymology.

The second claimed an etymological relationship between "Ishtar" and 
"Easter", which seemed to be even more fanciful and far-fetched than some 
of the wilder notions of the British Israelites.

Regarding the latter, as far as I have been able to find out, "Easter" is 
derived from the old English name for April - "Eosturmonath". The Venerable 
Bede mentioned that this was associated with a goddess called "Eostre", but 
apart from that reference I have not been able to find out anything more 
about her. It also seems that the term "Easter" is only used by the English 
and those they evangelized. The Germans, for example, also use the term 
"Ostern", but Germany was evangelized by English missionaries.

So I would be interested in any evidence of "Easter" being used for Pascha 
by people who do not have any kind of connection with the ancient Anglo-
Saxons and their offshoots. Such evidence might support the claims of those 
who appear to derive the theory from Hislop.





============================================================
Steve Hayes, Department of Missiology & Editorial Department
Univ. of South Africa, P.O. Box 392, Pretoria, 0001 South Africa
Internet: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za         Fidonet: 5:7101/20
          steve.hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
FAQ: Missiology is the study of Christian mission and is part of
     the Faculty of Theology at Unisa

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21702
From: eledw@nuscc.nus.sg (Simon D. Wibowo)
Subject: Quit Smoking

My girlfriend is a smoker. She has been addicted to it for quite some time.
She has been tried a couple of times, but then always get back to it. Her 
background is non-Christian, but she's interested in Christianity. I'm a
Christian and non-smoker.

I would like to collect any personal stories from Christians who managed to 
quit. I hope that this will encourage her to keep on trying. If anybody ever 
had a similar problem or knows a good book on it, pls reply by email. 

I appreciate any kinds of helps. Thanks a lot.

=======================================================================
Simon Darjadi Wibowo                    Telp : (65)7726863
Dept. of EE, Nat'l Univ. Of S'pore      Fax  : (65)7773117
Singapore 0511                          Internet : eledw@nuscc.nus.sg

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21703
From: mdw@violin.hr.att.com (Mark Wuest)
Subject: Re: Boston C of C

Aside to the moderator:

In article <May.13.02.30.00.1993.1520@geneva.rutgers.edu> Rick_Granberry@pts.mot.com (Rick Granberry) writes:

><see below...>

I won't quote any of it, but there are several errors in the article.
Not things that are just differences of opinion, but the writer just
plain has his facts confused.

For example, Kip McKean was *asked* to come to the Lexington church
by the leaders there. He brought no team. He actually had been in
Charleston, IL up to that point. He had many friends, even leaders in
Gainesville, telling him not to go, because people in the Northeast
weren't "open" and he'd be wasting his time and talents. Really!!
(This fact was a kind of "inside joke" at one point after the church
in Boston took off so well... Not open, indeed!) ;-)

I could take it on point by point, but I am not in a position to know
one way or the other about some things in the article. I just wanted
to point out that it contains misinformation.

Mark
-- 
Mark Wuest                              |     *MY* opinions, not AT&T's!!
mdw@violin.hr.att.com (Sun Mailtool Ok) |
mdw@trumpet.hr.att.com (NeXT Mail)      |

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21704
From: wagner@grace.math.uh.edu (David Wagner)
Subject: Re: homosexual issues in Christianity

"Michael" == Michael Siemon <mls@panix.com> writes:

Michael> The kind of interpretation I see as "incredibly perverse" is
Michael> that applied to the story of Sodom as if it were a blanket
Michael> equation of homosexual behavior and rape.  Since Christians
Michael> citing the Bible in such a context should be presumed to have
Michael> at least READ the story, it amounts to slander -- a charge
Michael> that homosexuality == rape -- to use that against us.

and

Michael>  It is just
Michael> as wrong (though slightly less incendiary, so it's a
Michael> secondary argument from the 'phobic contingent) to equate
Michael> homosexuality with such behavior as to equate it with the
Michael> rape of God's messengers.

Let's review the Sodom and Gomorrah story briefly.  It states
clearly that the visitors were angels.  But "all the men from every
part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the
house.  They called to Lot, `Where are the *men* who came to 
you tonight?  Bring them out to us so that we can have sex 
with them.' " 

For the rest of the story the angels are referred to by the men
of Sodom and by Lot as *men*.  Furthermore we know from Gen 18:20,21
that the Lord had already found Sodom guilty of grievous sin--before
the angels visited the city.  It is clear that the grievous sin
of Sodom and Gomorrah involved homosexual sex.  It appears that
the men had become so inflamed in their lust that they had
group orgies in the public square--which simply indicates 
the extremity of their depravity.  It does not show that lesser 
degrees of homosexuality are not sinful, as Michael would have us
believe.

Ultimately our understanding of God's will for sexuality comes from
the creation story--not solely on the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.  He
created us male and female, and instituted marriage as a relationship
between one male and one female, "Therefore a man will leave his
father and mother, and be united with his wife, and they will become
one flesh."  This marriage relationship is the only sexual
relationship which God blesses and sanctions. He regulates and
protects the marriage of man and woman, and even uses it as a picture
of the relationship between himself and his church.  But we find not
one word of blessing or regulation for a sexual relationship between 
two men, or between two women.

Everything else that we find in the Bible about sexuality derives from
or expresses God's will in instituting and blessing marriage.  Thus
the Levitical code, which was given only to the Jews, forbade incest,
homosexuality, bestiality; the Ten Commandments forbade adultery and
the coveting of our neighbor's wife; other commandments forbade rape.
The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were regarded as sexually immoral and
perverse (Jude 7) because they abandoned and/or polluted the marriage
relationship.  Thus also Paul regarded homosexuality as `unnatural',
Romans 1:26,27--not because this was simply Paul's opinion,
but because it was contrary to God's purpose in creating us
male and female.
  
Michael> Christians, no doubt very sincere ones, keep showing up here
Michael> and in every corner of USENET and the world, and ALL they
Michael> ever do is spout these same old verses (which they obviously
Michael> have never thought about, maybe never even read), in TOTAL
Michael> ignorance of the issues raised, slandering us with the vilest
Michael> charges of child abuse or whatever their perfervid minds can
Michael> manage to conjure up, tossing out red herrings with (they
Michael> suppose) great emotional force to cause readers to dismiss
Michael> our witness without even taking the trouble to find out what
Michael> it is.

Really, have you no better response to `slander' than more
slander?

David H. Wagner			"The day is surely drawing near
a confessional Lutheran		When God's Son, the Annointed,
				Shall with great majesty appear
				As Judge of all appointed.
				All mirth and laughter then shall
					cease
				When  flames on flames will still
					increase
				As Scripture truly teacheth."
				--"Es ist gewisslich an der Zeit" v. 1
				--Bartholomaeus Ringwaldt, 1586

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21705
From: REXLEX@fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Hyslop and _The_Two_Babylons_

In article <May.13.02.30.57.1993.1557@geneva.rutgers.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu
(Charley Wingate) writes:
>Seeing as how _The_Two_Babylons_ has been brought up again,
>  Its scholarship is phony and its assertions spurious.
>-- 
>C. Wingate       

Maybe you should dig a little further Charles.  Hislop's scholarship was
accepted by the Bristish Oriental Institute which, at the time, was the premere
Institute for Oriental studies.  As I've stated over and over,  I've checked
out about 25% of his references (most are now out of print or in private
libraries) and the likes of Wilkerson and Layard hold their own merit.  THey
too came to the same conclusions and if you will trouble yourself, you will
find that their knowledge of the mysteries have yet to be surpassed.  Both were
highly honored by the British Oriental Museum.  Wilkerson is known as one of
the leading archeologist in the history of Egyptiology and Layard is still
being refered two after 200 yrs of archeology in the Mesopotamian regions.  He
was recently refered to in a TIME article on Babylonian archeology.  

Phony scholarship is when you review their references and find that they have
misquoted or misrepresented the conclusions.  Hislop did not.  His conclusions
do not tickle the ears, that much is self evident.  But to assert that his
conclusions are "spurious" is without merit.  He gave references to all his
conclusions and as I have stated, for the last 25 years I have used his
conclusions in debates at RC seminaries and brotherhoods, not to mention the
individual priests and bishops that I have talked to one on one.  No counter to
Hislops scholarship was made.  The only rebuttals were against his conclusions
because they do totally undermined the claims of the RCC. He was showing that
the intitution of the RCC was based on the mysteries (which others have shown
even to this day in various articles and topics).  THe tongues movement in
Corinth was a direct result of the mysteries entering into the church.  If it
was so in Corinth, why could they not have an influence in Rome, the city of
seven hills?

Also, you do not have to listen to his conclusions, you can draw your own
conclusions by looking at the customs, artifacts, the cerimonial dress, the
docrine of purgatory, etc from the vantage of the mysteries.  You don't even
have to be a believer to see the parallels.  Just one example.  THe mitre. 
Where did it come from?  Why is it shaped the way it is?  What are the two
tails that hang down the back represent?  Was this an ancient  head dress from
an earlier culture and why was it in Rome at the time of the beginnings of the
church of the State of Rome?  Does it have pagan history behind it, and if so,
why did the RCC chose regardless?

Any lay person of middle eastern religion can answer these questions.  Even the
scriptures themselves refer to it.  All Hislop did was collect the information
from all the various sources and put them in one binding.  There is no lack of
scholorship in that.

Please tell me why you discredit this man by your accusation, yet present no
evidence supporting it.  

--Rex

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21706
From: ptrei@bistromath.mitre.org (Peter Trei)
Subject: Re: Athiests and Hell

In article <May.13.02.27.26.1993.1411@geneva.rutgers.edu> REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov writes:
>In article <May.11.02.36.29.1993.28068@athos.rutgers.edu>
>ptrei@bistromath.mitre.org (Peter Trei) writes:
>>In article <May.9.05.38.49.1993.27375@athos.rutgers.edu> REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
>writes:
>>[much deleted] 
>>>point today might be the Masons.  (Just a note, that they too worshipped 
>>>Osiris in Egypt...)
>>[much deleted] 
>>
>>     It bugs me when I see this kind of nonsense.
>>
>>     First, there is no reasonable evidence linking Masonry to ancient
>>Egypt, or even that it existed prior to the late 14th century (and
>>there's nothing definitive before the 17th).
>
[I'm going to cut "Rex"'s ramblings down a bit.]

[...]
>You must not be past your 20th level.  You should read Wilkinson's
>Egyptians and how he shows this Egyptian religion paralleling his own British
>Masonry.  There is a man here at this laboratory who is a 33 degree black
>mason.  I've talked with him, [...]
>There is the public side with motorcyle mania and
>childrens hospitals and then there is the priviate side that only the highest
>degree mason every learns of.

   Rex, there are literally hundreds of thousands of 32nd degree
Masons in this country, and thousands of 33rds. If nasty stuff was
really going on, don't you think you'd have more than a couple of
disgruntled members "exposing" it? Heck, if what you say is true, then
Rev. Norman Vincent Peale is an Osiris worshiper.
 
[...
Long quote from someone named Hislop (source not given) deleted. I'm
attempting to extract from it the relevent points: 

  * Osiris is actually Nimrod, a Babylonian Deity. 

  * "It is admitted that the secret system of Free Masonry was originally
    founded on the Mysteries of the Egyptian Isis, the goddess-mother, or
    wife of Osiris."

  * The Babylonian Nimrod and Osiris are both connected with the building
    trade, ie, with Masonry.

  * Nimrod, as the son of Cush, was a negro. [isn't this refering to a 
    Biblical Nimrod, rather than the Babylonian god?]

  *  ...there was a tradition in Egypt, recorded by Plutarch, that 'Osiris
     was black'.
...]

     There is a long tradition in Masonry of claiming ancient lineage
for the order, on the flimsiest of grounds. This dates right back to
the Constitutions of 1738, which cite Adam as the first Mason. I've
seen other claims which place Masonry among the Romans, Greeks, and
Egyptians, and Atlanteans. I even have a book which claims to prove
that Stonehenge was originally a Masonic temple. 

    Claims prove nothing. Where's the beef, Rex?

[...Claims ex-Mason showed him leopard skin he wore in lodge]
> Any representation of Osiris usually show the wearing of some leopard.

   I'd have to check this. The tomb paintings I remember don't show
this.

>  It is interesting that the Druids of Britian also show, or should I say
> hide, this representation.  They, however, worshipped the "spotted cow".

   Can you give ancient citations for this? The druids were suppressed
over 2000 years ago. What's your point?

   This whole "leopard skin" business sounds bizarre.  I have not yet
gone through the Scottish Rite (which contains all of those "higher
degrees" anti-Masons get so excited about, and which was invented in
the 1750's), but I know enough people who have (and who are good
Christians), that I reject your claim.

>I'll stand by my statements.  Masonry is of the "mystery" religions
>that all find their source in Babylon, the great harlot. Sorry Peter,
>I do not mean to be a "cold slap to the face" but there is to much

Not so much a 'slap in the face' as 'a weary feeling of deja vu'. I'm
going through a very similar argument over on soc.culture.african.american.

>evidence to the contrary that Masonry doesn't find its origins in
>Egypt.  Of the Masons I have personally talked to, all refered to
>Egypt as their origin.  

    Why don't you try reading some serious books on Masonic history, such
as Hamill's "The Craft"?

>Why are you now separating yourself from this which not many years ago,
>was freely admitted?

   Because we got honest. If you can come up with actual evidence that
Masonry existed prior to 1390, I'd be VERY impressed (actually,
anything earlier than 1630 would be pretty good.)

>-Rex
						Peter Trei
						ptrei@mitre.org

Disclaimer: I do not speak for my employer.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21707
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <May.13.02.30.39.1993.1545@geneva.rutgers.edu> noye@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>i believe that the one
>important thing that those who wrote the old and new testament
>passages cited above did NOT know was that there is scientific
>evidence to support that homosexuality is at least partly _inherent_
>rather than completely learned.

Note that "scientific evidence" in this area does not prove any conclusions.
There has been evidence to suggest that a certain part of homosexual's
brains are different from heterosexuals- but that proves very little.

Also notice that the apostles did not have with them the "scientific
evidence" linking certain genes with alcoholism, or stealing with certain
genetic problems.  Even if they did have scientific evidence, I doubt it
would have stopped them from communicating the teaching from the Holy 
Spirit that these things are sinful.

This reminds me of a conversation with a professor of mine.  He said 
something very true.  Christianity teaches that we should not give in
to our every inclination.  Most people do give in to their leanings.
In Christianity, we have the concept of struggling with the flesh,
and bringing it into submission.  One person may have a problem with
his temper, and having a murderous heart, another may have a problem
with homosexuality, another may be inclined to greed.  But God offers
us the opportunity to be more than conquerers.

>sources where you can find this information, there is homosexual
>behavior recorded among monkeys and other animals, which is in itself
>suggestive that it is inherent rather than learned, or at least that
>the word "unnatural" shouldn't really apply....

The preying mantis bites the head off of her mate after she mates
with him.  Is it natural for a woman to do the same thing to her husband?
The Bible is concerned with human morality, and only touches on animal
morality as it relates to humans.

Link Hudson.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21708
From: USTS012@uabdpo.dpo.uab.edu
Subject: Should teenagers pick a church parents don't attend?

Q. Should teenagers have the freedom to choose what church they go to?

My friends teenage kids do not like to go to church.
If left up to them they would sleep, but that's not an option.
They complain that they have no friends that go there, yet don't
attempt to make friends. They mention not respecting their Sunday
school teacher, and usually find a way to miss Sunday school but
do make it to the church service, (after their parents are thoroughly
disgusted) I might add. A never ending battle? It can just ruin your
whole day if you let it.

Has anyone had this problem and how did it get resolved?
f.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21709
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: homosexual issues in Christianity

In article <May.13.02.31.26.1993.1577@geneva.rutgers.edu> mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:
>>I notice that the verse forbidding bestiality immediately follows the
>>verse prohibiting what appears to be homosexual intercourse.

> It is
>absolutely irrelevant and incomparable to the issues gay Christians *do*
>raise (which concern sexual activity within committed, consensual human
>adult realtionships), so that your bringing it up is no more relevant
>than the laws of kashrut.  If you cannot address the actual issues, you
>are being bloody dishonest in trailing this red herring in front of the
>world.

No.  It is very relevant.  Homosexual acts and acts of beastiality are
topically aranged together in the law.  This is very important.
Anyone who would want to say that this command against homosexuality
deals with temple prostitution (and I think you would agree that there
is no proof for this.)  If the Law reveals the character of God, and 
is "holy, just, and good" as is written in the New Testament, then
those who consider we who are against commiting homosexuals acts
to be biggots have to address this passage of Scripture.  

Why must we only discuss Scriptures that involve consensual human
adult relationships?  Isn't that bordering on sophistry?  The point
we are making is that God did not ordain certain kinds of sex acts.
Not everyone who brings up these Scriptures is just trying to use and emotional
argument that compares homosexuals to beastophiles and child molestors.
The issue we are dealing with is that some sex acts are ungodly.  

I do not have problem with a loving, nonlustful relationship with a member
of the same sex.  I have them, and we all do.  The issue at hand is 
the sinfulness having sex with members of the same sex, or lusting after.
So other forbidden sex acts are a valid topic for conversation. 

And the idea that these relationships may be  emotional  relationships
between adult humans is red herring.  We all agree that it is okay 
for adults to  have caring relationships with one another.

Link Hudson.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21710
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <May.13.02.29.39.1993.1505@geneva.rutgers.edu> revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille) writes:
> It was the manifestation of the spirit among the gentiles
>that convinced Peter (Acts 10) that his prejudice against them (based on
>scripture, I might add) was not in accordance with God's intentions.

I would just like to point out that the particular command not to eat
or fellowship with Gentiles is not found in the Old Testament.  This
was part of the "hedge built around the law."  It was a part of Peter's
tradition, and not the Scripture.

Link Hudson.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21711
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: Goedel's ontological proof

Fred Gilham asks (May 11) whether it is true that Kurt Goedel wrote
a version of the ontological argument for the existence of God.

Yes, he did. He did not publish it, but it will be published by the
Oxford University Press in German and with English translation in
Volume 3, due to appear this fall, of his Collected Works.

Meanwhile, you can find a summary, or perhaps the whole thing, in an
article by Jordan Howard Sobel called "Goedel's ontological proof"
in the book ON BEING AND SAYING, edited by Judith Jarvis Thompson
(sp?), published by the MIT Press in 1987.

Professor C Anthony Anderson of the Philosophy Department of the
University of Minnesota has written an article, "Some Emendations of
Goedel's Ontological Proof," which appeared in the magazine FAITH
AND PHILOSOPHY, v. 7 (1990): 291-303. It discusses some objections
that various critics have raised against Goedel's proof, and offers
a revised version of the proof that is not vulnerable to these
objections.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21712
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In <May.13.02.31.16.1993.1569@geneva.rutgers.edu> djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu
(Darin Johnson) writes:

>Ok, what's more important to gay Christians?  Sex, or Christianity?

I'm afraid I see that question as very tendentious.  Try rephrasing it:

	What's more important to Christians?  Love of God or love
	of other human beings?

to which of course the only conceivable answer is that the one is like
the other.  I am *deeply* suspicious of any "flavor" of Christianity
which would elevate one clause of the Great Commandment to a "priority"
over the other such as to claim a conflict.  True, we are told to let
the dead bury the dead, to "hate" family rather than let it keep us from
following Christ.  But the dichotomy here is not one between love of our
fellows and love of God, but of allowing *social* constructs to blind us
to the presense of God.  It is particularly satanic to twist love of God
in such a manner as to become an excuse to treat others as on a different
level than the one who is so caught up in "love" of God.

The trouble comes in the relation of human love and human sex.  Yes, it
has sometimes been the case that the Church has "taught" that all sex
was nasty, evil, sinful stuff.  But when man and wife leave their parental
homes to become helpmates, living in one flesh, it is the sex that is the
vehicle of becoming "one flesh" (if you doubt me, read St. Paul on what
is wrong with frequenting prostitutes :-)).  Less provocatively, what I
mean is just this: sexual bonding is a deeply founded aspect of our social
interaction, and in particular is the foundation of the institution of
marriage, so that unlike with many mammals, human males remain with and
foster the children they beget and support their children's mothers.
This is the schema behind Genesis 2:18-24 (and behind Jesus' citation of
that passage.)

	[ I observe, by the way, that not all human males in fact do as
	  I have just described; but another thing that characterizes
	  human societies is our raising of *non*begotten children, not
	  only orphans and adoptees and the like, but products of the
	  quite common infidelities of humans to their spouses. We are
	  in this not unique in the animal world, but the full extent of
	  social consequences and implications is most intricate for us. ]

Yes, of course it sometimes goes "wrong" -- like all else we do, it is
infected with sin, and you find married "couples" where there is no bond,
and people so deliriously addicted to the initial stages of sexual bond
formation (the "infatuation", "falling in love" phase) that they break
any forming bond in order to keep stepping over the threshold of the deep
unity God has prepared for us, and stepping back out again right away.
Satan may indeed *use* sex as a very handy tool to corrupt human love --
but in the Edenic creation, that is not its nature, and with God's grace
under the power of Christ to make all things new it need not be a problem
for Christians (though we must be vigilant, even in Christ, as the devil
is watchful, prowling around like a roaring lion seeking someone to devour.)

So, returning to the original question, what is more important to STRAIGHT
Christians?  Sex, or Christianity?  Paul, clearly, tended to think that
sex was at best a distraction from Christianity (though to be charitable
to him, his context was in expectation of immediate parousia, so that the
hard TASKS of a married union -- the lifelong building and adaptation to
each other -- seemed somehow to undercut the "proper" preparation for an
immediate eschaton.  Since we *do not* know the hour of return, we should
act *both* with instant readiness for that *and* with a commitiment to our
mates that proposes a long lifetime together.  And telling people *not* to
bond in such a perspective strikes me as crippling us in the second clause
of the the commandment to love.  I would claim that only a very few saints
have the CAPACITY to deeply love (without sexual tinges or complication,
mind you) their fellow human beings unless they have had a deeply spiritual
life in married union growing together as one flesh -- and that means in
the type case, with a persistent and continued sexual relationship.  We
are human, and little good comes of trying to "mortify the flesh" to the
point of pretending to be otherwise, pretending NOT to be sexual beings.

>Christianity I would hope.  Would they be willing to forgo sex
>completely, in order to avoid being a stumbling block to others,

It depends entirely on context.  If that context is major hypocrisy
on the part of those who find us "stumbling blocks" I am much less of
a mind to efface myself so that they can pontificate about MY sins.

There are some people for whom a life of celibacy is a spritual gift,
and maybe even a victory against a to-them troubling sexual urge that
seems to them to lead only to sin.  Nothing I say should ever be read
as demeaning such a gift.  Nor the even rarer gift of love for all our
conspecifics, and indeed for all God's creation, that can develop to
the full *without* the tutoring of a spousal/helpmate marriage founded
in sex.  But there is a difference between spiritual gifts and penance;
telling people that they HAVE to have a particular gift (or else? what?)
is fraught with manipulation and disregard of the differences of our
spiritual endowments from God.  To one person is given the gift of
speaking in toungues, to another intepretation of toungues; to yet
another prophecy; and to still another teaching.  The notion that some
*particular* gift is required of *all* is one of the earliest heresies.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		I say "You are gods, sons of the
mls@panix.com			Most High, all of you; nevertheless
    - or -			you shall die like men, and fall
mls@ulysses.att..com		like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21713
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin


 creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps) writes:

[Anyway, your argument seems to be saying, "If _I_ were
God, I certainly wouldn't do things that way; therefore, God doesn't do
things that way."]

I would never have the audacity to say such a thing. My argument says
only that I do not understand.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21714
From: bill@twg.bc.ca (Bill Irwin)
Subject: Re: What WAS the immaculate conception

ragraca@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Randy A. Graca) writes:

:                                                               Consequently,
: this verse indicates that she was without sin.  Also, as was observed at
: the very top of this post, Mary had to be free from sin in order to be the
: mother of Jesus, who was definitely without sin.

If the mother of Jesus had to be without sin in order to give
birth to God, then why didn't Mary's mother have to be without
sin in order to give birth to the perfect vessel for Jesus?  For
that matter, why didn't Mary's grandmother have to be without sin
either?  Seems to me that with all the original sin flowing
through each person, the need for the last one (Mary) to have
none puts God in a box, where we say that He couldn't have
incarnated Himself through a normal human being.

My God is an all powerful God, Who can do whatever suits His
purpose.  This includes creating a solar system and planet earth
with the appearance of great age; providing a path through the
Red Sea for the children of Israel that does not depend on the
existence of a ridge of high ground and a wind blowing at the
right speed and direction; and the birth of Himself from a normal
sinful person without being tainted by her original sin.

I see far too much focus on the "objects" of religion and not
nearly enough on the personal relationship that is available to
all believers with the Author of our existence, without the
necessity of having this relationship channeled through conduits
to God in the form of Mary, Apostles and a Pope.

: Note that the idea of Mary being conceived without Original Sin, i.e. the
: Immaculate Conception, is distinct from the idea of Mary not having sinned
: during her lifetime, which is a separate doctrine and, I believe, also
: held by the Catholic Church.

If Mary was born without original sin, and didn't sin during her
lifetime, how is she any different from Jesus?  This means the
world has had two perfect humans:  one died to take away the sins
of the world;  the other gave birth to Him?  I would certainly
want to see some scriptural support for this before I would start
praying to anyone other than God.  Everything I have ever read
from the bible teaches me that Jesus was and is the only sinless
Lamb of God, not His mother, grandmother........

: Hope this is useful to you.

Very useful in helping me understand some of the RC beliefs.
Thank you.
-- 
Bill Irwin     -      The Westrheim Group     -    Vancouver, BC, Canada
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
uunet!twg!bill            (604) 431-9600 (voice) |     Your Computer  
bill@twg.bc.ca            (604) 430-4329 (fax)   |    Systems Partner

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21715
From: mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server)
Subject: Re: Eternal Marriage


 hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal F Lillywhite) writes:
>In article <May.11.02.39.09.1993.28334@athos.rutgers.edu> dhammers@pacific.? 
>(David Hammerslag) writes:
> 
>>This paragraph brought to mind a question.  How do you (Mormons) reconcile
>>the idea of eternal marriage with Christ's statement that in the ressurection
>>people will neither marry nor be given in marriage (Luke, chapt. 20)?
> 
>[deletions]
> 
>I think what Jesus is saying here (and it is clearest in Matthew's
>and Mark's accounts) is that marriages will not be performed in the
>resurrection.  This goes along with our belief that if a person is
>to marry at all it must be done on this earth... [deletions]

The problem with this view is that the topic under discussion in this
passage *is* marriages that were performed on earth.  Jesus' words
seem to me to indicate that He regards His response as the answer to their
question about which earthly marriage would be valid after the resurrection.
This being the case, the most straightforward interpretation, in my
opinion, is that marriage does not exist in the next life because those
who are raised are of a different nature than what we are now.  Other-
wise, why would Jesus offer "but are like the angels in heaven" as a
contrast to the idea of the resurrected marrying and being given in
marriage?  We do not have angel-like natures now, but someday we shall,
and when we do, our earthly marriages will be irrelevant.  Or at least,
that's what I think Jesus is saying about the post-resurrection validity of 
marriages performed on earth.  Your mileage may vary. :)

- Mark

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21716
From: mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Subject: Re: On Capital Punishment

In article <May.12.04.29.37.1993.10035@athos.rutgers.edu> gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock) writes:
...
>       safety.  To the degree that means other than the death
>       penalty and military operations are sufficient to keep the
>       peace, then these non-violent provisions are to be preferred
>       because they are more in proportion and in keeping with the
>       final goal of protection of peace and human dignity.

Thanks for posting the exact wording which I had not seen
previously. The part I quote above seems to me to indicate
disapproval of capital punishment - it is to be used only when
other means are not sufficient; I would say this is a stronger
restriction than saying that capital punishment is useable when
justifiable. I would certainly say there are cases where a
crime justifies death (perhaps this is the Old Testament
interpretation), but my reverence for life would say that I
would oppose the actual infliction of the death penalty (a New
Testament interpretation?). It is a matter for debate whether
the death penalty works to keep the peace in a way that
non-violent provisions do not. I don't believe it does, and I
would certainly observe that in the USA, where you have the
death penalty, there is a far higher murder rate than here in
the UK, where we do not.

Matthew Huntbach

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21717
From: maridai@comm.mot.com (Marida Ignacio)
Subject: Re: Bernadette dates


    |JEK@cu.nih.gov writes:                                            
    |Joe Moore writes:                                                 
    |                                                                  
    | > Mary at that time appeared to a girl named Bernadette at       
    | > Lourdes.  She referred to herself as the Immaculate Conception.
    | > Since a nine year old would have no way of knowing about the   
    | > doctrine, the apparition was deemed to be true and it sealed   
    | > the case for the doctrine.                                     
    |Bernadette was 14 years old when she had her visions, in 1858,    
    |four years after the dogma had been officially proclaimed by the  
    |Pope.                                                             
    |                                                                  
    | Yours,                                                           
    | James Kiefer

I forgot exactly what her age was but I remember clearly
that she was born in a family of poverty and she did not
have any education, whatsoever, at the age of the apparitions.
She suffered from asthma at that age and she and her family were
living in an abandoned prison cell of some sort.

She had to ask the 'Lady' several times in her apparitions about 
what her name was since her confessor priest asked her to do so.  
For several instances, the priest did not get an answer since 
Bernadette did not receive any.  One time, after several apparitions
passed, The Lady finally said, "I am the Immaculate Conception".
So, Bernadette, was so happy and repeated these words over and
over in her mind so as not to forget it before she told the
priest who was asking.  So, when she told the priest, the
priest was shocked and asked Bernadette, "Do you know what
you are talking about?".  Bernadette did not know what exactly
it meant but she was just too happy to have the answer for
the priest.  The priest continued with, "How did you remember
this if you do not know?".  Bernadette answered honestly that
she had to repeat it over and over in her mind while on her
way to the priest...

The priest knew about the dogma being four years old then.
But Bernadette did not know and yet she had the answer which
the priest finally observed and took as proof of an authentic
personal revelation of Our Lady to Bernadette.

(Note: This Lady of Lourdes shrine has a spring of water which
our lady requested Bernadette to dig up herself with her
bare hands in front of pilgrims.  At the start little
water flowed but after several years there is more water 
flowing.)

-Marida
 "...spreading God's words through actions..."
 -Mother Teresa

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21718
From: joe@erix.ericsson.se (Joe Armstrong)
Subject: Angels on needles?


    I recall reading somewhere that a number of bishops spent  a great
deal of  time  debating the topic of "how many angels could fit on the
tip of a needle".

    Does anybody have a reference to this?

    Thanks

    Joe Armstrong

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21719
From: benha@castle.ed.ac.uk (Ben Hambidge)
Subject: Committing my life to God?

Hi everyone,

I'm trying to find my way to God, but find it difficult as I can't hear
God talking to me, letting me know that he exists and is with me and
that he knows me, and I feel that I can't possibly get to know him until
he does. Maybe he _is_ talking to me but I just don't know or understand
how to listen.

Some Christians tell me that (in their opinion) the only way to find God
is to take a plunge and commit your life to him, and you will discover.
This idea of diving into the totally unknown is a little bit
frightening, but I have a few questions.

1) How do you actually commit yourself? If I just say, "OK God, her you
go, I'm committing my life to you", I wouldn't really feel that he'd
listened - at least, I couldn't be sure that he had. So how does one (or
how did you) commit oneself to God?

2) In committing myself in this way, what do I have to forfeit of my
current life? What can I no longer do? I feel that I'm as 'good' as many
Christians, and I try to uphold the idea of 'loving your neighbour' - I
don't go round killing people, stealing, etc., and I try not to get
jealous of other people in any way - and I would say that I keep to the
standards of treating other people as well as many Christians. So what
do I have to give up?

3) When committed, what do I have to do? What does it involve? What (if
any) burdens am I taking on?

4) So then, what's the general difference before and after? I assume,
that (like on your birthday you don't suddenly feel a year older) it
won't suddenly change my life the day I commit myself. So what happens?

5) How can I be sure that it is the right thing to do? How can I find
out what the 'it' in the last sentence actually _is_?!

Thanks very much for all your help in answering these questions. Perhaps
e-mail would be a better way to reply, but it's up to you.

Ben.
<benha@castle.ed.ac.uk>    <JANET:benha@uk.ac.ed.castle>
(20 year-old at University in Scotland)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21720
From: dlhanson@amoco.com (David L. Hanson)
Subject: Re: SJ Mercury's reference to Fundamentalist Christian parents

In article <May.14.02.10.09.1993.25137@athos.rutgers.edu> David.Bernard@central.sun.com (Dave Bernard) writes:
>From: David.Bernard@central.sun.com (Dave Bernard)
>Subject: Re: SJ Mercury's reference to Fundamentalist Christian parents
>Date: 14 May 93 06:10:10 GMT
>In article 28120@athos.rutgers.edu, dan@ingres.com (a Rose arose) writes:
>
>>	"Raised in Oakland and San Lorenzo by strict fundamentalist
>>	Christian parents, Mason was beaten as a child.  He once was
>>
>>Were the San Jose Mercury news to come out with an article starting with
>>"Raised in Oakland by Mexican parents, Mason was beaten...", my face would
>>be red with anger over the injustice done to my Mexican family members and
>
>
>Although I'm neither Fundamentalist nor Evangelical, I have often noticed
>this trend in the media.  In short, it is permissable to bash Fundamentalists.
>No need to substitue a nationality such as "Mexican..." try simply to 
>substitute a different religion "...raised by Muslim parents," or "...raised
>by Jewish parents..."  The paper simply would not do this.

I have noticed that newspapers don't even know what a fundamentalist is;
at the least, they confuse new evangelicals and fundamentalists.  In this
news group, the liberals don't even know what a fundamentalist is (crying
out "legalist" at anyone who believes and obeys God's Word). A fundamentalist
would train their children in the way God proscribes, not in the way that
man proscribes.  This would not include life threatening beatings but would
include corporal punishment. 

To the liberals, I cry out infidel at anyone who does not believe God's Word.

Signature follows:
"Your statutes are wonderful: therefore I obey them."  Psalm 119:129
=========================================================================
David L. Hanson
Any opinions expressed are my own!

[As most people here know, I believe fundamentalist is sufficiently
ill-defined that I advise using some more specific term.  I think many
people use it to cover people who believe in inerrancy and a number of
related concepts (e.g. denial of evolution).  While the original
fundamentals movement was somewhat more specific, I would think most
people who accept inerrancy would actually support the whole original
agenda.  (It included a list of key traditional doctrines, e.g.  the
virgin birth.)  The term is now being used by the press to describe
aggressive conservative religions in general, most typically those who
are attempting to legislate religion.

Legalism is yet another ill-defined term.  However there is some
reason for its use in this context.  In fact the common theological
definition is the believe that salvation is through the Law.  I hope
no one here believes that our conservative contributors hold this
view.  However there is a basic difference in approach over what we
expect to get out of the Bible.  The conservative approach expects to
find specific behavioral rules.  Generally the posters advocating this
approach talk about the relevant passages from Paul's letter as God's
Law.  The liberal approach expects to find general principles, but it
regards specific behavioral rules subject to change depending upon the
culture and other things.  It's easy to see why a liberal would regard
the conservative approach as legalism.  It's hard to know quite what
other term to use.  The issue in this case is not inerrancy, because
no one is saying that Paul made a factual error.  Rather, the question
is whether his statements are to be taken as Law.  Calling the
positive answer legalism seems obvious enough terminology.  I haven't
seen any good alternative.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21721
From: carlson@ab24.larc.nasa.gov (Ann Carlson)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <May.14.02.11.48.1993.25266@athos.rutgers.edu>, dps@nasa.kodak.com (Dan Schaertel,,,) writes:
|> In article 28328@athos.rutgers.edu, carlson@ab24.larc.nasa.gov (Ann Carlson) writes:
|> >Anyone who thinks being gay and Christianity are not compatible should 
|> >check out Dignity, Integrity, More Light Presbyterian churches, Affirmation,
|> >MCC churches, etc.  Meet some gay Christians, find out who they are, pray
|> >with them, discuss scripture with them, and only *then* form your opinion.
|> 
|> If you were to start your own religion, this would be fine.  But there
|> is no scriptural basis for your statement,   

How about Acts 11: 15-18, 22-23
or, I John 4:1-8
which says to *try* the spirits to see if they be of God.  

|> in fact it really gets to the heart of the problem.
|> You think you know more than scripture.
|> Your faith is driven by feel goodism and not by the Word of God.  

How do you know?  When have you tried to learn anything about me?
-- 



*************************************************      
*Dr. Ann B. Carlson (a.b.carlson@larc.nasa.gov) *       O .
*MS 366                                         *         o  _///_ //
*NASA Langley Research Center                   *          <`)=  _<<
*Hampton, VA 23681-0001                         *             \\\  \\
*************************************************

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21722
From: William_Mosco@vos.stratus.com
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

>We are all still human. We don't know it all, but homosexual or heterosexual, 
>we all strive to follow Jesus.  The world is dying and needs to hear about 
>Jesus Christ. 
 Gaining entry into heaven cannot be done without first being cleansed by 
 the blood of Jesus. 
 Sin cannot dwell in heaven.  It is against the natural laws of God. 
 Being converted to christianity means being baptized by the Holy Spirit. 
 You cannot get to heaven by good works only. 
 Because of the union with the holy spirit, the man's behavior will change. 
 If there is true union he will not desire to be homosexual.  Fornication 
 and homosexuality will leave your life if you are truly baptized by the 
 holy spirit.  It's not to say that we don't stumble now and then.   
  

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21723
From: creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)
Subject: Re: What WAS the immaculate conception

In article <May.14.02.11.19.1993.25177@athos.rutgers.edu> seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson) wrote:
>I have quite a problem with the idea that Mary never committed a sin.
>Was Mary fully human?  If it is possible for God to miraculously make 
>a person free of original sin, and free of committing sin their whole
>life, then what is the purpose of the Incarnation of Jesus?  Why can't
>God just repeat the miracle done for Mary to make all the rest of us
>sinless, without the need for repentance and salvation and all that?

   Yes, Mary is fully human.  However, that does not imply that she was
just as subject to sin as we are.  Catholic doctrine says that man's
nature is good (Gen 1:31), but is damaged by Original Sin (Rom 5:12-16).
In that case, being undamaged by Original Sin, Mary is more fully human
than any of the rest of us.

   You ask why God cannot "repeat the miracle" of Mary's preservation
from Original Sin.  A better way to phrase it would be "why _did_ He
not" do it that way, but you misunderstand how Mary's salvation was
obtained.  Like ours, the Blessed Virgin Mary's salvation was obtained
through the merits of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.  However, as
God is not bound by time, which is His creation, God is free to apply
His Sacrifice to anyone at any time, even if that person lived before
Christ came to Earth, from our time-bound perspective.  Therefore,
Christ's Death and Resurrection still served a necessary purpose, and
were necessary even for Mary's salvation.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21724
From: autry@sgi.com (Larry Autry)
Subject: Re: What WAS the immaculate conception

In article <May.14.02.11.19.1993.25177@athos.rutgers.edu> seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson) writes:
>In article <May.9.05.39.52.1993.27456@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes:
>[referring to Mary]
>>She was immaculately conceived, and so never subject to Original Sin,
>>but also never committed a personal sin in her whole life.  This was
>>possible because of the special degree of grace granted to her by God.
> skipping......
>I don't particularly object to the idea of the assumption, or the
>perpetual virginity (both of which I regard as Catholic dogma about 
>which I will agree to disagree with my Catholic brothers and sisters 
>in Christ), and I even believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, but 
>this concept of Mary's sinlessness seems to me to be at odds with 
>the rest of Christian doctrine as I understand it.

The Catholic church has an entirely different view of Mary than do 
"most" other Christian churches (those with parallel beliefs
notwithstanding).  Christ, by most accounts, is the only sinless
person to ever live.  I too, have trouble with a sinless Mary
concept just. 
As for the related issue of the "original" sin - only Adam and
Eve will answer for that one.  My children do not answer for my sins,
certainly I only answer for mine.
--
Larry Autry
Silicon Graphics, St. Louis
autry@sgi.com 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21725
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock)
Subject: Hail Mary, Full of Grace

In article <May.14.02.11.19.1993.25177@athos.rutgers.edu> seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson) writes:
>In article <May.9.05.39.52.1993.27456@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes:
>[referring to Mary]
>>She was immaculately conceived, and so never subject to Original Sin,
>>but also never committed a personal sin in her whole life.  This was
>>possible because of the special degree of grace granted to her by God.

>I have quite a problem with the idea that Mary never committed a sin.
>Was Mary fully human?  If it is possible for God to miraculously make 
>a person free of original sin, and free of committing sin their whole
>life, then what is the purpose of the Incarnation of Jesus?  Why can't
>God just repeat the miracle done for Mary to make all the rest of us
>sinless, without the need for repentance and salvation and all that?

>I don't particularly object to the idea of the assumption, or the
>perpetual virginity (both of which I regard as Catholic dogma about which
>I will agree to disagree with my Catholic brothers and sisters in
>Christ), and I even believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, but this
>concept of Mary's sinlessness seems to me to be at odds with the
>rest of Christian doctrine as I understand it.


If you don't agree with Joseph's accurate statement of the Catholic dogma
of Mary's perpetual sinlessness, then how do you interpret Luke 1:28,

	And when the angel had come to her, he said, "Hail, full of 
	grace, the Lord is with thee.  Blessed art thou among women."

and Luke 1:48? 

	...for, behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

I suppose that these verses might be interpreted to mean that Mary was
possessed of some limited quantity or quality of grace, just as some of 
us are, but it seems to me that "full of grace" means just what it says:   
filled to the brim, incapable of containing more.  The only other people we 
know of who have an abundance of grace are those souls existing in heaven now 
(another Catholic dogma, based on the communion of saints, as I explained in 
an earlier post).  Full of grace to me means sinless, and anyone who has 
ever sinned in his life cannot be without sin in the same sense as Mary  
was sinless.  

As a Catholic, I too find certain of the dogmas tough to embrace.  But
that's where the Catholic faith and prayer come into play.  I pray God
to strengthen my will to accept the faith given the bride of Christ,
which in turn usually strengthens my community faith in His Church.  And,
as you probably know, faith in Christ's Church is tantamount to faith in
Christ inasmuch as the Church is Christ's Mystical Body.  A Catholic by
nature must have two aspects to his faith in Christ: (1) a personal faith in 
Christ as his own personal redeemer and (2) a community faith in the Church 
as the body of Christ.

 
-- 
Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock 
Catechist
gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu 

[You might want to check the Greek.  "full of grace" translates a
single word that simply means "favored", or perhaps more literally,
"graced".  The "full" is a vestige of the specific translation you're
using.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21726
From: poram%mlsma@att.att.com
Subject: Re: Deuterocanonicals, esp. Sirach

Andrew - continuing the discussion on the Deuterocanonicals...

In article <May.13.02.29.43.1993.1508@geneva.rutgers.edu> revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille) writes:
>poram@ihlpb.att.com wrote:
>: Lets talk about principles. If we accept that God sets the
>: standards for what ought to be included in Scripture - then we
>: can ask:
>: 1. Is it authoritative?
>
>"Authoritative" is not a quality of the writing itself- it is a statement
>by the community of faith whether it will accept the writing as normative.

Arguably, it is both. Since authority is a matter of both
communicator and recepiant we can say that, for example "Jesus
is Lord" whether the world at large accepts the authority or
not. Thus the Bible can be considered for its authoritative
content whether or not it is accepted (This issue is at the
heart of Pilate's pragmatic question "What is truth?" to Jesus
when our Lord was brought before Him. Jesus' reply was to appeal
to the authority of his Father)
You also might like to consider the claimed authority
represented by the statements "thus says the Lord" in the Bible,
which claim to put across the exact words of God.

You fall into the danger of relativism with your rejection of
inherant authority and claim that it lies only in the "community
of faith" - does something become truth because it is accepted?
The main thrust of my argument is that there is a Godward
direction as well as a manward (which is where the reference to
Rev 22 came in.)

>: 2. Is it prophetic?
>
>How is "prophecy" to be defined? If it is "speaking forth" of God's message,
>much of the apocrypha must surely qualify.

If we narrowed it down to the predictive elements - which will
cut out some of the 39 accepted OT books as well - we
nonetheless have criteria for determining the validity of the
book: Jesus' standards were that "Scripture cannot be broken".
Can you name a single prophecy that fits the bill in the Apocrapha?
(ie definitely fulfilled AFTER it has been written)

>: 3. Is it authentic?
>
>Again, by what standard?  Is "authenticity" a function of the authors? the
>historical accuracy? 

Does it have a subjective 'ring of truth' about it - and does
other evidence that has come to light contradict or confirm the
authenticity? (archaeological, other textual evidence for
example)

>: 4. Is it dynamic?
>
>What is this supposed to mean?  Many of the apocryphal books are highly
>"dynamic" -thought provoking, faithful, even exciting.

What this is getting at is the relationship between text and
reader. It is to do with the quality of writing, which should
have the ability to fire the mind, affect our thought life and
cause us to act in a certain way - there is something of this
in Jesus' quote: "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every
word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord". (Matt 4.4)

>: 5. Is it received, collected, read and used?
>
>By whom?  Of course the apocryphal books were received (by some),
>collected (or else we would not have them), read and used (and they still are,
>in the Catholic and Orthodox churches).

Does the Catholic Church give the same authority to the
Apocrapha as to the accepted 66 books? Certainly it is not as
widely used as the OT and NT.

>: On these counts, the apocrapha falls short of the glory of God.
>
>This is demonstrably false.

Think about what I have said above. You may want to revise your
conclusion. In addition think about other 'sacred writings', eg
the Koran, the book of Mormon and how and why you would
categorise them using the above principles. One word of caution
- you may find some 'reflected glory' in some of these books: in
that the 'inspired quality' may be derived from the Bible.
Remember that Lucifer is quite capable of appearing as an angel
of light and quoting Scripture.

>: To quote Unger's Bible Dictionary on the Apocrapha:
>: 1. They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and
>: anachronisms.
>
>So do other books of the Bible.

What were you thinking of?

>[deletions]
>
>: How do you then view the words: "I warn everyone who  hears the
>: words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to
>: them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
>: And if anyone takes away from this book the prophecy, God will
>: take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the
>: holy city" (Rev 22.18-9)
>: Surely this sets the standard and not just man-made traditions.
>
>These words clearly were meant to refer to the book of Revelation alone,
>not to the whole body of scripture.  Revelation itself was accepted very
>late into the canon.  The church simply did not see it as having a primary
>role of any kind in identifying and limiting scripture.

We've lost the point and the context here. I am not arguing that
the statement in Rev. can be applied indescriminately, just that
the whole acceptance/rejection idea does not just follow on from
man-made traditions - but there is I believe an act of God
involved in the selection and criteria of what is classified as
Scripture and comes under the definition of 2Tim 3.16.

>
>revdak@netcom.com

Barney Resson
"Many shall run to and fro, & knowledge shall increase" (Daniel)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21727
From: maridai@comm.mot.com
Subject: Re: Bernadette Dates


    |JEK@cu.nih.gov writes:                                            
    |Joe Moore writes:                                                 
    |                                                                  
    | > Mary at that time appeared to a girl named Bernadette at       
    | > Lourdes.  She referred to herself as the Immaculate Conception.
    | > Since a nine year old would have no way of knowing about the   
    | > doctrine, the apparition was deemed to be true and it sealed   
    | > the case for the doctrine.                                     
    |Bernadette was 14 years old when she had her visions, in 1858,    
    |four years after the dogma had been officially proclaimed by the  
    |Pope.                                                             
    |                                                                  
    | Yours,                                                           
    | James Kiefer

I forgot exactly what her age was but I remember clearly
that she was born in a family of poverty and she did not
have any education, whatsoever, at the age of the apparitions.
She suffered from asthma at that age and she and her family were
living in a prison cell of some sort.

She had to ask the 'Lady' several times in her apparitions about 
what her name was since her confessor priest asked her to do so.  
For several instances, the priest did not get an answer since 
Bernadette did not receive any.  One time, after several apparitions
passed, The Lady finally said, "I am the Immaculate Conception".
So, Bernadette, was so happy and repeated these words over and
over in her mind so as not to forget it before she told the
priest who was asking.  So, when she told the priest, the
priest was shocked and asked Bernadette, "Do you know what
you are talking about?".  Bernadette did not know what exactly
it meant but she was just too happy to have the answer for
the priest.  The priest continued with, "How did you remember
this if you do not know?".  Bernadette answered honestly that
she had to repeat it over and over in her mind while on her
way to the priest...

The priest knew about the dogma being four years old then.
But Bernadette did not know and yet she had the answer which
the priest finally observed and took as proof of an authentic
personal revelation of Our Lady to Bernadette.

(Note: This Lady of Lourdes shrine has a spring of water which
our lady requested Bernadette to dig up herself with her
bare hands in front of pilgrims.  At the start little
water flowed but after several years there is more water 
flowing.)

-Marida
 "...spreading God's words through actions..."
 -Mother Teresa




-- 
-Marida (maridai@ecs.comm.mot.com)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21728
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Subject: *****TO EVERYONE IN DIALOG WITH TONY ROSE***** Please Read This!

Hello everyone. I just wanted to let everyone know that I have just
been selected as part of the Reduction In Force here at Amdahl. For all
that are currently in a dialog with me, or are waiting letters from me,
I have saved your letters on floppy and will continue when I get back
on the net from another account in the future.

For those who are on the GEnie network, my email address there is:

                     T.ROSE1

God Bless and Goodbye until then. If you want to continue dialogs with
me via US MAIL, I can be contacted at:

            Tony Rose
            c/o JUDE 3 MISSIONS
            P.O. Box 1035
            Felton, CA 95018

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21729
From: revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille)
Subject: Re: Mary's assumption

Dave Bernard (David.Bernard@central.sun.com) wrote:

: When Elizabeth greeted Mary, Elizabeth said something to the effect that
: Mary, out of all women, was blessed.  If so, it appears that this
: exactly places Mary beyond the sanctification of normal humanity.

The phrase is "eulogemene su en gunaixin"- "blessed are you among women."
There is nothing to indicate that this is an exceptional or unique status,
only that _as a woman_ Mary was blessed.  Adding the word "all" is not
a fair reading of the text.  There are some good reasons for the church's
veneration of Mary, but they cannot depend on this verse.

revdak@netcom.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21730
From: norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak)
Subject: Boston Church

(Dear Moderator: Would you add this to the BCC faq?)

In case there are any ex-members of the "Boston Church of Christ"
looking for a support organization, here's the number of "BostonEX" in
Burlington, MA: 617-272-1955.

--------

s.r.c readers in New England may be interested in seeing a series of
news reports about the BCC in the 6 pm nightly news on Channel 5
(WCVB, Boston), for the next few days (starting Wed, 5/19).

For viewers outside the Boston area, the same telecasts will also be
aired on the "New England Cable News" channel at 8 pm.  

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21731
From: marka@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley)
Subject: Marian Apparitions #1

The Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to Catherine Laboure, a nun of the
sisters of Charity on July 18, 1830 at Rue du Bac, Paris.

Sister Catherine was awakened late that night by a small boy, age 5
or 6, who was literally glowing with some sort of interior light. 
The child led her to the sanctuary of the chapel where he promised
the Virgin Mary was to be found awaiting her. Our Lady appeared to
her and instructed her for two hours or more on matters pertaining
to her life and to the future of France and the world.

On November 27 Our Lady appeared again to Catherine. She instructed
her to have a medal struck. She told her that those who wore this 
medal would enjoy special protection from the Mother of God and would
receive great graces. In less than a year there were three more
apparitions. In June of 1831 the medals were a reality. Many reports
were received by those who wore it. Within two years of its issuing
the medal was known as the "Miraculous Medal". Catherine died in 1876.
Her body to this day is remarkably preserved (incorrupt). She was
canonized on July 27, 1947. Her body lies in the chapel at the
motherhouse on the Rue du Bac where she had her first meeting with
Our Lady.

The apparition on November 27 1830 was of average height and clothed
in white with a veil that flowed over the head and fell to the floor.
Above the altar, a pyramid painted to represent God's all knowing
wisdom looked down on them. Our Lady's feet rested on a white globe
and there was also a green serpent with yellow spots that she was
stepping on. In her hands was a golden ball that represented the world.
Great streams of light issued from her hands and she also showed 
Catherine an image of two hearts, the Sacred Heart wrapped in
piercing thorns and her own heart punctured by a sword. The sword
represented her suffering with Jesus.

The apparitions announced the onset of the great battle and forewarned
that a dark era lay in the immediate future. It was the apparition 
leading up to the recent ones. Our Lady began to dispense secrets.
And with the globe she revealed herself in worldwide dispute
with the forces of the dark. She told Catherine "The times are
evil. Misfortunes will fall upon France. The throne will be
overturned. The entire world will be overcome by evils of all
kinds."

Refer to books on St. Catherine for more of Our Lady's messages.
A copy of the medal is also available in Catholic bookstores.

I will post other Marian events every few days or so including
the ones happening today which are still under investigation.
These postings serve only to introduce you to these events.
Please look more into them and understand the reason for 
the increasing number and urgency of these apparitions.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Ashley                        |DISCLAIMER: My opinions. Not Harris'
marka@gcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com      |
The Lost Los Angelino              |

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21732
From: atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez)
Subject: Re: Baptism requires Faith

aaronc@athena.mit.edu (Aaron Bryce Cardenas) writes:

>It troubles me that there have been so many posts recently trying to support
>the doctrine of Original Sin.  This is primarily a Catholic doctrine, with no
>other purpose than to defend the idea of infant baptism. ...
>If you read all of Ezekiel 18, you will see that God doesn't hold us guilty
>for anyone else's sins.  So we can have no original guilt from Adam.

  This neatly eliminates the need for a savior and "proves" that we can be
saved by works alone!  If we have no original sin, then it is possible for
us to save ourselves by not sinning.  I understand the reasoning behind your
argument, but it leads to sheer folly.  Original sin is the reason we need
faith to be saved.

Alan Terlep				    "...and the scorpion says, 'it's 
Oakland University, Rochester, MI		in my nature.'"
atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu	

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21733
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

[Eugen Bigelow writes:

>It is also noteworthy to consider Jesus' attitude. He had no
>argument with the pharisees over any of the OT canon (John
>10.31-6), and explained to his followers on the road to Emmaus 
>that in the law, prophets and psalms which referred to him - the 
>OT division of Scripture (Luke 24.44), as well as in Luke 11.51
>taking Genesis to Chronicles (the jewish order - we would say
>Genesis to Malachi) as Scripture.

You should remember that in Adam's transgression, all men and women
sinned, as Paul wrote.  All of humanity cooperativley reblled against
God in Adma's sin, thus, all are subject to it, and the sin is
transmitted from generation to generation.

Andy Byler]

Andy, I did not write the above paragraph. I believe this is about the 3rd
time someone else's words have been attributed to me. I can't speak for
the rest of humanity, but I did not cooperatively rebell against anything.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21734
From: aidler@sol.uvic.ca (E Alan Idler)
Subject: Re: Mormon beliefs about children born out of wedlock

aaronc@athena.mit.edu (Aaron Bryce Cardenas) writes:

>Bruce Webster writes:
>>Indeed, LDS doctrine goes one step further and in some cases
>>holds parents responsible for their children's sins if they have
>>failed to bring them up properly (cf. D&C 68:25-28; note that this
>>passage applies it only to members of the LDS church).

I include the key verse (D&C 68:25) because others
may not have the reference.

"And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion,
or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach
them not to understand the doctrine of repentance,
faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of
baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying
on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be
upon the heads of the parents."

What is "the sin" of the parents?

>Hi Bruce.  How do you reconcile this practice with Ezekiel 18?
>Ezekiel 18:20 "The soul who sins is the one who will die.  The son will not
>share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the
>son.  The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and
>the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him."

>Is Ezekiel 18 not translated correctly in your eyes perhaps?

Ezekiel 18 teaches a correct principle.
However, it assumes that fathers and sons have 
equal knowledge to prepare for the judgment.

Parents are responsible to teach their children
the Gospel and other life skills.  Should they
fail to make a sufficient attempt to teach their 
children, the parent would be held responsible
-- not for their children's sins, but for not
teaching them properly.

Whenever the Lord installs someone to a position 
of authority in either the family or the church He
expects that person to teach those in his charge.

In Ezekiel 33:7-9 someone called to care for others 
is likened to "a watchman unto the house of Israel."
"If thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from 
his way, that man shall die in his iniquity; but
his blood will I require at thine hand.
Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to 
turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he
shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast
delivered thy soul."

Even though the D&C prefaces this commandment with
"parents have children in Zion" I believe all
parents are responsible for teaching their children 
whatever good principles they understand.
However, LDS parents accept greater responsbility
and could be judged more strictly.

A IDLER

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21735
From: mpaul@unl.edu (marxhausen paul)
Subject: Re: Mary's assumption

David.Bernard@central.sun.com (Dave Bernard) writes:

>When Elizabeth greeted Mary, Elizabeth said something to the effect that
>Mary, out of all women, was blessed.  If so, it appears that this
>exactly places Mary beyond the sanctification of normal humanity.

I don't see how this logically follows.  True enough, Mary received a blessing
beyond any granted in all the history of humanity by being privileged to be 
the mother of the Savior.  It says nothing about Mary needing to be a "blessed 
person" _first_ in order that she might thereby be worthy to bear the Son of 
God.  Again, I think the problem is that as humans we can't comprehend how the 
sinless Incarnation could spring from sinful human flesh and God's Spirit.
Rather than simply accept the gracious miracle of God, we must needs try
to dope out a mechanism or rationale as to how this could be.  Mary's own
words, 

"...my spirit rejoices in God _my Savior_, for he has regarded the low
 estate of his handmaiden,..."

sound like the words of a human aware of her own humanity, in need of a 
Savior, similar to what David proclaimed in his psalms...not the words
of a holy being with no further need for God's grace.

I really apologize for harping on this, I don't suppose it's important.
It's just that I see Mary and Joseph and the Baby reduced to placid,
serene figurines I feel we lose the wonder in the fact that God chose
to come down to you and I, to be born of people like you and I, to share
our existence and redeem us from it's fallenness by his holy Incarnation.

--
paul marxhausen .... ....... ............. ............ ............ .......... 
 .. . .  . . . university of nebraska - lincoln .  . . .. . .  .. . . . . . . .
 .     .    .  .   .     .   .  .    .   .  .   .    .   .  grace .   .    .  . 
   .         .       .      .        .        .      .        .   happens .     

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21736
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: ARSENOKOITAI: NT Meaning of


			    Conviction of Sin

		A meta-exegetical or methodological essay


In article <May.14.02.10.06.1993.25123@athos.rutgers.edu>
REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov writes:

>I can't post it all at once, so it will come piece meal and not daily.

I look forward to reading it.  When I got to the library last week, it
was with the object in view to look at some articles that have appeared
over the last few years, since my previous look at the literature.  Un-
fortunately, they had moved the journal back-issues, so I didn't get a
look at the articles I was hoping to find.  I will continue to reserve
my own judgment on _arsenokoitai_ until I have seen the latest scholarly
work, and I can hope that REXLEX's posting may give some meat to chew on.

However, what I *can* do now, is to point out the methodological issues
-- what needs to be shown for anything to be concluded in this matter.
If the article REXLEX posts addresses these issues, so much the better;
if not, you will perhaps understand why the problem is hard.

>                 James B. DeYoung

writes, _in abstractu_:

>this study argues that Paul coined the term arsenokoitai, deriving it
>from the LXX of Lev 20:12 (cf. 18:22) and using it for homosexual
>orientation and behavior

	[it is only a minor point, but let me make it anyway; De Young has
	already contradicted his own prior assertion in this abstract that
	the ancient analysis of these issues was concerned with actions and
	NOT with orientation.  I doubt this will have much bearing on the
	article as such, but thought I should point it out from the start.]

The hypothesis De Young is advancing is that Paul a) coined the word and
b) his intended meaning for it was in reference to the Levitical law.  The
questions I wish to raise are

	1.)  how would one go about confirming the truth of this hypothesis?
and	2.)  what follows if one accepts (or stipulates, for the sake of the
	     discussion) that it is correct?

Note that b) is independent of a); I consider b) far more plausible than a),
which seems merely to be a counsel of despair over finding nothing in the
literature contemporary with Paul to clarify this word.  So far as I know,
Paul does NOT in general invent words anywhere else in his letters.  Unless
you have an otherwise-established pattern of coinages, it is *not* sound
methodology to assume it -- particularly if he gives no hint in the immedi-
ate text to "fix" the coinage's meaning for his audience.

As yet, the extract presents no evidence at all.  What do we need to confirm
or reject the hypothesis? (which, I should say at the outset, I find somewhat
plausible; I certainly know of nothing which makes it an *impossible* way
of construing this problem passage.)  I'm going to set aside for the moment
the question of whether Paul might have coined this usage, to look at the
more tractable question of what it means.  For this there are, in principle,
two kinds of evidence that can be adduced, internal and external.  That is,
we can look at the text of Paul's letter for clarification or look outside
that to prior or contemporary writings that Paul might have relied on, or to
derivative writings that have some claim of access to Paul's meaning.

The single WORST problem with this word in Corinthians is that there IS no
internal evidence for Paul's meaning.  He uses the word totally without an
explanation or hint as to his meaning, save that its inclusion in a list of
negatives implies that it has for him SOME negative meaning.

We are left, as the only "internal" clue, with the etymology or formation
of the word -- which is indeed the reason that De Young (and others before
him) have associated it with the Leviticus prohibition of men VERBing with
other men, where VERB is some standard euphemism for having sex ("lie" in
Leviticus, "bed" in Greek).  One problem is that "bedders" (_-koitai_) is
not, as far as I know, USED that way in Greek.  THEREFORE, I offer one
serious test which de Young's hypothesis *must* pass or be rejected:

	o  find a body of Greek texts contemporary with Paul (or not much
	   prior to his day) such that the _X-koitai_ formation implies
	   "men who have sex with X"  [obviously, the "best case" is to
	   find such usages of _arsenokoitai_ itself.]

such texts would be confirmation that the word *can* be read that way.
It is worth emphasizing that compound words are NOT in general under-
standable by projecting what the READER may imagine by the juxtaposition
of the roots.  Existence of such parallels doesn't *prove* the hypothesis
correct -- but it goes a long way towards making such a usage (whether or
not original with Paul in the specific case of X == _arse:n_) possible
of comprehension by his readers.

My "test" moves in the direction of external evidence.  If Paul does NOT
in his text explain his word (and he does not), then he has to expect his
readers to already know the word (which stands against its being a coinage)
or to expect that it mimics word formations that they *do* know, such that
they can guess his meaning without too much floundering.

External evidence, that is, texts other than Paul's own and lexicographic
or social/historical considerations that might be adduced, then come into
the picture.  *If* there are other uses of the word, not dependent on Paul,
which *have* sufficient internal (contextual) evidence -- or some gloss by
a contemporary scribe -- to show a derogatory reference to male homosexu-
ality, or similar _-koitai_ formations used in similar ways, *then* one
has grounds for

	o  denying that Paul coined the word
and	o  assuming that his readers might understand his meaning

Do you see the problem?  If Paul coined the word, then he REQUIRES his
readers to share enough context with him to COMPREHEND his coinage and
its intent -- in this case that they would (stipulating De Young's guess)
understand him to be referring to the Levitical "universal" prohibition
of male-male sex (this, mind you, in a context where Paul has emphasized
at least to OTHER congregations (and so one assumes to the Corinthians --
how else to explain 1 Cor. 6:12, and the Corinthians having to be pulled
back from overinterpreting their freedom?) the NON applicability of Torah
law to his gentile converts!)

Among the considerations that make it implausible for Paul to have coined
the word, its first element is archaic -- _arse:n_ is an old Attic or
Ionic form of what in even classical (let alone koine) times would be
assimilated as _arre:n_.  To me, this implies that we are even more than
usually needful of external evidence to pin down meaning and usage.  What
is Paul doing inventing a word in obsolete Attic formation?

And if he *didn't* coin the word, but picked it up like the others in
his list as common terms of derogation, then his meaning will be -- for
his readers -- constrained by that common meaning (since he gives no
other.)

I cannot emphasize enough that Paul DOES NOT TELL US what he means by
this word.  We (and his original readers) are guessing.  They, at least,
had a contemporary context -- and maybe Paul had used this very word and
explained it in great detail to them in person.  But we have no trace of
evidence of that, and to *suppose* it is mere fantasy.

So -- we are *desperately* in need of external evidence about this word.
And it seems to be exceptionally meagre.  That is precisely the problem.
I can think of several more or less equally plausible hypotheses about
the word:

	a)  it was a standard gutter term of abuse for (some or all, maybe
	    very specific, maybe very general) homosexual male activities

	b)  it was a term of abuse used by Jews about the awful homosexual
	    Greeks (which may or may not be consciously associated on their
	    part with the Leviticus passage)

	c)  Paul invented the term -- and again there may or may not be an
	    association with Leviticus in his doing so.  He may or may not
	    intend the word to have an explicit and universal application
	    with absolute and clear boundaries.  [Since none of his OTHER
	    words in that list have such character, this last seems to me
	    about the *least* plausible of the hypotheses I'm advancing.]

Of these, I'd say off the top of my head that a) is most plausible -- but
I still have reservations about that, too.

If the word NEVER appears before Paul, and in later uses has some evidence
of depending on Paul, then one can opt for Paul's coining it.  If it does
appear before him, he might *still* have coined it being unaware of prior
use (in which case, his coinage is inherently confusing!) but one should
normally demote c) on the basis of any earlier uses (especially if they
can be shown to have been at all common in the places Paul traveled.)  In
either of the a) or b) cases, one has to take into account Paul's relation
to the community of usage he picked the word up from -- and whether it be
from the Greek or Jewish communities, Paul's relations are hardly straight-
forward!

There is, so far as I have yet seen, little or no external evidence to aid
us in selecting one of these (or some other) hypothesis.  Your guess is as
good as mine (or maybe worse or maybe better, depending on a lot of things).
But it remains -- so far -- guesswork.  And I don't know about you, but I
for one WILL NOT equate human guesswork with the will of God.  By all means
be convinced in your own conscience about what Paul is getting at -- as he
says elsewhere on what was in HIS day a major controversy of somewhat this
same character (Romans 14:22-23)

	"Hold on to your own belief, as between yourself and God -- and
	consider the man fortunate who can make his decision without going
	against his conscience.  But anybody who eats in a state of doubt
	is condemned, because he is not in good faith, and every act done
	in bad faith is a sin."

For my part, I cannot see any way to resolve Paul's meaning in the use of
_arsenokoitai_ without directly applicable external evidence -- and by
the nature of such external evidence, it will never reach to certainty
of constraining Paul's own intent.  Paul, like Humpty Dumpty (and me, and
all the rest of us) *will* use words in ways that are personal choices --
and sometimes leave his readers puzzled.  If that puzzlement leads you
to God, it may be blessed -- if it should lead away (as some of Paul's
words HAVE led some people), then Paul's intense communicative effort to
contrive his meaning in our souls may have some regretable consequences.
I have always found Paul to be a fantastically reliable guide -- if I
read him "in the large", if I can see him lay out his position in detail
and hammer it home time and time again.  I am much less certain about his
meaning in his many brief and cryptic passages (such as this one.)

In my usual discursive way, I have gone on at great length about the first
of my intended meta-exegetical points -- what would be needed to confirm
that Paul a) coined or b) in any case meant the word to mean the same as
the Leviticus prohibition.  My second point is to *stipulate* this hypo-
thesis, and follow up what it implies for both his initial readers and
for later Christians.  Given my verbosity, this will be tomorrow night's
meditation :-)
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		I say "You are gods, sons of the
mls@panix.com			Most High, all of you; nevertheless
    - or -			you shall die like men, and fall
mls@ulysses.att..com		like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21737
From: mikec@procom.com (Mike Christensen)
Subject: Re: homosexual issues in Christianity

mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:

>In article <May.11.02.36.34.1993.28074@athos.rutgers.edu> mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (someone named Mark) writes:


>>"... Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, 
>>nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, 
>>nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom  of God.  And such were 
>>some of you..."  I Cor. 6:9-11.

>The moderator adequately discusses the circularity of your use of _porneia_
>in this.  I think we can all agree (with Paul) that there are SOME kinds of
>activity that could be named by "fornication" or "theft" or "coveting" or
>"reviling" or "drunkenness" which would well deserve condemnation.  We may
>or may not agree to the bounds of those categories, however; and the very
>fact that they are argued over suggests that not only is the matter not at
>all "clear" but that Paul -- an excellent rhetorician -- had no interest
>in MAKING them clear, leaving matters rather to our Spirit-led decisions,
>with all the uncomfortable living-with-other-readings that has dominated
>Christian discussion of ALL these areas.


What is fornication? (sex outside of marriage, abuse of sex)  

Is not homosexual intercourse outside the context of marriage?
Isn't it an unatural use of what God has given us?

Why is it that homosexuals are using the Grace of God as a license to
practice sin? 

   For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long
   beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who
   turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only 
   Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

                                      Jude 4 (NASB)

What is defined by God as a legitimate marriage?

   For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and
   shall cleave to his wife; and the shall become one flesh.

                                      Gen 2:24 (NASB)

   And He answer and said, "Have you not read, that He who created them
   from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, 'FOR THIS 
   CAUSE A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND CLEAVE TO HIS WIFE;
   AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?  Consequently they are no longer
   two, but one flesh.  What therefore God has joined together, let no
   man separate." 

                                      Matt 19:4-6 (NASB)

   But because of immoralities, let each man have his own wife, and let
   each woman have her own husband.  Let the husband fulfill his duty
   to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband.

                                      1 Corinthians 7:4,5 (NASB)

>  There are plenty of
>laws prohibiting sexual behavior to be found in Leviticus, most of
>which Christians ignore completely.  They never even BOTHER to examine
>them.  They just *assume* that they know which ones are "moral" and
>which ones are "ritual."  Well, I have news for you.  Any anthropology
>course should sensitize you to ritual and clean vs. unlcean as categories
>in an awful lot of societies (we have them too, but buried pretty deep).
>And I cannot see any ground for distinguishing these bits of Leviticus
>from the "ritual law" which NO Christian I know feels applies to us.

I disagree... Every law that is written in Leviticus should be looked at 
as sin.  That is why we have a need for a savior.  I can understand 
someone who may not know a particular sin listed in the Levitcal law, but
I would hope that they would repent when confronted with it.

>>I notice that the verse forbidding bestiality immediately follows the
>>verse prohibiting what appears to be homosexual intercourse.

>Well, la-ti-da.  So what?  This is almost as slimey an argument as the
>one that homosexuality == rape.  I know of no one who argues seriously
>(though one can always find jokers) in "defense" of bestiality.  It is
>absolutely irrelevant and incomparable to the issues gay Christians *do*
>raise (which concern sexual activity within committed, consensual human
>adult realtionships), so that your bringing it up is no more relevant
>than the laws of kashrut.  If you cannot address the actual issues, you
>are being bloody dishonest in trailing this red herring in front of the
>world.  If *you* want to address bestiality, that is YOUR business, not
>mine.  And attempting to torpedo a serious issue by using what is in
>our culture a ridiculous joke shows that you have no interest in hearing
>us as human beings.  You want to dismiss us, and use the sleaziest means
>you can think of to do so.

Also I noticed that the preceeding verses say.  

   Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness during her
   menstrual impurity.  And you shall not have intercourse with your
   neighbors wife, to be defiled with her. 


                                   Leviticus 18:19, 20 (NASB)

These verses are just as relevant as:

   You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an
   abomination.

                                   Leviticus 18:22 (NASB)

Why was God telling the Israelites not to practice such things?

   Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these
   the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled.
   For the land has become defiled, therefore I have visited its 
   punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants.
   But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and Judgments, and 
   shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor
   the alien who sojourns among you

                                    Leviticus 18:24-26 (NASB)

He is the Lord...  Listen to what he has to say... 

Nobody wants to dismiss homosexuals.  We do love you, but we don't 
agree that what you practice is not sin.  You have not truly repented
of your sin.  We hate the sin that is within your lives.  I hate sin
that is in my life.  All Christians should hate the sin that is within
their own lives.  Confrontaion with sin should bring about repentance. 
Yes I agree with John 3:17, but I also know that Jesus said, "Repent for
the kingdom of heaven is at hand"  Matt 3:17.  If you don't agree that
homosexuality is sin than how can you repent from it?  This means that
you remain in bondage to it.  Repent from it and God will set you free.

In His Love, 

       Mike

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Christensen                 |  Trust the Lord with all your heart,
Senior Product Support Engineer     |  And do not lean on your own 
Procom Technology, Inc.             |  understanding.   Proverbs 3:5 (NASB)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21738
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse

You will keep in perfect peace him whose mind is steadfast, because he trusts
in you. 
Isaiah 26:3

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21739
From: armstrng@cs.dal.ca (Stan Armstrong)
Subject: Sleeping with one's aunt

The last time we discussed homosexuality, I asked whether anyone could
identify any other act besides homosexual intercourse that the Bible
prohibited, but which might in some circumstances bring no apparent
harm to anyone. Put another way, the question is whether homosexual
intercourse is the only act that Christians are supposed to believe
is immoral solely on the basis that God says it is, with no insight
being offered as to *why* it is immoral. No one could answer my
question in either form from the Bible. (I did get an interesting
response based on Roman Catholic theology).

However, I think now that I can at least answer my first question.
Link Hudson pointed me to it in his recent comments about sleeping
with one's aunt. Incest is held to be immoral in every society,
that is, there are some degrees of relationship where marriage
(and thus, intercouse) is prohibited. The Bible is no exception.
The trouble is that it may be difficult to see *why* a particular
relationship qualifies as incestuous. Societies differ as to
how they define incest. Genetic reasons are sometimes offered, but
all the Biblical cases cannot be dealt with that way. Why can't
a man sleep with his step mother--assuming that his father is
dead and that he has "married" her? How does this case differ
from the *duty* to marry one's brother's childless wife.

Are these two cases parallel? Does the Bible prohibit some incestuous
marriages and homosexual marriages for the same reason, perhaps
that God knows they are not good for us and yet we are incapable
of understanding why.

P.S. Please don't bother writing me to tell me that I am a homophobe,
as some did last time. My mind is not made up on these questions.
You don't know whether I am homophobic or not. You don't
know me. To call me or anyone else a homophobe without knowing the
person may be as much an expression of bigotry as some homophobic
remarks.
-- 
Stan Armstrong. Religious Studies Dept, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, N.S.
Armstrong@husky1.stmarys.ca | att!clyde!watmath!water!dalcs!armstrng

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21740
From: REXLEX@fnnews.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Question about hell

In article <May.14.02.11.45.1993.25249@athos.rutgers.edu> pwhite@empros.com
(Peter White) writes
>Luke 16 talks about the rich man and Lazarus. Matthew 25 talks about 
>the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Revelations
>20 and 21 reference this fire as the place where unbelievers are
>thrown. Matthew 18 talks about being thrown into the eternal fire and
>the fire of hell. It seems quite clear that there is this place where
>a fire burns forever. From the Revelations passages it is clear that
>the devil and his angels will be tormented there forever. From the
>Matthew 25 passage it doesn't seem abundantly clear whether the
>punishment of unbelievers is everlasting in the sense of final or
>in the sense of continual. 

You've missed on very important passage.

2 Thess. 1:6-10
 For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who
afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when
the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming
fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do
not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. And these will pay the penalty of
eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of
His power, when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be
marveled at among all who have believed-- for our testimony to you was
believed.

Things to note from this passage.  Unbelievers are both those who openly reject
the gospel, and those who do not know God.  The eternal destruction is the same
as the eternal hope in 2:16.  This distructions primarily emphasize that it is
separation from the presence of God.  THe context is speaking of the 2nd advent
while 2:1 is speaking of the rapture.  Don't confuse the two. 
>
>In the Bible, I am not aware of any discussion about the specifics of
>hell beyond the general of hot, unpleasant and torment.

Yet we have a far greater discription of hell that we do heaven.

 For instance,
>it is not discussed how (if at all) the rich man can
>continually stay in the fire and still feel discomfort or pain or
>whether there is some point at which the pain sensing ability is
>burned up. If you can forgive the graphicalness, if you throw a
>physical body into a fire, assuming the person starts out alive,
>at some fairly quick point, the nerves are destroyed and pain is
>no longer sensed. 

If this was like earthly fire that requires a gas producing substance to
ignite.
However, there seems to be a different type of fire as expressed in the burning
bush that was not consumed.  Also, the Daniel acct. shows that the laws of
nature can be interupted even with earthly fire.

>It is not stated what occurs when at the judgement,
>the unbelievers, (who are already physically dead) are cast into hell

Maybe you don't understand.  There will be those who are alive at the end of
the millenium, who will walk straight into the GWTJ.  Even those who have died
in their sin will be resurrected, i.e. reunited with their physical body, to
receive condemnation.

>i.e. they no longer have a physical body so they can't feel physical pain.

This is contrary to the teaching of Scripture.

> What could be sensed continually is that those in hell are
>to be forever without God. 
> 
>The Lazarus/rich man parable is told with the idea of having the listener
>think in physical terms in order to get the point that some people
>won't listen to God even after he rises from the dead. 

THis is conjecture at best if you are using it to support the "no physical
body" thesis.

>The point of
>the parable is to reach the hard-hearted here who are not listening
>to the fact of the resurrection nor the Gospel about Jesus Christ.
>It seems reasonable to also draw from the parable that hell is
>not even remotely pleasant.

The true awlfulness of hell, is that it is eternal separation from God, after
having seen the glory of His presence at the GWTJ.  But whether it was open
rebellion against the revealed gospel of Christ or if it is not having known
GOd (not saught Him as He is), then as Paul says, they are without excuss and
that every mouth will be stopped.  There will be no defense at the judgment
seat of God. THerefore we understand "it is appointed unto man once to die, and
then comes judgment" literally.  

just because it is horrific, doesn't make it less of a reality.  
it should compel those of us who have the riches of Christ to share it with
others

--Rex

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21741
From: REXLEX@fnnews.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: FAQ essay on homosexuality

In article <May.14.02.10.20.1993.25156@athos.rutgers.edu>
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>I think we must be careful before we totally throw out Leviticus.  
>If the Law is reflection of God's character and true holy nature, then
>those who say that God endorses homosexuality run into a problem


Though this will be addressed in the series of articles I'm posting now under
"ARESNOKOITIA", I can't wait.  This just really blew my socks off.  Read I Tim
1: 3-11.  Verses 3-8 speaks against those who have perverted the teachings of
the Mosaic Law.  In vv.9-10, we have, *IN ORDER*, the 5th thru the 9th
commandments and in the midst of this listing is "homosexuals."  The decalogue,
above everything else, is seen as God's absolute.  If you don't believe in
absolutes, then you have nothing do do with Jehovah of the OT, which Paul
reveals to be the Messiah of the NT. "Lord Christ Jesus" transliterates to read
"Jehovah's Anointed Savior."  
  In I Cor5, we see the same emphasis of moral separation from the pagan
gentiles as we do in Lev 18-20.  In I Cor 6:9-10, only one notation (drunkards)
is not found in Lev 18-20.  Paul was not naive in his use of the LXX.  He knew
full well how he was using the Law of God that was given in the OT, for
application in the NT.  As I've said, the Law was fulfilled, not done away
with.

>>of questions we are trying to deal with.  He encountered homosexuality
>>only in contexts where most people would probably agree that it was
>>wrong.  He had never faced the experience of Christians who try to act
>>"straight" and fail, and he had never faced Christians who are trying
>>to define a Christian homosexuality, which fits with general Christian
>>ideals of fidelity and of seeing sexuality as a mirror of the
>>relationship between God and man.  It is unfair to take Paul's
>>judgement on homosexuality among idolaters and use it to make
>>judgements on these questions.

This understanding is thoroughly rebutted in DeYoungs article that is being
posted.  Please refer to it.

>
>One of the reasons that some of us do not accept that common argument
>is because Paul probably did face this and other problems. 

We can do better than "probably" which is not an adequate defense against the
statement that Paul's culture didn't have the same understanding of
homosexuality as ours.  
Again read the article because it uses facts.

>>I claim that the question of how to counsel homosexual Christians is
>>not entirely a theological issue, but also a pastoral one.
>
>I don't see how you come to that conclusion.

I think I do, because I have worked in the homosexual community by means of
working with AIDs patients.  The pastoral is merely the practical application
of the theological truth however.  Those who are working thru the issue of
homosexuality need to have our love and understanding just as with a friend who
is contiplating cheating on his wife or a friend who lives with his girlfriend,
yet you continue to witness to him.  But, once the choice is made, and there is
no remorse, then I feel that Paul's "pastoral" care, as presented in the
Corinthian Church, come to bear significance.  THe one in active rebellion
should be placed outside of the church if a believer, and if a non-believer,
then one wipes his sandels and leaves it in Gods hand.  If there was a member
in your youth group who was constantly pawing at the little girls, you wouldn't
hesitate to deal with the matter quickly and decisivly.  That, in part, betrays
the present "political correctness" of the issue.  Pederasty is not accepted at
the present, but some how we are to accept homosexuality because the latter is
politically correct, while the former is not -at least not yet.  THis is how
the morals decay.  

I guess this would follow the liberal application in the political realm of
economics.  The liberals want to tax the rich in the federal, yet in their own
states, when they try to get businesses to settle there, they give tax
incentives to these same richies.  It comes down to a moral code of
relativeness, or to use the cultural thing, politically correct -at the moment.
--Rex

[You might want to look over 1 Tim 1:10 again.  If this is really the
5th through 9th commandments, we seem to be missing thieves, and
homosexuals would have to be fit in under adultery.  This is of course
possible if "arsenokoitia" has a narrower meaning than homosexuality
in general, but I think that's not your thesis.  I have no objection
per se to the idea that the author of 1 Tim might have quoted the 10
commandments, but 5 through 9, minus one and plus a few things, begins
to look a bit marginal.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21742
From: HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com
Subject: Re: Question: Jesus alone, Oneness

In article <May.5.02.53.16.1993.28886@athos.rutgers.edu>
jblanken@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (James R. Blankenship) writes:
 
>
>"Jesus Only" and "Oneness" tend to refer to groups that do deny the
>trinity.    .....
>They explain Matthew by saying that Jesus is the name of the Father, Jesus
>is the name of the Son, and Jesus is the name of the name of the Holy
>Spirit, Father, Son, & Holy Spirit referring to different roles, all
>filled by Jesus. ....
 
IMHO this are going from bad to worse. 3-in-1, 1-in-3 was bad enough.
 
I do not like a God who prays to Himself.  I refuse to believe Jesus prayed
to Himself  --   let's get real, if the scriptures say He prayed to the
Father, then the Father IS someone different than the Son.  I have no
problems with multiple Gods.  To me, the whole context of the scriptures
says:  Be perfect, even as your Father Who is in Heaven; that we can be
co-heirs with Christ; that we will be like Him.
 
Co-heirs share all things equally--including knowledge, power, dominion etc.
When I am like Him (Christ), I will be the same as HE is--and He is a God.
 
If God cannot do this, the His is not all powerful--and He is NOT God.
If He will not, He is a Liar--and He is NOT God.
 
But if He does, He is the greatest of all the Gods.
 

[I don't know of anyone who says that Jesus prayed to himself.  The
whole point of the Trinity is that there's enough of a distinction
within God that relationship is possible.  This implies some sort of
communication.  I assume that in their "native" form, the Father and
Son are directly enough connected that prayer in our sense isn't
involved.  But Jesus is the incarnation of the Son, i.e.  the Logos
made flesh.  When he's in a human form, his human actions are limited
to human capabilities.  So communication with the Father takes the
form of prayer.  I don't see that there's anything problematical about
that.  It seems to be implicit in the whole idea of incarnation.
--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21743
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: Deuterocanonicals, esp. Sirach

In article <May.14.02.11.26.1993.25198@athos.rutgers.edu> db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes:
>Michael Siemon writes:

>Protestants love to play up Jerome for all he is worth. 

Yes, but no more than he is worth. :-).  Seriously: Jerome is merely
(and grandly) another Christian witness, to be taken for what he can
tell us.  He is one in the community of saints.  You seem to wish for
a greater polarization and dichotomy between Catholic and Protestant
thought than seems to me, from a historical perspective, to be valid.
To be sure, Rome rejects (some significant aspects of) Protestant
thought just as vehemently as Protestants reject (some significant
aspects of) Roman thought.  Other than some peoplw who apparently try
to embody the greatest extreme of this rejection, on either side, there
is not quite so vast a gulf fixed as casual observers seem to assume.

Ecumenical consultations between Rome and the Lutherans, as well as 
those between Rome and the Anglican communion (to which I belong) show
very nearly complete convergence on understanding the basic theological
issues -- the sticking points tend to be ecclesiology and church polity.
Thus, for example, as you go on to say:

>                                                        They should
>remeber that after the Decree of Pope St. Damsus I,

Many of us do not regard a papal decretal as having any necessary (as
opposed to political) significance.  Sometimes it will, sometimes it
won't.  You misread me if you think that my communion, at least, "throws
out" the deuterocanonical books.  Nor do I think you should overstress
the sense in which the more Reformed may do so.

>Again, why must the Church of Jesus Christ adopt the canon of the
>unbelieving Jews, drawn up in Jamnia in 90 AD, in countering the
>Christian use of the Septuagint.                 ^^^^^

I seriously suggest you rethink what you are saying here.  It verges on,
and could be taken as, anti-Semitic in the worst sense.  The "unbelieving"
Jews were, according to what I understand as a Christian, the chosen
people of God, and the recipients of His pre-Incarnational revelation.
I think they have some say in the matter.  The Javneh meeting should not
be over-interpreted.  A recent magisterial study titled _Mikra_ (I don't
have more citation information on hand, sorry) produced primarily from
the background of Christian (rather than specifically Jewish) scholarship
suggests strongly that the Javneh meeting mostly resolved a lingering
question, where in practice the canon had long been fixed on the basis
of the scrolls that were kept in the Temple, and thereby "made the hands
unclean" when used.  The list of "sacred books" that may be drawn up from
Josephus and other pre-Yavneh sources correspond (plus or minus one book,
if I rememeber the chapter correctly) to the current Jewish canon of Tanakh.

All of this is not to "throw out" the deuterocanonicals (what, by the way,
is YOUR position about the books the Greeks accept and Rome does not? :-))
-- just to observe that the issue is complex and simply binary judgment
does not do it justice.
>
>Andy Byler


-- 
Michael L. Siemon		I say "You are gods, sons of the
mls@panix.com			Most High, all of you; nevertheless
    - or -			you shall die like men, and fall
mls@ulysses.att..com		like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21744
From: mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server)
Subject: Christian Homosexuality (part 1 of 2)

Note:  I am breaking this reply into 2 parts due to length.

mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:
>In article <May.11.02.36.34.1993.28074@athos.rutgers.edu> 
>mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (someone named Mark) writes:
>>mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:
>>>Homosexual Christians have indeed "checked out" these verses.  Some of
>>>them are used against us only through incredibly perverse interpretations.
>>>Others simply do not address the issues.
>> 
>>I can see that some of the above verses do not clearly address the issues, 
> 
>There are exactly ZERO verses that "clearly" address the issues.

I agree that there are no verses that have gone unchallenged by gay rights 
activists.  But if there are zero verses that "'clearly' address the issues," 
doesn't that mean that there are also no verses that clearly *support* your 
case?  Are you sure you want to say that there are zero verses that clearly 
address the issues?

>>however, a couple of them seem as though they do not require "incredibly 
>>perverse interpretations" in order to be seen as condemning homosexuality.
> 
>The kind of interpretation I see as "incredibly perverse" is that applied
>to the story of Sodom as if it were a blanket equation of homosexual
>behavior and rape.  Since Christians citing the Bible in such a context
>should be presumed to have at least READ the story, it amounts to slander
>-- a charge that homosexuality == rape -- to use that against us.

The story in Genesis 19 tells of the citizens of Sodom demanding an opportunity 
to "know" the two men who were Lot's guests; the fact that the Sodomites became 
angry when Lot offered them his daughters could be seen as indicating that they 
were interested only in homosexual intercourse.  Yes, what they wanted was 
rape, homosexual rape, and everybody agrees that that is wrong.  Some 
Christians believe that the homosexual aspect of their desire was just as 
sinful as the rape aspect of their desire.  The passage does not say what it 
was that so offended God, whether it was the homosexuality, or the intended 
rape, or both, but I believe that it is only fair to consider all the possible 
alternatives in the light of related Scriptures.  I do not believe that those 
who believe God was offended by both the homosexuality and the rape are trying 
to say that homosexuality is itself a form of rape.

You seems to take the view that the *only* sin described in Gen. 19 is in the 
fact that the Sodomites wanted to commit rape, and that it is unfair to 
"stigmatize" their homosexuality by associating it with the sin of rape.  I can 
see how you might reach such a conclusion if you started from the conclusion 
that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, but then again we're not 
supposed to start from our conclusions because that's circular reasoning.  If 
God is in fact opposed to homosexual intercourse in general, then the more 
probably interpretation is that He was at least as offended by the Sodomites' 
blatant homosexuality as He was by their intent to commit rape.  Later on I 
will document why I believe the Old Testament portrays God as One who despises 
*any* homosexual intercourse, even if both partners are consenting adults.

>>"... Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, 
>>nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor 
>drunkards, 
>>nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom  of God.  And such 
>were 
>>some of you..."  I Cor. 6:9-11.
> 
>The moderator adequately discusses the circularity of your use of _porneia_
>in this.  

The moderator found my proposal to be circular in that he regarded the church 
as the proper  authority for determining what *kinds* of marriages would be 
legitimate, and thus the church's refusal to recognize "perverted" marriages 
was circular reasoning.  My questions, however, had nothing to do with the 
church ordaining new kinds of marriages, and so his argument was something of a 
straw man.  In terms of my original question, the precise 
definition/translation of "porneia" isn't really important, unless you are 
trying to argue that the Bible doesn't really condemn extramarital sex.  I'm 
not sure the moderator was trying to do that.

In any case, I think both you and the moderator have missed the point here.  
When Jesus was asked about divorce, He replied, "Have you not read, that He who 
created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this 
cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife; and 
the two shall become one flesh'?  Consequently they are no longer two, but one 
flesh.  What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." (Mt. 
19:4-6).  I read here that the sexual union of a man (male) and his wife 
(female) is a divinely-ordained union.  In other words, the institution of 
heterosexual marriage is something ordained and established by God--not by men, 
and not by the church, but by God.  Men are not supposed to dissolve this 
union, in Jesus' words, because it is not something created by men.

This is not circular reasoning, this is just reading God's word.  I read in the 
Bible that God ordained the union of male and female.  I do not read of any 
similar divinely-ordained union of two males or two females.  Granted, there 
have been uninspired men who have ordained "alternative" unions (isn't Caligula 
reported to have "married" his horse?), but the only union that Jesus refers to 
as "what God has joined together" is the heterosexual union of a man and his 
wife.

(Pardon me for mentioning Caligula.  I know that's probably inflammatory, and I 
should save it for the discussion on bestiality, in part 2 of this post.  
Please hold off on passing judgement on me until you have read that section of 
my reply.)

Anyway, my original question was not whether we should translate "porneia" in a 
way that condemns only a select few kinds of extramarital sex, my question was: 
given that heterosexual marriage is the only union described by the Bible as 
divinely-ordained, and given a Biblical prohibition against sex outside of 
marriage, is homosexual intercourse sinful?  Of course, I see now that first we 
need to ask whether the Bible really condemns sex outside of marriage.  You 
seem to be trying to argue that only certain kinds of extramarital sex (and 
other sins) are really wrong:

>>I think we can all agree (with Paul) that there are SOME kinds of
>activity that could be named by "fornication" or "theft" or "coveting" or
>"reviling" or "drunkenness" which would well deserve condemnation.  We may
>or may not agree to the bounds of those categories, however; and the very
>fact that they are argued over suggests that not only is the matter not at
>all "clear" but that Paul -- an excellent rhetorician -- had no interest
>in MAKING them clear, leaving matters rather to our Spirit-led decisions,
>with all the uncomfortable living-with-other-readings that has dominated
>Christian discussion of ALL these areas.

Alternatively, it may be that the definition of such terms as "porneia" and all 
the rest was, in Paul's day, what we would call a FAQ; i.e. the Law, as the 
"tutor" appointed by God to lead us to Christ, had just spent some sixteen 
centuries drumming into the heads of God's people the idea that things like 
homosexual intercourse were abominations that deserved punishment by death.  
Perhaps Paul didn't go into detail on what "porneia" &c were because after 1600 
years he considered the question to have been dealt with already.  Perhaps the 
reason God's apostles and prophets did not devote a great deal of time defining 
a distinct, New Testament sexuality was because He did not intend any 
significant changes in the sexuality He had already established by the Law.  
I'll discuss the Law and homosexuality in greater detail below, but I just 
wanted to point out that the New Testament's failure to develop a detailed new 
standard of sexuality is not necessarily evidence that God does not care about 
sexual conduct--especially after 1600 years of putting people to death for 
practicing homosexuality!

>Homosexual behavior is no different.  I (and the other gay Christians I
>know) are adamant in condemning rape -- heterosexual or homosexual -- and
>child molestation -- heterosexual or homosexual -- and even the possibly
>"harmless" but obsessive kinds of sex -- heterosexual or homosexual --
>that would stand condemned by Paul in the very continuation of the chapter
>you cite [may I mildly suggest that what *Paul* does in his letter that
>you want to use is perhaps a good guide to his meaning?]
> 
>        "'I am free to do anything,' you say.  Yes, but not everything
>        is for my good.  No doubt I am free to do anything, but I for one
>        will not let anything make free with me."  [1 Cor. 6:12]
> 
>Which is a restatement that we must have no other "god" before God.  A
>commandment neither I nor any other gay Christian wishes to break.  Some
>people are indeed involved in obsessively driven modes of sexual behavior.
>It is just as wrong (though slightly less incendiary, so it's a secondary
>argument from the 'phobic contingent) to equate homosexuality with such
>behavior as to equate it with the rape of God's messengers.

And how do you define an "obsessively driven" mode of sexual behavior?  How do 
you determine the difference between obsessive sexual behavior and normal sex 
drives?  Is the desire to have "sinful" sex an obsessively driven mode of 
behavior?  I think you see that this is circular reasoning:  Why is it defined 
as sinful?  Because it is obsessive.  What makes it obsessive?  The fact that 
the person is driven to seek it even though it's sinful.  Or is it obsessive 
because it is a desire for that which society condemns?  Once again, that's 
circular:  Why is it defined as obsessive?  Because the person wants it even 
though society condemns it.  Why does society condemn it?  Because it is 
obsessive.

You seem to be trying to limit the Bible's condemnation of "porneia" to only 
"perverted" sex acts, but I don't think you can really define "perverted" 
without falling into exactly the same circularity you accuse me of.  What, 
then, is Paul condemning when he declares that "Fornicators...shall not enter 
the kindgom of heaven"?

>I won't deal with the exegesis of Leviticus, except very tangentially.
>Fundamentally, you are exhibiting the same circularity here as in your
>assumption that you know what _porneia_ means.

I think you misunderstood me:  I was not trying to make an argument on some 
technical definition of "porneia", I was raising the issues of the sinfulness 
of extramarital sex and the lack of any Scriptural evidence of a homosexual 
counterpart to the divinely-ordained union of heterosexual couples.

>There are plenty of
>laws prohibiting sexual behavior to be found in Leviticus, most of
>which Christians ignore completely.  They never even BOTHER to examine
>them.  They just *assume* that they know which ones are "moral" and
>which ones are "ritual."  Well, I have news for you.  Any anthropology
>course should sensitize you to ritual and clean vs. unlcean as categories
>in an awful lot of societies (we have them too, but buried pretty deep).
>And I cannot see any ground for distinguishing these bits of Leviticus
>from the "ritual law" which NO Christian I know feels applies to us.
> 
>I'm dead serious here.  When people start going on (as they do in this
>matter) about how "repulsive" and "unnatural" our acts are -- and what
>do they know about it, huh? -- it is a solid clue to the same sort of
>arbitrary cultural inculcations as the American prejudice against eating
>insects.

Please remember what you just said here for when we discuss bestiality, in part 
2.

>On what basis, other than assuming your conclusion, can you
>say that the law against male-male intercourse in Leviticus is NOT a part
>of the ritual law?

I am glad you asked.  Would you agree that if God condemns homosexual 
intercourse even among those who are not under the Law of Moses, then this 
would show that God's condemnation of homosexual acts goes beyond the ritual 
law?  If I can show you from Scripture that God punished the homosexual 
behavior of people who were *not* under the Law of Moses, would you agree that 
God's definition of homosexual intercourse as an abomination is not limited to 
just the ritual law and those who are under the Law?

I've been having a private Email discussion with a 7th Day Adventist on the 
subject of the Sabbath, and my main point against a Christian sabbath-keeping 
requirement has been that nowhere in Scripture does God command Gentiles to 
rest on the sabbath, nor does He ever condemn Gentiles for failing to rest on 
the Sabbath.  This illustrates the difference between universal requirements 
such as "Thou shalt not kill", and requirements that are merely part of the 
(temporary, Jews-only) Law of Moses, such as the Sabbath.

The point you are trying to make is that you think the classification of 
homosexual intercourse as "an abomination" is *just* a part of the temporary, 
Jews-only Law of Moses.  I on the other hand believe that it was labelled by 
God as an abomination for Gentiles as well as Jews, and that He punished those 
guilty of this behavior by death or exile.  Here's why:

Back in Genesis 15, God promises to give Abraham all the land that was then in 
the possession of "the Amorite"--kinda hard on the Amorite, don't you think?  
But in verse 16 we have a clue that this might not be as unjust as it sounds:  
it seems God is going to postpone this takeover for quite a while, because "the 
iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete".

Remember, this is all long before there was a ritual law.  What then was the 
iniquity the Amorite was committing that, when complete, would justify his 
being cast out of his own land and/or killed?  Go back and look at Lev. 18 
again.  Verses 1-23 list a variety of sins, including child sacrifice, incest, 
homosexuality, and bestiality.  Beginning in verse 24, God starts saying, "Do 
not defile yourselves by any of these things; for _by_all_these_ _things_ the 
nations which I am casting out before you _have_ _become_defiled_.  For the 
land has become defiled, therefore I have visited its punishment upon it, so 
the land has spewed out its inhabitants... For whoever does any of these 
abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their 
people."

Notice that God says the Gentile nations (who are *not* under the ritual Law of 
Moses) are about to be punished because they have "defiled" themselves and 
their land by committing "abominations" that include incest, bestiality, and 
homosexuality.  Flip ahead two chapters to Lev. 20, and you will find these 
same "abominations" listed, and this time God decrees the death penalty on 
anyone involved in any of these things, including, specifically, a man "lying 
with another man as one lies with a woman" (Lv. 20:13).  Their 
"bloodguiltiness" was upon them, meaning that in God's eyes, they deserved to 
die for having done such things.  According to Lev. 18:26-29, even "the alien 
[non-Jew] who sojourns among you" was to refrain from these practices, on 
penalty of being "cut off [by God?] from among their people."

Under the circumstances, I believe it would be very difficult to support the 
claim that in the Old Testament God objected only to the intended rape, and not 
the homosexuality, in Sodom.  Since God took the trouble to specifically list 
sex between two consenting men as one of the reasons for wiping out the 
Canaanite nations, (not homosexual rape, mind you, but plain, voluntary gay 
sex), I'd say God was not neutral on the subject of homosexual behavior, even 
by those who had nothing to do with the Mosaic Covenant.

>For those Christians who *do* think that *some* parts of Leviticus can
>be "law" for Christians (while others are not even to be thought about)
>it is incumbent on you *in every case, handled on its own merits* to
>determine why you "pick" one and ignore another.

According to II Tim. 3:16, all Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable 
for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness; thus, I 
believe that even though we Gentile Christians are not under the Law, we can 
learn from studying it.  If a certain action is defined as a sin because it is 
a violation of the Law, then it is a sin only for those who are under the Law 
(for example, in the case of Sabbath-keeping).  Where God reveals that certain 
actions are abominations even for those who are not under the Law, then I 
conclude that God's objection to the practice is not based on whether or not a 
person is under the Law, but on the sinfulness of the act itself.  In the case 
of homosexuality, homosexual intercourse is defined by God as a defiling 
abomination for Gentiles as well as Jews, i.e. for those who are not under the 
Law as well as for those who are.  Thus, I am not at all trying to say that 
Gentile Christians have any obligation to keep any part of the Law, I am simply 
saying that God referred to homosexuality as a sin even for those who are not 
obligated to keep the Law.  If this is so, then I do not think we can appeal to 
our exemption from the Law as valid grounds for legitimizing a practice God has 
declared a bloodguilty abomination that defiles both Jew and Gentile.

(continued in Part 2)

- Mark

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21745
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: SJ Mercury's reference to Fundamentali

In article <May.11.02.37.07.1993.28120@athos.rutgers.edu>, dan@ingres.com (a Rose arose) writes:
|> 	"Raised in Oakland and San Lorenzo by strict fundamentalist
|> 	Christian parents, Mason was beaten as a child.  ...

|> Were the San Jose Mercury news to come out with an article starting with
|> "Raised in Oakland by Mexican parents, Mason was beaten...", my face would

>Perhaps because there is a connection here that is not there in the Mexican
>variant you bring up.

This is true. The statement didn't say anything about Christians in general.
It specifically said "strict fundamentalist" Christians. It reflects a
common perception that people have about fundamentalists being strict
disciplinarians. Whether or not this perception is justified is another issue.


[The other reading is that they are distinguishing between strict
and relaxed fundamentalists.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21746
From: Christopher.Vance@adfa.oz.au (Christopher JS Vance)
Subject: Re: Mormon temples

In article <May.14.02.11.39.1993.25225@athos.rutgers.edu> shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker) writes:
| Early in Church history, the catechumens were dismissed prior to the celebration 
| of the Eucharist.  It WAS secret, giving rise to the rumors that Christians

I have no problem with the idea that catechumens be dismissed before
the Eucharist.  They were not considered qualified to participate.

| were cannibals and all sorts of perverse claims.  The actions were considered
| too holy to be observed by non-Christians, as well as potentially dangerous
| for the individual Christian who might be identified.

Does the dismissal in the early church mean that the eucharist was a
secret?  I mean, was it:

	you don't have to stay; from now on, only the membership can
	participate; you really don't have to hang around; yes, I know
	you're obliged to keep up attendance to qualify, but now is an
	exception, okay?

or was it:

	you may not stay; what happens next is secret

When we have had reason to conduct business meetings after church,
we've made it clear that only members can vote.  But we've always been
happy for non-members to stay and observe.

Do you have evidence for intentional secrecy?  (Other than rumours,
which will always happen when you have an underclass doing things not
approved of by those in power?)

-- Christopher

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21747
From: koberg@spot.Colorado.EDU (Allen Koberg)
Subject: Re: _Christianity In Crisis_ by Hank Hanegraaff

In article <May.12.04.27.23.1993.9926@athos.rutgers.edu> af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.) writes:
>Has anyone read this important book?  If so, what are your feelings about it?
>

I have not yet read the book, though I intend to.  Judging from the
promos I hear constantly on the radio, it sounds good.  In John
MacArthur's "Charismatic Chaos" series and the book, he talks about
much of the same things.  The "Health,Wealth,And Prosperity" thing
is a very real part (and very prominent) of TV religion.  Every time
I turn to TBN, there's Paul Crouch (showing off his new building)
talking about it's a sin to be poor and unhealthy.  Gr..

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21748
From: mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server)
Subject: Christian Homosexuality (part 2 of 2)

(This is a continuation of an earlier post)

mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:
>For those Christians who *do* think that *some* parts of Leviticus can
>be "law" for Christians (while others are not even to be thought about)
>it is incumbent on you *in every case, handled on its own merits* to
>determine why you "pick" one and ignore another.  I frankly think the
>whole effort misguided.  Reread Paul: "No doubt I am free to do anything."
>But Christians have a criterion to use for making our judgments on this,
>the Great Commandment of love for God and neighbor.  If you cannot go
>through Leviticus and decide each "command" there on that basis, then
>your own arbitrary selection from it is simply idiosyncracy.  In this
>context, it is remarkably offensive to say:
> 
>>I notice that the verse forbidding bestiality immediately follows the
>>verse prohibiting what appears to be homosexual intercourse.

(I am sorry you found this offensive.  It was not my intent to offend.  I was 
leading up to another point, which I discuss in more detail below.)

>Well, la-ti-da.  So what?  This is almost as slimey an argument as the
>one that homosexuality == rape.  I know of no one who argues seriously
>(though one can always find jokers) in "defense" of bestiality.  It is
>absolutely irrelevant and incomparable to the issues gay Christians *do*
>raise (which concern sexual activity within committed, consensual human
>adult realtionships), so that your bringing it up is no more relevant
>than the laws of kashrut.  If you cannot address the actual issues, you
>are being bloody dishonest in trailing this red herring in front of the
>world.  If *you* want to address bestiality, that is YOUR business, not
>mine.  And attempting to torpedo a serious issue by using what is in
>our culture a ridiculous joke shows that you have no interest in hearing
>us as human beings.  You want to dismiss us, and use the sleaziest means
>you can think of to do so.

I can see you have a revulsion for bestiality that far exceeds my distaste for 
homosexuality.  Certainly if I spoke about homosexuality the way you speak of 
bestiality, nobody would have any trouble labelling me a homophobe.  Let me ask 
this gently:  why are you so judgemental of other people's sexual preferences?  
What happened to "No doubt I am free to do anything"?  I think you have a 
serious double standard here.  When you describe a comparison between 
homosexuality and bestiality as "slimey" and "sleazy", you are making an 
implicit judgement that bestiality is perverted, sinful, disgusting, 
unnatural--in short, all the things that society once thought about 
homosexuality.  Not all people share your view.  You claim not to know any 
sincere zoophiles, but this does not mean that they do not exist.  They even 
have their own newsgroup:  alt.sex.bestiality.  Are you going to accuse them 
all of being mere "jokers"?

I notice you deleted the main point of my comment:  the fact that the only 
Biblical condemnations of bestiality occur in connection with the Levitical 
prohibitions against homosexuality.  While there are some New Testament 
passages that can arguably be taken as condemning homosexuality, there are none 
that condemn bestiality.  One of your main points seems to be that Christian 
homosexuality is acceptable due to the lack of any "clear" New Testament 
statements against it; if this is a valid argument, then should not Christian 
zoophilia be made that much more acceptable by the fact that the New Testament 
makes no reference, clear or unclear, to the subject at all?

I am quite serious here.  If I am going to accept homosexuality as Biblically 
acceptable on the basis of your arguments, then I am going to be fair and apply 
the same standards to everyone else's declared sexual preferences as well.  If 
the arguments you make for homosexuality can be applied to other sexual 
preferences as well, I'm going to apply them and see what comes up.  I'm not 
trying to "torpedo a serious issue" by using what you label "a ridiculous 
joke".  I posted a question about how we should interpret Biblical guidelines 
for Christian sexuality, and I don't think such a question is "irrelevant" in a 
group called "soc.religion.christian".  The Bible discusses homosexuality and 
bestiality together in the same context, and therefore I feel I have a good 
precedent for doing the same.

>Jesus and Paul both expound, very explictly and in considerable length,
>the central linch-pin of Christian moral thought: we are required to
>love one another, and ALL else depends on that.  Gay and lesbian Christ-
>ians challenge you to address the issue on those terms -- and all we get
>in return are cheap debate tricks attempting to side-track the issues.

I don't know whether it makes any difference, but for the record, this is not a 
side issue for me.  I believe loving one another includes not encouraging 
people to defile themselves, therefore it is of high importance to determine 
whether God regards certain sexual acts as defiling.  I can read in the New 
Testament that "God has joined together" heterosexual couples, and that the 
marriage bed is undefiled.  I can read in the Old Testament that homosexual 
intercourse and bestiality defile a person whether or not that person is under 
the Law.  If gay Christians can validly put aside the Old Testament standards 
of defilement, then I want to know so that I can fairly apply it to all the 
sexual practices that defiled a person in the old days.  I don't think it's 
right to take just bits and pieces of the Law and try and apply them to 
Christians today, e.g. bestiality still defiles you but homosexuality doesn't.  
That was pretty much what you said earlier, right?  You used different 
examples, but I think you said essentially the same thing about it being wrong 
to apply only certain parts of the Law to Christians. 

>Christians, no doubt very sincere ones, keep showing up here and in every
>corner of USENET and the world, and ALL they ever do is spout these same
>old verses (which they obviously have never thought about, maybe never
>even read), in TOTAL ignorance of the issues raised, slandering us with
>the vilest charges of child abuse or whatever their perfervid minds can
>manage to conjure up, tossing out red herrings with (they suppose) great
>emotional force to cause readers to dismiss our witness without even
>taking the trouble to find out what it is.

It was not my intent to stir up such an emotional reaction.  I personally don't 
get all that upset discussing alternatives to the monogamous heterosexual 
orientation; I'm afraid I naively assumed that others would have a similar 
attitude.  Please note that I have never intended to equate homosexuality with 
child abuse.  I have merely noted that, for all the lack of "clear" NT 
condemnation of homosexuality, there is an even greater lack of NT condemnation 
(or even mention) of bestiality, a practice which a number of people (e.g. on 
alt.sex.bestiality) consider to be their true sexual orientation.

>Such behavior should shame anyone who claims to have seen Truth in Christ.
>WHY, for God's precious sake, do you people quote irrelevant verses to
>condemn people you don't know and won't even take the trouble to LISTEN
>to BEFORE you start your condemnations?  Is that loving your neighbor?
>God forbid!  Is THAT how you obey the repeated commands to NOT judge or
>condemn others?  Christ and Paul spend ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more time in
>insisting on this than the half-dozen obscure words in Paul that you are
>SO bloody ready to take as license to do what God tells you NOT to do.
> 
>Why, for God's sake?
> [quote from John 3:17ff omitted for brevity]

This is an excellent question, and I pray that you will not treat it as a mere 
rhetorical question, but will genuinely seek to discover and understand the 
answer.  I recommend you begin with a little introspection into why you 
yourself have much the same attitude towards zoophilia.  Why do you find 
bestiality so repugnant that you regard it as slanderous to even mention in 
connection with other alternative sexual orientations?  Why do you not apply 
all the same verses about love and tolerance to zoophiles the way you apply 
them to homosexuals?

Is it because you automatically experience a subjective feeling of revulsion at 
the thought?  A lot of people have the same experience at the thought of 
homosexual intercourse.  Is it because you regard the practice as socially 
unacceptable?  A lot of people regard homosexuality as socially unacceptable.  
Do you feel that it violates the traditional Judeo-Christian standard of sexual 
morality?  Many people feel that homosexuality does.  Do you feel the Bible 
condemns it?  Many people think the Bible says more to condemn homosexuality 
than it does to condemn bestiality.  Why then do you think comparing bestiality 
with homosexuality is insulting to homosexuality?  If you can honestly answer 
this question, you will have come a long way towards understanding why many 
people feel the same way about homosexuality as you feel about bestiality.

Also please note that I am not in any sense condemning *people*.  I am merely 
pointing out that when I read the Bible I see certain sexual *practices* that 
the Bible appears to condemn, e.g. sex outside of marriage.  When I say I think 
adultery and pre-marital sex are sinful, do you take that as me failing to love 
my neighbor?  When you treat bestiality as something disgusting and 
unmentionable, are you disobeying "repeated orders not to judge or condemn 
others"?  When you say other Christians are guilty of sinning by condemning you 
and judging you, are you by that accusation making yourself guilty of the same 
offense?  Or are you and I both simply taking note about *practices* the Bible 
brands as sinful, and leaving the judgement of the *people* up to God?

>For long ages, we (many of us) have been confused by evil counsel from
>evil men and told that if we came to the light we would be shamed and
>rejected.  Some of us despaired and took to courses that probably *do*
>show a sinful shunning of God's light.  Blessed are those whose spirits
>have been crushed by the self-righteous; they shall be justified.
>
>However, we have seen the Truth, and the Truth is the light of humanity;
>and we now know that it is not WE who fear the light, but our enemies who
>fear the light of our witness and will do everything they can to shadow
>it with the darkness of false witness against us.
>-- 
>Michael L. Siemon               I say "You are gods, sons of the
>mls@panix.com                   Most High, all of you; nevertheless
>    - or -                      you shall die like men, and fall
>mls@ulysses.att..com            like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7

I'm not sure what you mean by the above two paragraphs.  If you mean that Jesus 
is the Truth, and that He accepts sinners, and does not reject them, then I 
agree.  If we were not sinners, then we would not *need* a Savior.  Our 
salvation in Christ, however, does not mean that sin is now irrelevant for us, 
and we can now do whatever we want.  Nor does Christ's grace mean that those 
who refer to sin as "sin" are being judgemental or intolerant.  I am speaking 
in general terms here, not specifically about homosexuality.  If the Bible 
calls something "sin", then it is not unreasonable for Christians to call it 
sin too.

As applied to Christian homosexuality, I think the only definitive authority on 
Christian sexuality is the Bible.  If you make a list of everything the Bible 
says on the subject of homosexual intercourse, I think you will find that every 
verse on the list is negative and condemning at worst, and "unclear" at best.  
The most pro-gay statement you could make about the list is that there is some 
dispute about the New Testament verses which many people interpret as 
condemning homosexual intercourse.  That is, from a gay perspective, the most 
positive thing you can say about the Bible's treatment of homosexuality is that 
some verses fail to clearly condemn it.  That's it.  Jesus declared all foods 
clean, the council at Jerusalem declared that Gentiles were not required to 
keep the ritual Law, but nobody ever reclassified homosexual intercourse from 
being an abomination deserving of death to being an accepted Christian 
practice.  You have verses describing homosexual intercourse as an abomination 
that defiles both Jews under the Law and Gentiles not under the Law, and you 
have some verses which are at best "not clear" but which some people believe 
*are* clear in their condemnation of homosexual behavior, and that's the sum 
total of what the Bible says about same-sex intercourse.

I can appreciate (from personal experience) your desire to have everything 
simple, cut-and-dried, black-and-white, what-I-want- is-ok, and 
those-who-oppose-me-are-wicked.  However, I do not think the Bible makes your 
case as definitively as you would like it to.  In fact, I don't believe it says 
anything positive about your case at all.  Yes, I know the verses about loving 
one another, and not judging one another, but that's not really the issue, is 
it?  You know and admit that there are still things that are sinful for 
Christians to do, since you say it is wrong for Christians to condemn you.  
Therefore, the issue is whether the Bible says homosexual intercourse is a sin.  
Even if you do challenge the clarity of the New Testament verses, you are still 
left with the fact that the only thing the Bible does say clearly about 
homosexual intercourse is that it is an abomination that defiles both those who 
are under the law and those who are not.

- Mark


[Actually I don't think the reaction to the comparision with
bestiality is based on bestialophobia.  I think what he regards as
slimey is the rhetorical approach of connecting homosexuality and
bestiality.  Most people who accept homosexuality take a radical
approach to the Law.  They regard all of Lev as not binding on
Christians.  The argument is that there's no way in the text to
separate bestiality, homosexuality, and wearing mixed fabrics.  This
does not mean that such people have no limits on their conduct, nor
does it mean that they accept bestiality.  It simply means that their
sexual ethics does not come from the Law, and particularly not from
Lev.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21749
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: David Rapier's Hebrew Quiz software

Is anybody using David Rapier's Hebrew Quiz software?  And can tell
me how to *space* when typing in the Hebrew?  (space bar doesn't work,
for me anyway...)  Email please; thanks.

Ken
-- 
miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
opinions are my own     

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21750
From: regy105@cantva.canterbury.ac.nz (James Haw)
Subject: Presentation Package for preaching?

Hi,
   What presentation package would you recommend for a Bible teacher?
   I've checked out Harwards Graphics for Windows. I think its more
suitable for sales people than for preachers or Bible teachers to present
an outline of a message.

   I'm looking for one that:
*  is great for overhead projector slides.
*  has or imports clip arts
*  works with Word for Windows or imports Word for Windows files.
*  works with inkjet printers
   If you know of any that meets part or all of the above, please let me know.
Please email your response as I don't keep up with the newsgroup.

Thanking you in advance,
James.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21751
From: tomault+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Galen Ault)
Subject: Re: Catholic doctrine of predestination

In article <May.13.02.28.48.1993.1471@geneva.rutgers.edu> creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps) writes:
>In article <May.11.02.37.03.1993.28114@athos.rutgers.edu> noye@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>   The Catholic doctrine of predestination does not exclude free will in
>any way.  Since God knows everything, He therefore knows everything that
>is going to happen to us.  We have free will, and are able to change
>what happens to us.  However, since God knows everything, He knows all
>the choices we will make "in advance" (God is not subject to time).  Too
>often arguments pit predestination against free will.  We believe in
>both.

Curiously enough, this subject has occupied a good bit of my prayer life
recently.  God's experience of time is so completely different from our own,
since He is both within and without it.  Using words like "foreknowledge"
and "predestination" are semantically incorrect when it comes to describing
God's perception of our action, because, for God, the beginning, living, and
ending of our lives are all the same.  Sort of.  For God, there is no "before"
when He did not know, so he could not have "foreknowledge" of our lives or
a time when he could have "predestined" our actions.  In fact, since our
understanding of things is so tied to our linear experience of time, I
would say that it is impossible for us to understand completely how our
free will interacts with God's control of the universe.

Tom Ault

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21752
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: Mary's assumption

>When Elizabeth greeted Mary, Elizabeth said something to the effect that
>Mary, out of all women, was blessed.  If so, it appears that this
>exactly places Mary beyond the sanctification of normal humanity.

I remember a couple of times when my ex-girlfriend said that she thought she
was blessed because of her son (whom she loved dearly). In fact, I've heard
people refer to someone as being blessed quite a few times. It's a common
figure of speech. Considering that Elizabeth was just another human, I think
this passage offers nothing towards justifying the "blessedness" of Mary. 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21753
From: REXLEX@fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Incarnation...Two minds of Christ..

In article <May.13.02.30.34.1993.1541@geneva.rutgers.edu>
tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:
>Nabil wrote:
>>5. Both families agree that He who wills and acts is always the one
Hypostasis
>>of the Logos Incarnate.
>
>Marhaba Nabil,
>
>If we posit two minds in Christ, the mind of the logos and the mind of the
>human Jesus, then we must admit two wills.  A mind is not a mind without a
>will.  I know this has been dealt with in past Church prnouncements, but there
>is a philosophical problem here that should examined.
>
>T. V. Morris argued that the Incarnation can be seen like this:
>
>      _____________		
>     (Mind of Logos)
>     (	 _______   )
>     (	(	)  )	Here, the mind of Jesus is circumsribed by God the
>     (	( Human	)  )	Son.  God the Son has complete access to the human
>     (  ( Mind	)  )	mind but the human mind only has access to the mind
>     (	(	)  )	of God the Son when the Son allows access.  This 
>     (	(_______)  )	explains why Jesus said even he did not know the 
>     (_____________)	time of the kingdom.	
>
>The ideas of a completely healthy version of split personality from
>the field of psychology, and the intriguing ideas of being in a dream, seeing
>yourself acting, knowing that is you, but also being omniscient.  
>

[I've explained it here before.  If you want the full document, ask me by mail
--Rex] 


   "Questions arise as we begin to think about LOGOS and what His inner
consciousness was composed of. We need to clarify the two natures of Christ
briefly.  The divine nature, which has existed eternally, did not undertake any
essential changes during the incarnation which would cause a conflict with the
attributes of God, the foremost of these being His immutability.  This would
mean that it remained impassable, that is, incapable of suffering and death,
free from ignorance and insusceptible to weakness and temptation.  In the realm
of the divine nature it is better to say that the Son of God became that which
was not absolute-and in Himself.  The result of the incarnation was that the
divine LOGOS could be ignorant and weak, could be tempted and suffer and die,
not in His divine nature, but by the derivation of His possession of a human
nature.
     This would mean that both the properties of the divine nature and the
human nature are properties of the person, and therefore ascribed to the
person. By this reason we can say that the person can be omnipotent,
omniscient, and omnipresent, yet at the same time be also a man of limited
power, knowledge, a man of sorrows, subject to human wants and miseries.  There
is, however, no penetration of one nature into the other.  Deity can no more
share the imperfections of humanity than humanity can share in the essential
perfection of the Godhead.
     We are not to assume that there is a double personality due to the
possession of the double natures.  Christ's human nature is impersonal, in that
it attains self-consciousness and self-determination in the personality of the
God-man.  We must now differentiate between the person and the nature of the
Man. Nature is defined:

"the distinguishing qualities or properties of something; the fundamental
character, disposition or temperament of a living being, innate and
unchangeable."

     Nature is then, in essence, the substance possessed in common, in as such
the Trinity have one nature.  There is also a common nature of mankind. 
Personality, on the other hand, is the separate subsistence of nature, with the
power of consciousness and will.  It is for this reason that the human nature
of Christ has not, nor ever had, a separate subsistence, that it is impersonal.
 LOGOS, the God-man, represents the principle of personality.  It is equally
important to see that self-consciousness and self-determination do not, as
such, belong to the nature.  It is for this reason that we can justifiably say
that Jesus did not have two consciousness or two wills, but rather one.  It is
theanthropic, an activity of the one personality which unites in itself the
human and the divine natures, being that neither the consciousness nor the will
are simply human or simply divine."


[The quotation given above is not identified, and it's not entirely
clear to me what position Loren is taking on it.  Just for clarity,
let me note that the view expressed in it is one of the classic
Christological heresies -- monothelitism.  That's the position that
Christ's two natures were not complete, in that there was only one
will.  In most cases (which I think includes this example), it was the
human will that was regarded as missing.

Normally people who talk about Christ's human nature as being
"impersonal" mean it in a somewhat more abstract sense.  That is, they
are using "person" as hypostatis, not in the usual English sense of
personality.  In this use, the doctrine is called "anhypostasia".
Personally I think anhypostasia is just a more sophisticated way of
denying that the Logos took on humanity fully.  However it has never
been formally ruled a heresy, and in fact has been held by influential
theologians both ancient and modern (e.g. Athanasius).  But the
quotation above appears to be going farther than even Athanasius went,
into the realm of the overtly heretical.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21754
From: REXLEX@fnal.gov
Subject: ARSENOKOITAI: Scroggs (#3)

[cont. Dr. James DeYoung; #3]

R. Scroggs

     Robin Scroggs has built upon the discussion of his predecessors and
suggested a new twist to the word.  Scroggs believes that arsenokoitai is a
"Hellenistic Jewish coinage, perhaps influenced by awareness of rabbinic
terminology."  The term is derived from Lev 18"22 & 20:13 where the LXX
juxtaposes the two words arsenos ("male") and koiten ("bed"), and represents
the Hebrew miskab zabar ("lying with a male").   Yet he believes that Paul did
not originate the term, but borrowed it from "circles of Hellenistic Jews
acquainted with rabbinic discussions" (180 n.14).  It was invented to avoid
"contact with the usual Greek terminology" (108).  If this is true, Scroggs
observes, it explains why the word does not appear in Greco-Roman discussions
of pederasty and why later patristic writers avoided it.  It was meaningless to
native-speaking Greeks (108).

     Scroggs takes the second part as the active word and the first word as the
object of the second part, thus differing from Boswell's "learned discussion"
(107).  Yet Scroggs understands the general meaning of "one who lies with a
male" to have a very narrow reference.  With the preceding malokoi (I Cor 6:9),
which Scroggs interprets as "the effeminate call-boy," arsenokoitai is the
active partner "who keeps the malakos of the 'mistress' or who hires him on
occasion to satisfy his sexual desires" (108).  Hence arsenokoitai does not
refer to homosexuality in general, to female homosexuality, or to the generic
model of pederasty.  It certainly cannot refer to the modern gay model, he
affirms (109).
     This is Scrogg's interpretation of the term in I Tim 1:10 also.  The
combination of pornoi ("fornicators"), arsenokoitai and andrapodistai ("slave
dealers") refers to "male prostitutes, males who lie [with them], and slave
dealers [who procure them]" (120).  It again refers to that  specific form of
pederasty "which consisted of the enslaving of boys as youths for sexual
purposes, and the use of these boys by adult males" (121).  Even "serious
minded pagan authors" condemned this form of pederasty.  He then uses these
instances of arsenokoitai in I Cor and I Tim to interpret the apparently
general condemnation of both female and male homosexuality in Rom 1. 
Consequently Paul "Must have had, could only have had pederasty in mind" (122).
We cannot know what Paul would have said about the "contemporary model of
adult/adult mutuality in same sex relation ships" (122).

     In relating these terms to the context and to contemporary ethical
concerns, Scroggs emphasizes the point that the specific items in the list of
vices in I Cor 6 have no deliberate, intended meaning in Paul.  The form and
function of the catalogue of vices are traditional and stereotyped.  Any
relationship between an individual item in the list and the context was usually
nonexistent.  He concludes that Paul "does not care about any specific item in
the lists" (104). 

     Both on the basis of the meaning of the terms and of the literary
phenomenon of a "catalogue of vices,"  Scroggs argues that the Scriptures are
"irrelevant and provide no help in the heated debate today" (129).  The "model
in today's Christian homosexual community is so different from the model
attacked by the NT" that "Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not
relevant to today's debate.  They should no longer be used in denominational
discussions about homosexuality, should in no way be a weapon to justify
refusal of ordination. . . " (127).

      REACTIONS TO THE NEW INTERPRETATIONS OF ARSENOKOITAI

D. Wright

     In more recent years the positions of Bailey, Boswell, and Scroggs have
come under closer scrutiny.   Perhaps the most critical evaluation of Boswell's
view is that by David Wright.  In his thorough article, Wright points out
several shortcomings of Boswell's treatment of arsenokoitai.   He faults
Boswell for failing to cite, or citing inaccurately, all the references to Lev
18:22 and 20:13 in the church fathers, such as Eusebius, the "Apostolic
Constitutions,"  Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Origen (127-28). 
Boswell has not considered seriously enough the possibility that the term
derives either its form or its meaning from the Leviticus passages (129).  This
is significant, for if the term is so derived, it clearly refutes Boswell's
claim that the first half of the word (arseno-) denotes not the object but the
gender of the second half (-koitai).  The LXX must mean "a male who sleeps with
a male," making arseno- the object.

     Wright also faults Boswell's claims regarding linguistic features of the
term, including suggested parallels (129).  Though Boswell claims that
compounds with arseno- employ it objectively and those with arreno- employ it
as an adjective, Wright believes that the difference between the two is merely
one of dialectical diversity: "No semantic import attaches to the difference
between the two forms" (131).  Wright believes that in most compounds in which
the second half is a verb or has a verbal force, the first half denotes its
object and where "the second part is substantival, the first half denotes its
gender" (132). 

     It is with Boswell's treatment of the early church fathers that Wright
takes special issue, because the former has failed to cite all the sources. 
For example, Aristides' Apology (c. AD 138) probably uses arrenomaneis,
androbaten, and arsenokoitias all with the same basic meaning of male
homosexuality (133), contrary to Boswell's discussion.  Boswell fails to cite
Hippolytus (Refut. Omn. Haer. 5:26:22-23) and improperly cites Eusebius and the
Syriac writer Bardensanes.  The latter uses Syriac terms that are identical to
the Syriac of I Cor 6:9 and I Tim 1:10 (133-34). 

     Next Wright shows how the early church fathers use arsenokoitai in
parallel with paidophthoria referring to male homosexuality with teenagers, the
dominant form of male homosexuality among the Greeks (134).  Sometimes this
parallelism occurs in the threefold listings of moicheia ("adultery"), porneia
("fornication"), and paidophthoria, with arsenokoitai replacing paidophthoris
(136).  Clement of Alexandria in Protr. 10:108:5 cites the second table of the
Ten Commandments as "You shall not kill, ou moicheuseis ("you shall not commit
adultery"), ou paidophthoreseis ("you shall not practice homosexuality with
boys"), you shall not steal. . ." (150 n. 43).

     Another occurrence of arsenokoitein ("commit homosexuality") exists in the
Sibylline Oracles 2:71-73.  It may be, Wright observes, that the word was
coined by a Jewish pre-Christian writer in a Hellenistic setting represented by
Or.Sib., book 2 (137-38).

     Wright also discusses uses of arsenokoitai in Rhetorius (6th c.) who drew
upon the first century AD writer Teucer, in Macarius (4th-5th c.), and in John
the Faster (d. 595) (139-40).  The last in particular bears the idea of
homosexual intercourse, contrary to Boswell.

     Wright next replies to Boswell's contention that the term would not be
absent "from so much literature about homosexuality if that is what it denoted
(140-41).  Wright points out that it should not be expected in writers prior to
the first century AD since it did not exist before then, that the Greeks used
dozens of words and phrases to refer to homosexuality, that some sources (e.g.
Didache) show no acquaintance with Paul's letters or deliberately avoid citing
Scripture, and that Boswell neglects citing several church fathers (140-41). 

     Boswell's treatment of Chrysostom in particular draws Wright's attention
(141-44).  Boswell conspicuously misrepresents the witness of Chrysostom,
omitting references and asserting what is patently untrue.  Chrysostom gives a
long uncompromising and clear indictment of homosexuality in his homily on Rom
1:26.  Boswell has exaggerated Chrysostom's infrequent use of the term.  Wright
observes that Boswell has "signally failed to demonstrate any us of
arsenokoites etc. in which it patently does not denote male homosexual
activity" (144).  It is infrequent because of its relatively technical nature
and the availability of such a term as paidophthoria that more clearly
specified the prevailing form of male homosexuality in the Greco-Roman world. 

     Wright also surveys the Latin, Syriac, and Coptic translations of I Tim
and I Cor.  All three render arsenokoitai with words that reflect the meaning
"homosexual" i.e., they understand arseno- as the object of the second half of
the word (144-45).  None of these primary versions supports Boswell's limited
conclusion based on them.

     Wright concludes his discussion with a few observations about the
catalogues of vices as a literary form.  He believes that such lists developed
in late Judaism as Hellenistic Jews wrote in clear condemnation of
homosexuality in the Greek world.  This paralleled the increased concern on the
part of moral philosophers over homosexual indulgence.  The term came into
being under the influence of the LXX (145) so that writers spoke "generally of
male activity with males rather than specifically categorized male sexual
engagement with paides" (146).  If arsenokoitai and paidophthoria were
interchangeable, it is because the former encompassed the latter (146).

     In summary, Wright seeks to show that arsenokoitai is a broad term meaning
homosexuality and arises with Judaism.   The views of Boswell, Scroggs, and
others who limit the term to "active male prostitutes" or pederasty are without
significant support from linguistic and historical studies.  

[Next: the questioning of Wrights position by William Peterson.  After that, we
get into the "good" stuff of historical & linguistic studies.  THis will
include "Symposium" by Plato.  If there is any doubt as to the modern
understanding of homosexuality being understood or contemmplated at the time of
Paul, this will certainly clear things up.  Also we will review Paul's use of
Lev18-20 in the NT and how, as for him, 1) the Law was fulfilled, but not done
away with, 2) Lev 18-20 was the universal and the following chapters the
general.  Those who put forth that the OT no longer holds true today in our
culture, should stick around for this one.]
___________________________
13 R. Scroggs, THe New Testament and Homosexuality (Phil: 1983) 86, 107-8. 
Independently we came to the same conclusion.  Apparently the connection is
made in E.A. Sophocles, Greek Lexicon of the Roman & Byzantine Periods (from
146BC to AD 1100).
14   See discussion, 101-4.  He says the same thing about Paul's language in
Rom 1:26-27 (128).  But this is doubtful.  See the more cautious words of P.
Zaas, "I Cor 6.9ff: Was Homosexuality Condoned in the Corinthian Church? SBLASP
17 (1979):205-12.  He observes that the words moixai, malakoi, and arsenokoitai
were part of Jewish anti-Gentile polemic.  Yet Paul's wors at the end of the
vice list, "and such were some of you," indicate that "Paul is addressing real
or potential abuses of his ethical message, not citing primitive tradition by
rote" (210).  Wright disputes Zaas' attempt to associate the term with idolatry
(147).
15  On Boswell's treatment of Rom 1:26-7, the article by R.B. Hays, "Relations
Natural and Unnatural"  A Response to John Boswell's Exegesis of Romans 1," JRE
14/1 (Spring 1986): 184-215, is an excellent critique.
16  D.F. Wright, "Homosexuals or Prostitutes?  The Meaning of ARSENOKOITAI (I
Cor 6:9, I Tim 1:10), VC 38 (1984):125-53.
17  In an unpublished paper, Henry Mendell, "ARSENOKOITAI: Boswell on Paul,"
effectively refutres Boswell's claims regarding the philology of arsenokoitai. 
He finds the meaning to be general, "a male who has sex with a male" (4-11).  
18  Wright's endnotes (148-49) list additional sources in the church fathers.
19   We also have noticed the same tendency by Boswell to fail to cite all the
references to Sodom and sodomy in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.  See  J.B.
DeYoung, "A Critique of Prohomosexual Interpretations of the OT Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha," BSac 146/588 (1990):437-53.
20   In light of the claim made by Boswell that the infrequency of arsenokoitai
points to a meaning lacking homosexual significance, Wright asks pertinently
"why neither Philo nor Josephus use  paidofthoria, nor Josephus paiderastia,
and why . . Clement did not use the latter and Chrysostom the former?"  (152 n.
71)  In a more recent article, "Homosexuality: The Relevance of the Bible," EvQ
61 (1989):291-300, Wright reiterates these same points.  Paul shows a
"remarkable originality" in extending the OT ethic to the church (300).

 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21755
From: khan0095@nova.gmi.edu (Mohammad Razi Khan)
Subject: Re: Mary's assumption

David.Bernard@central.sun.com (Dave Bernard) writes:

>>I also don't see the _necessity_ of saying the Holy Parents were some-
>>how sanctified beyond normal humanity: it sounds like our own inability
>>to grasp the immensity of God's grace in being incarnated through an or-
>>dinary human being.  


>When Elizabeth greeted Mary, Elizabeth said something to the effect that
>Mary, out of all women, was blessed.  If so, it appears that this
>exactly places Mary beyond 


Whoa, dude I don't see the jump you made.
		She was blessed, I'll give you that much.
		What do you mean, she was placed "beyond" 





the sanctification of normal humanity.
-- 
Mohammad R. Khan                /    khan0095@nova.gmi.edu
After July '93, please send mail to  mkhan@nyx.cs.du.edu
If responses to this letter/post bounce, e-mail me at the nyx account.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21756
From: u2i02@seq1.cc.keele.ac.uk (RJ Pomeroy)
Subject: Re: Catholic doctrine of predestination

From article <May.13.02.28.48.1993.1471@geneva.rutgers.edu>, by creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps):
>    The Catholic doctrine of predestination does not exclude free will in
> any way.  Since God knows everything, He therefore knows everything that
> is going to happen to us.  We have free will, and are able to change
> what happens to us.  However, since God knows everything, He knows all
> the choices we will make "in advance" (God is not subject to time).  Too
> often arguments pit predestination against free will.  We believe in
> both.

Just a little issue of semantics:

Would it not be better, then to call it "pre-determination"?!

--

   RRRRR        OO       BBBBB          :
   R    R     OO  OO     B    B         :
   R     R   OO    OO    B    BB        :          Robert Pomeroy
   R   RR    O      O    B    B         :
   RRRR      O      O    BBBBB          :        u2i02@keele.ac.uk
   R  R      O      O    B    B         :
   R   R     OO    OO    B    BB        :              1993
   R    R     OO  OO     B    B         :
   R     R      OO       BBBBB          :



  My address }
    during   }    Hawthorns Hall, KEELE, Staffordshire, ST5 5AE. England.
  term-time. }


                            ________
                           /        \ /
                          <  Jn3:16  X
                           \________/ \

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21757
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: Re: Catholic doctrine of predestination

(Stephen A. Creps) writes:

	  The Catholic doctrine of predestination does not exclude free
   will in any way.  Since God knows everything, He therefore knows
   everything that is going to happen to us.  We have free will, and
   are able to change what happens to us.  However, since God knows
   everything, He knows all the choices we will make "in advance" (God
   is not subject to time).  Too often arguments pit predestination
   against free will.  We believe in both.

That last sentence of Steve's is an important one to remember.

There are certain things in the Catholic religion that cannot be
completely comprehended by a human being.  Were this not the case, it
would be good evidence that the religion was man-made.

In the case of predestination, you have to reconcile two things that
would at first appear to be irreconcilable: the sovereignty of God's
will over all things, and man's free will in deciding his own fate.
Catholics believe in both!  But that doesn't mean that anyone has come
up with a pat reconciliation...

I have often thought that Goedel's famous theorem has applicability to
Catholic dogma, at least in an analogous sense: there are things that
are true that cannot be proved.  God's intellect is far above ours.
There are many truths that we will never be able to understand.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21758
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: Mary, "blessed among women"

Dave Bernard writes:

 > When Elizabeth greeted Mary with the words: "Blessed art thou
 > among women" (Luke 1:42), it appears that this places Mary
 > beyond the sanctification of normal humanity.

But Deborah says (Judges 5:24):

 > Blessed among women shall be Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite,
 > Blessed above all women in the tents.

It can doubtless be taken that Jael's slaying of Sisera was a type
of Mary's victory over sin. But even if we take Deborah's words as
applying prophetically or symbolically to Mary, they must still be
applicable literally to Jael.  We may well take them to mean that
God used her as a part of His plan for the deliverance of His
people, and that she has this in common with Mary.  But we have no
reason to suppose that they mean that she was sinless, and thus no
reason to take the like expression applied to Mary as proof that she
was sinless.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21759
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: Relevant Subject Lines

A recent post bears the subject line:

 > Re: Serbian genocide work of God?

The text contains 80 lines devoted to a defence of the doctrine of
predestination as applied to the salvation of individuals. There is
then a five-line post-script on the Balkans. It is natural and easy
to keep the Subject line of the post that one is replying to, but
when the focus shifts, keeping the same Subject can cause confusion.

This is intended as a general request. The post mentioned is just
the handiest example.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21760
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: ARSENOKOITAI: NT Meaning of

Meta-exegesis: Conviction of Sin,  part II

Let me return to the question, stipulating that Paul meant his use of
_arseonkoitai_ to refer more or less exactly to the Levitical prohibition
of male-male sex.  In order to bring out the problems most clearly, I'll
also stipulate (what I think is far less plausible) that Paul coined the
term for this usage.  The question I want to turn to is what that would
mean for Paul's readers and for later Christians.  This should be shorter
than my last note, as we will see that this question rapidly confronts us
with some of the major divisions within Christ's body, and I am not trying
to open the gates for flames across any of the terrible chasms that
separate any of us from our fellow Christians.  My own biases (loosely
characterizable as "liberal") will be evident, but I am not grinding an
axe here, so much as trying to get all parties to see that it may be HARD
to reach "closure" when the issues involved strike at the heart of what we
each, in our own different ways, see as crucial to the Gospel of Christ.

So; stipulating Paul's intent, the immediate question is: HOW CAN HIS
READERS UNDERSTAND this intent?  And following on that question, there is
a second one: WHAT IS OUR PROPER ACTION if we *do* manage to understand him?

Since Paul gives not a single clue about his meaning in the text of 1st
Corinthians, there are two "positive" answers and one "negative" to this
question:

+	a.  Paul (or Apollos, or someone) in the apostolic community has
	    conveyed to the Corinthians the then-traditional Jewish condem-
	    nation of homosexual behavior, and Paul expects them to be
	    sufficiently well-tutored by this tradition that he needs no
	    futher explanation.  [I should note that there is no evidence
	    in the letter, or in 2 Corinthians for such a supposition :-)]

+	b.  The Spirit will teach us what Paul means (or, if not Paul,
	    what God means "behind" Paul's inspired word-choice.)

-	c.  We *don't* know, and cannot guess to within any better pre-
	    cision here than, for comparison, in the parallel use by Paul,
	    in the same passage of the word  _pleonektai_ ("those who have
	    more" -- if you think that _areseonkoitai_ is "obvious" from
	    its roots, try cutting your teeth on *this* word!  The NEB
	    translates it as "grabbers") or even _methusoi_ ("drunkards"
	    -- at least this has the advantage of being a common insult,
	    so that at least there is *some* hint as to its meaning!)

The three positions more or less -- if I can be allowed some exaggeration
for the sake of argument -- define a classical Catholic attitude towards
tradition, one form of Protestant _sola scriptura_, and a liberal/critical
demand for evidence.  All three positions have strengths and weaknesses.

_ad_ a:	It is unquestionable that the gospel was preached in and by the
	community of Christ's disciples and their successors, and that
	our NT scripture itself emerges from this communal tradition.
	But it's also the case that we know little or nothing about this
	tradition until almost a century after Paul, which is to say that
	we have access to the tradition only after several generations of
	possibly confused transmission.  The scripture is itself our only
	documentation of the tradition in the critical era.

_ad_ b:	If we are NOT born of water and Spirit [to revert to John in an
	attempt to explain Paul :-)], then we have no more hope of under-
	standing the gospel than Nicodemus had; neither the traditions of
	men nor the vain elevation of our own reason can prevent the Spirit
	from blowing where it will -- the Paraclete is a kamikaze.  But
	the downside of Protestant belief in the efficacy of the Spirit
	as our guide in scripture is that the wing of Protestantism that
	takes this most seriously is also the most fragmented over divergent
	understanding supposedly derived from the "clear" Word of God.

		[Note: classical Lutheran, Calvinist and Anglican thought
		constrains scripture to be read *within* tradition, even
		while reserving judgment against tradition out of scripture;
		the more bizarre forms of "I will read Scripture my way"
		are primarily a fringe aspect of "cultic" Protestantism.]

	The main problem with this approach is that there is apparently no
	means for ONE person to convey to another what that one may feel
	*is* teaching received from the Spirit; and history shows incredible
	conflict between Christians on this point, each in his own mind
	"convinced" that he is led by the Spirit.  No one can seriously
	urge point b without SOME sense of its potential for setting Christian
	against Christian.  To what purpose?

_ad_ c:	The critical approach has the distinct advantage that when it can
	reach a conclusion, it can lay out the data in a way which is open
	to all.  The weakness is an obvious corollary: this is not usually
	possible. :-)

	[If I may say a word here, out of my own already acknowledged bias;
	one complaint against critical methodology is that it "dissolves"
	faith -- but surely a "faith" that cannot honestly face the evalu-
	ation of evidence has problems which mere theology is helpless to
	address.]

Anyway, there is a serious and unfortunate possibility of schism between
"liberal" and "conservative" positions, mostly on the basis of extreme
zealots of positions b and c.  A Catholic sense of authority and tradition
tends to constrain arguments of b contra c to secondary position, so that
despite horrendous strains Rome is NOT as likely to find these issues as
ultimately divisive as the Protestant world will.  And Anglicans will (I
predict) muddle through on the _via media_, attempting to give each position
its due, but no more than its due. 

Second question.  Suppose tradition tells us, and lots of "spiritual"
Christians tell us, and critical thought at least admits as possible,
that Paul is refering to a flat, universal Levitical prohibition against
male-male sex.  What then?  Again, we can abdicate our personal responsi-
bility to tradition, and let it dictate the answer.  But it's precisely
where inherited traditions are NOT questioned that they're most dangerous.

We have EXAMPLES of Christ questioning the Pharisees and THEIR use of
tradition (despite his urging, in Matthew 23:2 that we are to heed them).
We have EXAMPLES of Peter, and more radically still Paul, jettisoning the
traditions that THEY were led by the Spirit to call into question.  Jesus
and Peter and Paul do not so much "throw out" tradition as subject it to
radical criticism, on a couple of very basic grounds:

     "the weightier demands of the law: justice and mercy and good faith"
							(Matthew 23:23)
and  "On these two commandments [love God & neighbor] hand the whole Law,
      and the Prophets, also."
							(Matthew 22:40)

If there is a fundamental (because derived from Christ) validity in the
challenge to *some* traditions, a validity that led the first generation
to go so far as to waive application of the Torah to gentile converts
(vastly beyond anything that is directly deducible from Jesus' reported
words and deeds), it signifies to me a certain failure of the imagination
to *postulate* that *only* the traditions that we have specific challenges
against are in fact open to challenge.

All traditions passed *through* men are traditions *of* men.  That God may
lead us even so, that these traditions are a source of our spiritual
instruction I will freely grant.  But tradition is inherently human, and
inherently corruptible (and given the Fall, corrupt).  Nothing in it is
immune to challenge, when the Spirit shows us a failure in justice, mercy
and good faith.  Nothing may ultimately stand unless it DOES follow from
love of God and love of neighbor.

I am perfectly willing to grant that I could be blind to my own sin.  That
the Spirit may have taught another what She refuses to teach me (or I am
too dense to learn).  That tradition *might* have value here.  But what I
*know* of tradition is that on one occasion, some superstitious Christians
appealed to Justinian after an earthquake in Asia Minor, and scapegoated
"sodomites" as the "cause" of the earthquake, so that legislation was
passed making homosexual behavior a capital offense.  If that is in
accord with the gospel of Christ, then I am no Christian.  That is human
tradition at its most hateful and vicious.  And I see nothing all that much
different in all the unbidden eruptions onto USENET of people who are quick
to condemn but slow to understand.  If that is the leading of the Spirit,
then I want no part of it.  But what I have found in obedience to the Lord
is that I am, myself, TOTALLY dependent on the witness of other Christians,
for the truth that lives in the Body of Christ.

And I say to all who doubt that gay Christianity is from God what Gamaliel
said to doubting Pharisees who would have suppressed the earliest Church:

	"be careful how you deal with these people...  If this enterprise,
	this movement of theirs, is of human origin it will break up of
	its own accord; but if it does in fact come from God you will not
	only be unable to destroy them, but you might find yourselves
	fighting against God."
							[Acts 5:36...39] 

All I ask is that you listen to your traditions, and read your scriptures
with a mind and soul OPEN to the Spirit, and to the past history of our
first Christian witnesses' willingness to challenge tradition and OTHER
readings of scripture -- though read with all the authority of scribes and
rabbis -- and a submission to the declaration that all must depend on the
love of God and neighbor.  Then, study the evidence; learn the history of
Christians oppressing Christians out of their traditions and eagerness to
judge where Jesus and Paul tell us NOT to judge.  And let the witness of
the Spirit in the lives of your fellow Christians -- including those who
are NOT of your preference in theology -- guide you towards God's truth.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		I say "You are gods, sons of the
mls@panix.com			Most High, all of you; nevertheless
    - or -			you shall die like men, and fall
mls@ulysses.att..com		like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7

[There's a certain ambiguity in your discussion of position (a), as to
whether you're speaking of tradition in Paul's time or ours.  I think
there are two ways to use tradition.  One is to say that when Paul and
his readers share a tradition, it makes sense to interpret his words
in the context of that shared tradition.  That's what makes me think
that these arguments over words turn out to be silly.  We know that
Paul came out of a background that was rather Puritanical on sex.
Everything else he says on sex is consistent with that background.
The tone of his remarks on homosexuality in Rom 1 is consistent with
that background.  Even if the words in the sin lists aren't the most
general terms for homosexual activity (and it seems to me that there's
some evidence that they are not), they are just one more piece of
evidence for something we would probably be willing to believe with no
evidence at all -- that Paul shares the common Jewish rejection of
homosexuality.

But when you identify (a) with the Catholic position, that's rather a
horse of a different color.  The Catholic position involves a
continuing church tradition.  Arguments specific to that tradition
might be (1) we can get guidance on how to interpret Paul's original
meaning from tradition, e.g. the way the Church Fathers interpreted
him, and (2) we gain confidence that his prohibitions still apply in
our time because of the universal judgement of the church between his
time and ours.  I think this is a somewhat different use of tradition.
A radical Protestant might be willing to use known 1st Cent.
tradition to illuminate Paul's original meaning, but not use the
Catholic position to answer the question of what our own attitude to
homosexuality should be.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21761
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse

Dishonest money dwindles away, but he who gathers money little by little makes
it grow. 
Proverbs 13:11

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21762
From: mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server)
Subject: Secret ceremonies (was Re: Mormon Temples)

shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker) writes:
>In article <May.11.02.38.41.1993.28297@athos.rutgers.edu> 
>mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server) writes:
> 
>>I don't necessarily object to the secrecy but I do question it, since I see 
>no 
>>Biblical reason why any aspect of Christian worship should involve secrecy.  
> 
>Early in Church history, the catechumens were dismissed prior to the 
>celebration 
>of the Eucharist.  It WAS secret, giving rise to the rumors that Christians
>were cannibals and all sorts of perverse claims.  The actions were considered
>too holy to be observed by non-Christians, as well as potentially dangerous
>for the individual Christian who might be identified.
> 
>Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com) [.sig deleted for brevity]

Larry -

Thanks for the reply, but this isn't quite the same thing.  Like I said before, 
I can understand why non-Christians would be denied *access* to holy 
ceremonies, but the ceremony itself (communion) was not secret.  In fact, all 
four gospels record the first "breaking of the bread" in some detail.  
Communion was a fellowship meal, and it was (and still should be, in my 
opinion) inappropriate to invite those who did not share in the fellowship of 
the Body of Christ.  The fact that unbelievers, denied access to these communal 
meals, began to imagine all sorts of secret and debased rituals during 
communion does not by any means imply that the early Christians were in fact 
hiding shameful things from the general public.  In fact, I think if you read 
some of the early church fathers, you will find that they were not at all 
bashful about describing what went on during communion.  That's why it seems 
funny to me when Mormons, who claim to be the only true restoration of 1st 
century Christianity, insist on hiding certain rituals on the grounds that they 
are "too sacred."

- Mark

[Actually, that's not quite the case.  John omits the central elements
of the Last Supper.  His Gospel is full of symbolism of bread and
wine.  But the actual story isn't there.  Some people think he has
omitted some of the details because they were not talked about in
public in his community.  There is also evidence that some aspects of
baptismal practice were kept secret. See Morton Smith's "Secret
Gospel" -- I don't agree with his lurid speculations on what the
secret practices actually were, but there does seem to be some
evidence that Mark omitted certain details because they were 
inappropriate for publication.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21763
From: u2i02@seq1.cc.keele.ac.uk (RJ Pomeroy)
Subject: Re: Satan kicked out of heaven: Biblical?

From article <May.14.02.11.36.1993.25219@athos.rutgers.edu>, by tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard):

> Hi Eddie, many people believe the battle described in Rev 12:7-12
> describes the casting out of Satan from heaven and his fall to the
> earth.
> Shalom,                             Len Howard


Also - check out Jude.  Plus, if you have a concordance handy, check
out all the references to 'stars'.  These are generally taken to mean
angels, I believe.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21764
From: jsledd@ssdc.sas.upenn.edu (James Sledd)
Subject: Re: Dreams and out of body incidents

In article <May.14.02.10.02.1993.25119@athos.rutgers.edu> alisonjw@spider.co.uk (Alison J Wyld) writes:
>From: alisonjw@spider.co.uk (Alison J Wyld)
>PS. Just to make it clear, I don't do ( and have never tried ) OOBEs.
>    I tend to think they are off limits for Christians.

WHY?

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21765
From: jrmo@volta.att.com
Subject: Re: What WAS the immaculate conception

In article <May.14.02.11.19.1993.25177@athos.rutgers.edu> seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson) writes:
>In article <May.9.05.39.52.1993.27456@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes:
>[referring to Mary]
>>She was immaculately conceived, and so never subject to Original Sin,
>>but also never committed a personal sin in her whole life.  This was
>>possible because of the special degree of grace granted to her by God.
>
>I have quite a problem with the idea that Mary never committed a sin.
>Was Mary fully human?  If it is possible for God to miraculously make 
>a person free of original sin, and free of committing sin their whole
>life, then what is the purpose of the Incarnation of Jesus?  Why can't
>God just repeat the miracle done for Mary to make all the rest of us
>sinless, without the need for repentance and salvation and all that?
>
>concept of Mary's sinlessness seems to me to be at odds with the
>rest of Christian doctrine as I understand it.

It's always a two-way street.  God gave her the grace to avoid sin,
thus when she was visited by Gabriel, she gave her fiat, her total
acceptance of God's will.  This fiat summarizes why Catholics regard 
her as the highest of all humans, that God chose her and that she
accepted.  Knowing this in advance, we extrapolate that she was
neither stained by nor subject to original sin.

God did create us all miraculously free to choose or not choose to sin.
"Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof and the grace of God to
command it."  This amount of grace was precisely determined by God
to be the amount required to do what God asked of her.  The grace
given to each of us is also enough, but we do not always choose
to accept it.  We also believe Jesus was fully human and never
sinned.  

God could have created a much better person than myself, one who
always chose the right thing, yet he created me instead, despite
my flaws.  He proves he loves me as I am, continually drawing me
towards perfection.  For whatever purpose he has for me, he has
confidence that I will accomplish it.  If I ask God to repeat his
miraculous creation of the mother of his son, where will that leave me?

Joe Moore

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21766
From: I25LG@cunyvm.bitnet
Subject: HAROLD CAMPING

Have any of you read Harold Camping's book "1994?"? It's about
biblical evidenc that points to September of 1994 as the probable time
of Christ's second coming It's a very informative book and a must read
for all Christians.  You can get i at your local bookstore for only
$14.95.

Peace!

[no! not again!  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21767
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Contradiction in Mormonism

There is a contradiction related to the moral issue of polygamy in the
Mormon writings.  In the book in the book of Mormon called the book of 
Jacob, Joseph Smith wrote that it was an abomination to God for 
David and Solomon to have many wives.  Later, when Joseph Smith wrote
the Doctrines and Covenants (possibly when polygamy was becoming an
issue in his personal life) he wrote that it was not an abomination for
David to have many wives.  How do Mormons answer this contradiction?

Link Hudson.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21768
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: the Imprecatory Psalms

Paul Fortmann submitted a sermon by Peter Hammond on PRAYING FOR
JUSTICE that spoke of the positive value of the Imprecatory
(Cursing) Psalms.

In this connection, I recommend to the membership the book
REFLECTIONS ON THE PSALMS, by C S Lewis, with special reference to
the chapter on "Cursing in the Psalms."

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21769
From: cctr114@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Rea)
Subject: Re: Portland earthquake

Bill Rea (cctr114@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz) wrote:
> His theology clashed with the theology of the
> local prophets. It was out of a very deep understanding of the Mosaic
> covenant and an actute awareness of international events that Jeremiah
> spoke his prophesies. The "judgement prophesies" were deeply loaded with
> theological meaning.

> In my opinion, both the Portland earthquake prophesy and the David Wilkerson
> "New York will burn" prophesy are froth and bubble compared to the majestic
> theological depths of the Jeremiah prophesies.

Perhaps one other thing I should have added is that Jeremiah's prophesies
about the coming destruction of Jerusalem would have been understood by
the people of that time to be a full frontal assault on their understanding
of their relationship with the Lord. Today the if the general populace 
hears "prophesies" like the Portland earthquake or New York will burn
ones, they are unlikely to see it in the context of their relationship
(or lack of it) with the Lord. They are far more likely to think that
they are just the result of the fevered imaginations of a religious nutter.
That is one reason why I am always deep;y suspicious of bald judgement
prophesies without any explanation of the reasons for the judgement. This
doesn't have to be long winded. To see a relatively modern example look
at Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural speech. The relevant section is
below. It is this type of spiritual insight which was missing in both
prophesies posted here.

--- Excerpt from Abraham Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural speech----

Both read the same Bible, and pray 
to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem 
strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing 
their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not
that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not he answered that of neither
has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. ''Woe unto the
world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to
that man by whom the offence cometh" If we shall suppose that American 
Slavery is one of those offences which, in the provdence of God, must needs come
but which, having  continued through  His appointed time, He now wills to remove
and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to
those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein an departure from
those divine attribute which the believers in a Living God always  ascribe 
to Him ? Fondly do we hope - fervently do we pray - that this mighty 
scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, 
until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of 
unrequited  toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn  with 
the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three 
thousand  years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, 
are true and righteous altogether"
  With malice toward none; with charity for all;  with firmness in the right, 
as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we 
are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have 
borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan - to do all which 
may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, 
and with all nations.


--
                                                                     ___
Bill Rea                                                            (o o)
-------------------------------------------------------------------w--U--w---
| Bill Rea, Computer Services Centre, | E-Mail   b.rea@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| University of Canterbury,           | or     cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| Christchurch, New Zealand           | Phone (03)-642-331 Fax (03)-642-999 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21770
From: cokely@nb.rockwell.com (Scott Cokely)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In <May.13.02.30.39.1993.1545@geneva.rutgers.edu> noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes) writes:

>In article <May.11.02.39.05.1993.28328@athos.rutgers.edu> carlson@ab24.larc.nasa.gov (Ann Carlson) writes:

>[bible verses ag./ used ag. homosexuality deleted]

>>Anyone who thinks being gay and Christianity are not compatible should 
>>check out Dignity, Integrity, More Light Presbyterian churches, Affirmation,
>>MCC churches, etc.  Meet some gay Christians, find out who they are, pray
>>with them, discuss scripture with them, and only *then* form your opinion.

>also check out the episcopal church -- although by no means all
>episcopalians are sympathetic to homosexual men and women, there
>certainly is a fairly large percentage (in my experience) who are.  i
>am good friends with an episcopalian minister who is ordained and
>living in a monogamous homosexual relationship.  this in no way
>diminishes his ability to minister -- in fact he has a very
>significant ministry with the gay and lesbian association of his
>community, as well as a very significant aids ministry.

This may sound argumentative, but do the pro-homosexual crowd give the
same support to church members that are involved in incestuous relationships?
If we do a little substitution above, we get:

"although by no means all episcopalians are sympathetic to incestuous
men and women, there certainly is a fairly larget percentage (in my
experience) who are.  I am good friends with an episcopalian minister
who is ordained and living in a monogamous incestual relationship.  This
in no way diminishes his ability to minister -- in fact he has a very
significant ministry with the Incest association of his community..."

Do the same standards apply?  If not, why not?  And while we're in the
ballpark, what about bestiality?  I can't recall offhand if there are
any direct statements in the Bible regarding sex with animals; does that
activity have more or less a sanction?

Please avoid responses such as "you're taking this to extremes".  I would
guess that a disproportionate percentage of the inerrant Bible community
views homosexual acts with distaste in the same manner that society at
large views incest.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Cokely       | (714) 833-4760   scott.cokely@nb.rockwell.com		    
"They came for the Davidians, but I did not speak up because
 I was not a Davidian.  Then they came for me..."  Opinions expressed
are mine and do not represent those of Rockwell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


[ Obviously you can replace homosexuality in the above statement by
anything from murder to sleeping late.  That doesn't mean that the
same people would accept those substitutions.  The question is whether
the relationships involved do in fact form an appropriate vehicle to
represent Christ's relationship to humanity.  This is at least
*partly* an empirical question.  

In some cases types of human relationship have been rejected because
over time they always seem to lead to trouble.  I think that's the
case with slavery.  One can argue that in theory, if you follow Paul's
guidelines, it's possible to have Christian slaveholders.  But in
practice, over a period of time, most people came to the conclusion
that nobody can really have that degree of control over another and
not abuse it.  

The message you were responding to was asking you to look at the
results from Christian communities that endorse homosexuality.  (Note:
Christian homosexuals, not people you see on the news advocating some
extremist agenda).  You may not want to base your decision completely
on that kind of observation, but I would argue that it's at least
relevant.  You can't answer the request by asking why you shouldn't
look at the Incest association, because in fact there is no such
association.  If there were, it might be reasonable for you to look at
it too.  Of course that doesn't mean that the results of all such
examinations would necessarily come out the same way.  Part of why
there aren't groups pushing all possible relaxed standards is that
some of them do produce obviously bad results.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21771
From: mikeh@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (michael p.herlihy)
Subject: Re: Satan kicked out of heaven: Biblical?

In article <May.14.02.11.36.1993.25219@athos.rutgers.edu> tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard) writes:

>Hi Eddie, many people believe the battle described in Rev 12:7-12
>describes the casting out of Satan from heaven and his fall to the
>earth.
>Shalom,                             Len Howard

Luke 10:16-18

He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth
 me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the
 devils are subject unto us through thy name.

And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
-- 
If a prayer today is spoken, please offer it up for me
When the bridge to heaven is broken and you're lost on the wild wild seas
Lost on the wild wild sea

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21772
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Subject: Re: MAJOR VIEWS OF THE TRINITY

In article <May.14.02.12.04.1993.25393@athos.rutgers.edu>,
swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com (Stan Friesen) wrote:
> 
> Simply put, I do not see any way that a "Platonic essence" could have
> any *real* existance.  "Essence" in the Platonic sense does not have
> any referent as far as I can tell - it is just an imaginary concept
> invented to provide an explanation for things better explained in
> other ways.

You are quite confident that essences do not exist.  How do propose to
define beings?  Can a thing can be *one* without definition?  Can a being
have a definition and know essence?

What about properties?  Do beings have properties?  Does God have
properties?

Does numbers exist in reality as abstract entities or do we invent them?

> Thus, to me, the unity of God must be primary, and the triality must be
> secondary, must be modal or aspectual (relating to roles, or to modes
> of interaction), since otherwise there is no meaning to saying God is one.

See my post in alt.messianic about the possibilities of tri-theism from a
phiolosophical point of view.
 
=====================
Ted Kalivoda (tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu)
Institute of Higher Education
University of Georgia
Athens, GA

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21773
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse


   Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have
sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart.

IPeter 1:22

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21774
From: hardy@esdd460a.erim.org (Russ Hardy)
Subject: Mary and Idols


 I have been studying the Bible now for about a year.  I love it,
but I am not very familiar with the different denominations, or
traditions, or common beliefs of various christian groups.
I have heard various people (outside this news group)
describe *idols* such as power, money, material 
possessions etc.  These things are worshiped in some sense I 
suppose, but I never really gave idols much thought.  Until now...  

I have been reading the postings in this news group (which I 
just found a few days ago), and I have a question...  First, I'm
not trying to question anyone's belief or try to push my views
on anyone else (I haven't been at this long enough to have
any views other than I cannot get to heaven by being good,
I must understand that Christ bore my sins on the cross so that
I could be saved and I need to repent, i.e. realize that
every time I sin, I might as well stick a sharp stick in
Christ's side because He took the punishment for my sins,
when He died on the cross).

In my studies, Mary never really comes up.  I know who she is, 
but that's about it.  It seems to me that a statue of Mary 
could be considered an idol?  Do people pray to statues of Mary?

It sounds like educated christians (more educated than myself
I'm sure) believe Mary was sinless?  Wow...  I hoped to spend
the summer convincing myself (one way or the other) about
Tongues (I'm reading "Charismatic Chaos").  I guess I'll study
Tongues in parallel with reading this news group.  Any help you can 
give me will be appreciated.

    -------------------------------------------

[I don't think the issue is so much that people are more educated than
you (though it may well be that they are), as that they come from a
different tradition than yours.

This is a discussion between Catholics and Protestants.  Catholics
generally believe that Mary was sinless.  Protestants do not.  The
issue comes down to different sources of authority.  Protestants
generally limit themselves to the Bible as a source of doctrine.
Since this isn't in the Bible (except in passages that no one would
understand in this way if they didn't already believe it), Protestants
don't accept it.  Catholics see continuing revelation through the
Church, though they believe the results are consistent with the Bible.

I interpret your posting, not as a call for yet another argument about
whether the Catholic Marian devotions are idolatry (an argument I am
not prepared to see newed here), but as a sign of being interested in
learning about traditions other than your own.  Catholics are of
course a major one, but by no means the only one.  I generally
consider the major traditions to be Catholic, Orthodox, and
various subsets of Protestantism.  Within Protestantism, it's a matter
of how finely you want to cut things.  These days I think the major
division is between those who accept Biblical inerrancy and those
who don't.  There are also a number of major historical traditions,
but in recent decades distinctions are tending to blur.  I'd 
identify the major Protestant traditions as:

  Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican (they're sort of halfway between
  Catholic and Protestant), Wesleyan, Baptist, Holiness, Pentecostal,
  Church of Christ

But there are a number of others.  Historical distinctions tend not to
be so important among the liberal churches anymore, and I think
current trends in society and the Church are also tending to make
conservatives seen themselves as allies from a general "evangelical"
perspective.  But differences among these various traditions are still
quite marked.

I think the best introduction to these issues is to read a good book
on church history.  Anyone who wants to understand the church really
needs to understand how we got where we are now.  A church history
will normally show you where each of these traditions came from, and
give a feeling for their nature.  Unfortunately I'm away from my
library at the moment, so I don't have anything specific to recommend.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21775
From: CCJIM@vax.cns.muskingum.edu (Jimmy Buddenberg)
Subject: resume

I'm about to revise my resume and was wondering if I should put on there the
fact that I'm a Christian.  Give me some input on what you think.


-- 
Jimmy Buddenberg   (ccjim@vax.cns.muskingum.edu)
Student Systems Analyst
Muskingum College

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21776
From: Liz.Broadwell@netnews.upenn.edu (ebroadwe@mail.sas.upenn.edu)
Subject: Acta Sanctorum in English?

Does anyone know whether the _Acta Sanctorum_, the huge multi-volume collection
of Roman Catholic hagiography produced by the Bollandists, has ever been
translated into English?  I'm working on the _Vita S. Dympnae_ and would love
to be able to check my own translation against somebody else's.  

Email replies preferred, unless this query turns out to be of general interest.

--
Liz Broadwell (ebroadwe@mail.sas.upenn.edu)
Department of English                       *  Ad majorem Dei gloriam.
The University of Pennsylvania

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21777
From: rodger@zeisler.lonestar.org (Rodger B. Zeisler)
Subject: 05/28/93 PastorTalk


                        -= PASTORTALK =-

  A weekly dialogue with a local pastor on the news of the day

                      by Carl (Gene) Wilkes 

                       Startext: MC344578 
                     CompuServe: 70423,600
                       Internet: 70423.600@compuserve.com

                   -= THIS WEEK'S THOUGHTS =-

Last week the Supreme Court refused without comment to hear an
appeal by Rensselaer, IN, school officials desiring the
distribution of Bibles in their public schools (REL65, 5/21). A
lower court had banned the local Gideons, an international Bible-
distribution group, from passing out Bibles to fifth-graders. The
ACLU's Barry Lynn was quoted as saying that the court's action
protected the "religious neutrality of our public schools." He also
said that schools must serve students of "all faiths and none."
Schools were not to be a "bazaar where rival religious groups
compete for converts," according to Lynn.

Several Gideons, men who are responsible for putting Bibles in
hospitals and hotels, are members of our church. They tell of
similar stories where they are only allowed to distribute Bibles on
sidewalks around the schools, but cannot go inside the schools.
They tell of mild harassment by parents who do not want their
children receiving a Bible from a stranger. They are willing to
continue their work at a distance, but find the school's position
somewhat disheartening.

I understand rationally and logically the court's position. And, I
can see the sense of fairness for all groups. But, on the other
hand, when does "neutrality" become "nihilism?" When does plurality
turn into no position at all?

I see a couple of ironies here. One is that we can pass out condoms
but not Bibles in our schools. Think on that one for a moment.

The other is that while we are seeking "religious neutrality" in
our schools, countries like Russia--who, by the way, practiced
"religious neutrality" for the past seventy years--are making the 
Bible part of their public school curriculum. When I was in St.
Petersburg in March, the church we worked with had trained over 100
public school teachers to teach the Bible, and the government had
requested hundreds more! I recently heard a medical doctor who is
president of the Gideon chapter in Moscow tell how they are eagerly
invited to the University of Moscow to distribute Bibles to the
students and are given class time to explain its contents. I
remember seeing a photograph of this doctor holding a Bible and
speaking to the university students standing under a statue of
Lenin. Now, that's ironic!

I admit two things: 1) We are a pluralistic society, and all faiths
have equal footing. This is what our country was founded on. 2) To
allow every group on school grounds could create a bazaar-like
atmosphere. Each city must work to be inclusive of all religions
and provide a hearing for them. 3)--I know I said two--The vitality
of religious faith is not dependent upon whether or not the public
arena acknowledges it as valid.

However--and you knew this was coming--I believe, disallowing the
distribution of the Bible by law-abiding, caring adults in our
schools only signals once again our culture's movement away from a
singular base from which we as individuals and as a nation can make
moral and ethical decisions.

What do you think? 

                         -= MAIL BOX =-
(Let me know if you do not want me to print your letter or your
name.)

Good column [re: TIME coverstory about teen sexuality]; I agree
with moral education from home, but some homes don't have the kinds
of morals I want taught.  One family I worked with smoked dope as
their primary family activity.  Another acted like incest was OK.
Families, no matter where they are, are often a lot sicker than
we'd like to believe.

From: John Hightower, MC 407602

John,

I agree that the "home" ain't what it used to be, and some homes
are NOT the place to learn value-based sexuality. I still believe
that this is where the church can come into play. I know, those
families you speak of may not come to a church to seek information,
but the help does not need to be in a church building...I believe
that the youth from the families you mentioned will probably
disregard the value-free information at school, too.

(#) WRITER'S NOTE: The views of this column do not necessarily
reflect the views of members of or the church, Legacy Drive Baptist
Church, Plano, TX.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21778
From: mussack@austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Subject: What _do_ we feel?

I see a parallel between what I will stupidly call the "homosexual" 
issue and the "atheist" issue. Please take no offense at these
comparisons.

The homosexual "feels" things that I admit I do not "feel". 
He learns that these feelings are classified as homosexual feelings
and learns of a model of sexuality that seems to apply to
his feelings, which he then can fit with his experiences.
That is, this model gives him a sense of understanding his
situation. Models that do not match up with what he knows he
feels will be discarded. However, one wonders if once accepting
the idea of his being gay and deciding what exactly that
means he will analyze all his feelings and experiences based on 
the definition he has already accepted, which of course validates
his model.

If that was hard to understand now listen to my parallel.

The Christian "feels" things that an atheist claims he does not
feel. The Christian accepts the Christian theology as the true
description of what his feelings mean. Once accepting this
model he interprets his experiences with regards to this model
which of course validates his Christianity.

As a reminder, I am a Christian, a Catholic, I don't hate 
homosexuals or atheists, but am just trying to understand
them. I only compare them because they are both so foreign
to me. Am I as blind to the homosexual as the atheist seems
blind to me? Or am I as prejudiced against atheistic denial of
religious experience as the homosexual is prejudiced against 
attempts by society to deny his sexuality?

Or am I just out to lunch, again?

Chris Mussack

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21779
From: conan@durban.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe)
Subject: Re: St. Maria Goretti

After reading this story about St. Maria Goretti (posted two weeks
ago), I am a bit confused.  While it is clear that her daily
life is one of probity and sanctity, I am afraid I don't quite
understand the final episode of her life.  I am reading it 
correctly, she (and the Church apparently) felt that being raped
was a sin on _her_ part, one so perfidious that she would rather
die than commit it.  If this is the case I'm afraid that I 
disagree rather strongly.

Can anyone out there explain this one to me?

Yours in Christ,

David Cruz-Uribe, SFO

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21780
From: grant@cs.uct.ac.za (Grant Wyatt)
Subject: Re: Satan kicked out of heaven: Biblical?

In <May.14.02.11.36.1993.25219@athos.rutgers.edu> tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard) writes:
>>     I have a question about Satan.  I was taught a long time ago
>>that Satan was really an angel of God and was kicked out of heaven
>>because he challenged God's authority.  The problem is, I cannot
>>find this in the Bible.  Is it in the Bible?  If not, where did it
>>originate?
> 
[ref to Rev 12:7-12 deleted]

Also read Ezek 28:13-19.  This is a desctiption of Lucifer (later Satan)
and how beautiful He was, etc, etc

Grant
--
|     __o        __o    For God has not given us a spirit of fear, |
|  _ -\<,_     _`\<,_   but a spirit of love, of power and a sound |
| (_)|/-(_)   (*)/ (*)  mind.  2 Tim 1:7  Phone : +27 21 650 4057  |
\__________________________________________________________________/

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21781
From: lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Louie Crew)
Subject: Re: hate the sin...

wjhovi01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu (Bill Hovingh, LPTS Student) writes:

>scott@prism.gatech.edu (Scott Holt) writes:
>> "Hate the sin but love the sinner"...I've heard that quite a bit recently, 
>> often in the context of discussions about Christianity and homosexuality...
>> but the context really isn't that important. My question is whether that
>> statement is consistent with Christianity. I would think not.

>I'm very grateful for scott's reflections on this oft-quoted phrase.  Could
>someone please remind me of the Scriptural source for it?  (Rom. 12.9 doesn't
>count, kids.)  The manner in which this little piece of conventional wisdom is
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>applied has, in my experience, been uniformly hateful and destructive.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>billh

[underlining mine/Quean Lutibelle]


Yes, those who apply it hatefully would be better served if they if
they could alter the Bible to reflect their views:

Scene 1:  A well in Samaria:

Woman:  But I have no husband.
Jesus:  Yo!  Everybody!  Listen up!  Get your rocks ready!  We'll have
        some good biblical fun.  Here she is whispering to me that
        she doesn't have a husband, yet I know by my secret powers that
        she has had five of them!  (You know how these Samaritans are!
        And worse, she's living with a guy now that she's not even married
        to.  Now I believe in loving her, and if you'll just raise up
        those rocks like the bible allows and threaten her with a good
        stoning, she'll understand how much we hate the sin but love
        the sinner.   We must keep our priorities strait, lest folks
        2,000 years from now misunderstand me and believe I canceled
        all sin!

Scene 2:  Golgatha

2nd Thief:  You got a raw deal, man.  They didn't catch you doing anything
            wrong like they caught me.

Bleeding Jesus:  Now, son.  Let me be real clear.  You say you did something
            wrong, but are you repenting?  I need to be absolutely certain
            cause if you repent, I have a nice room for you in heaven,
            but if you think you might go thieving again, I have to
            cancel your reservation.  It is nice of you to have pity on
            me while I'm hanging here, but you must understand, this is
            all an act; I'm not really hurting.  I'm God, you see.  And
            the point of all this is to teach you to be perfect like me.
            If you think a simple kind remark to me in suffering is going
            to get you any favors, you'd better think twice!  But if you
            will just REPENT, you will become a Fundelical in Good 
            Standing.

From all such Bad News, you have delivered us, Good God!  Thank you!
Thank you!  Thank you!

Quean Lutibelle/Louie
 

-- 
  ==========================================================================
  Louie Crew, Academic Foundations Department, Rutgers University, NWK 07102
  lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu                                   201-485-4503
         If by snail, I prefer:  P. O. Box 30, Newark, NJ 07101

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21782
From: alisonjw@spider.co.uk (Alison J Wyld)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christiani

>He is hoping to pass a resolution that more or less states that we, the
>members of the church "Agree to Disagree" on the issue, admitting that
>both sides have honestly studied the Scriptures and had the Spirit lead
>them to different conclusions.  It worked last year when the abortion
>issue threatened to do more or less the same thing, and he is hopeful that
>the GA can foster a loving and caring attitude about people who disagree
>with their own view.
>
>--
>Cliff Slaughterbeck           | 
>
>people would not be willing to.  Note that the church was not willing
>to live with this kind of compromise with ordination of women.  The
>one thing that will definitely prevent a person from becoming a
>Presbyterian minister is if they indicate that they don't accept
>ordination of women.  The argument is that we can't have half the
>church not accepting the leaders of the other half.  Maybe people will
> --clh]

It might be interesting for folk to know that the Church of Scotland
(also a Presbyterian church)  managed to "agree to disagree" over
women's ordination for 25 years.  The reasoning was that congregations
are free to call whoever they wish, and that Ministers and Sessions
choose elders.  If a congregation did not wish to have a woman, they
were not obliged to, and if a Session did not wish to, they could not
be forced to.  (Note that the who issue of freedom to call on the part
of the Congregation is VERY important here - this year is the 150th
Annivarsary of the Disruption, where the church split on that very
issue, they didn't get back together for almost 80 years).

A couple of years ago on the 25 anniversary of the allowing of womens
ordination the position was changed - so that, in theory, all
ministers and elders must recognise that women can be ordained.  In
theory, a minister who refused to ordain a woman to his Session, or
refused to work with a woman minister in Presbytery, could be
disciplined.  In practice this has not happened, and I believe it is
unlikely to happen.  My personal view is that the new legislation was
a mistake, and that the permissive (but not prescriptive) legislation
worked very well.  

We are going to start going round the homosexual debate at next years
assembly.  At this years, a motion was put to ban the blessing of
same-sex couples (after an Edinburgh minister did so).  Our Panel on
Doctrine is currently looking at marriage, and will report next year -
the matter will be considered and debated then.

Hope this is interesting

Alison

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21783
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse

Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified; do not
be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go."

Joshua 1:9

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21784
From: marlatt@spot.Colorado.EDU (Stuart W. Marlatt)
Subject: Re: SOC.RELIGION.CHRISTIAN

In article <May.16.01.56.04.1993.6668@geneva.rutgers.edu> revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille) writes:
>Anni Dozier (dozier@utkux1.utk.edu) wrote:
>: After reading the posts on this newsgroup for the pasts 4 months, it 
>: has become apparent to me that this group is primarily active with 
>: Liberals, Catholics, New Agers', and Athiests.  Someone might think 
[...etc...]

>Since when did conservative, protestant, old-time religion believers get
>an exclusive francise to christianity?  Christianity is, and always has
>been, a diverse and contentious tradition, and this group reflects that
>diversity.  I, fo one, am not ready to concede to _any_ group- be they
>"liberal" or "conservative", catholic, protestant, or orthodox, charismatic
>or not- the right to claim that they have _the truth_, and everyone else
>is not "christian."

I am becoming increasingly convinced that most of us take Paul's illustration
about one body / many parts far too narrowly. It is easy to say that the one
body represents a particular sect of Christianity (generally our own), and
the parts are clearly the various offices of ministry. There is a place for
that. But having met people who are walking closeely with God in a wide
variety of doctine - Catholic, Protestant, liberal, conservative, Orthodox,
etc. - I am willing to encompass a wide spectrum of views within the
context of the 'body of Christ.' And I am equally sure that one day, after
we shug off this mortal coil, when we no longer see through a glass darkly
but see clearly, face to face, we will all be ashamed at some of the things
we held as truth. We ought all fellowship, worship, and serve where we are
called, and understand that where we are called may not be where everyone
else is called.

One of the fathers of the reformation (help me out - can't recall the name)
put it quite succiently:

	In essentials, unity.
	In nonessentials, liberty.
	In all things, charity.

While I agree with Lewis (Mere Christianity) that calling oneself a Christian
implies some basic, fundamental standards of belief if the word is to mean
anything at all, I think most of us define the bounds of essentials a bit
too broadly, deny the place for liberty in questionable issues near those
bounds, and ignore the requirements of charity all together. 

Me? I attend a Vineyard church, speak in tongues, am effectively an
inerrantist, though I'll grant some inaccuracy in translation, am moderately
pre-mill, and evangelical. But, I'm not ready to damn those who use icons,
say mass in latin, uphold the Virgin Mary (though I really don't believe
that she was sinless), vote on Church membership, or insist on baptism for
salvation. Of course, I think my doctine is pretty close to the truth -
why would I follow it if I believed something else was closer to the truth?
But my understanding of the reality of a walk with Christ is continually
evolving as I spend more and more time walking with Him, studying His word,
and fellowshiping with others in the (often extended) family. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I read, much of the night, and go south in the winter.                    
  --T.S. Eliot, The Waste Land                                            
..............................................................................
s.w. marlatt, <><  &  *(:-)               Prov. 25.2
University of Colorado:                   marlatt@spot.Colorado.edu  492-3939
National Center for Atmospheric Research: marlatt@neit.cgd.ucar.edu  497-1669
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21785
From: Rick_Granberry@pts.mot.com (Rick Granberry)
Subject: Re: Baptism requires Faith

In article  jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes:

> Catholics view the effects of Baptism slightly differently, and that's 
> one primary reason why they baptize babies.  They believe that Baptism 
> produces a change in the soul of the baby, quite independently of any 
> volitional act on the part of the baby.  This change in the baby's soul 
> gives the infant certain capabilities that he would not have 
> without Baptism.  Since the infant does not have the use of his 
> intellect and will yet, these new faculties are dormant.  But as the 
> child gets older, the gifts of Baptism come more and more into play. 

   I guess I would react rather strongly to this line of thinking carried 
out!  When you think "your army" is stronger than "mine", you would 
"righteously" take my children and baptize them, doing what you know is 
really "best" for them.
   You cannot possibly put this kind of action, nor the crusades into the 
context of the teachings of Jesus/God.  I think he advocated a different 
approach that was *by design* made to be appealing, to those called by him, 
not chosen by a church practice.
   It seems to me you have the cause and effect switched, the change comes 
and then you get baptized.


| "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." |
| "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."  |
| (proverbs 26:4&5)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21786
From: REXLEX@fnnews.fnal.gov
Subject: ARSENOKOITAI: #4

continuing part #4 (I think); used by permission,

THE SOURCE AND NT MEANING
OF ARSENOKOITAI, WITH IMPLICATIONS
FOR CHRISTIAN ETHICS AND MINISTRY

                                      James B. DeYoung

W. Petersen

     More recently Wright's understanding has itself been questioned from a
different direction.  In a brief 1986 study William Petersen found linguistic
confusion in using the English word "homosexuals" as the meaning of
arsenokoitai.[22]   He faulted Wright and English Bible translaions for
rendering it by "homosexuals" in I Cor 6:9 and I Tim 1:10.

     In a sense Petersen has coalesced Bailey, Boswell, and Scroggs into a
single assertion that reiterates, in effect, the position of Bailey.  He finds
"homosexuals" unacceptable as a translation because it is anachronistic.  "A
major disjunction" exists between contemporary thought and terminology and the
thought and terminolgy in Paul's time (187-88).

      What is this "disjunction"?  He bases it on historical and linguistic
facts.  Accordingly, ancient Greek and Roman society treated male sexuality as
polyvalent and characterized a person sexually only by his sexual acts. 
Virtually all forms of behavior, except transvestism, were acceptable. 
Christianity simply added the categories of "natural" and "unnatural" in
describing these actions.  Ancient society know nothing of the categories of
"homosexuals" and "heterosexuals," and assumed that, in the words of Dover
quoted approvingly by Petersen, "everyone responds at different times to both
homosexual and to heterosexual stimuli. . ." (188). [23]

      In contrast to this, modern usage virtually limits the term "homosexual"
to desire and propensity.  K.M. Benkert, who in 1869 coined the German term
equivalent to "homosexual," used it as referring to orientation, impluse or
affectional preference and having "nothing to do with sexual acts" (189).

     Petersen then proceeds to cite the "Supplement to the Oxford English
Dictionary,"  which defines "homosexual" only as a propensity or desire with no
mention of acts.  Petersen's point is that by using "homosexuals" for
arsenokoitai, one wrongfully reads a modern concept back into early history
"where no equivalent concept existed" (189).  Consequently the translation is
inaccurate because it "includes celibate homophiles,. . . . incorrectly exludes
heterosexuals who engage in homosexual acts . . . [and]incorrectly includes
female homosexuals" (19=89).  Prior to 1869 there was no "cognitive structure,
either inour society or in antiquity, within which the modern bifurcation of
humanity into 'homosexuals' and 'hetersosexuals' made sence" (189).

     The foregoing clarifies why Petersen feels that the translatio
"homosexual" is mistaken.  Yet is it possible that Petersen is the one
mistaken, on both historical and linguistic or philological grounds?  The next
phases of this paper will critically examine Petersen's position.

                        THE JUSTIFICATION FOR TRANSLATING
                          ARSENOKOITAI BY "HOMOSEXUALS"

Historical Grounds

     A refutation of the foregoing opposition to the traslation of arsenokoitai
by "homosexuals" begins with the historical and cultural evidence.  Since
virtually everyone acknowledges that the word does not appear before Paul's
usage, no historical settings earlier than his are available.  Yet much writing
reveals that ancient understanding of homosexuality prior to and contemporary
with Paul.  The goal is to discover wheither the ancient s conceived of
homosexuality, particularly homosexual orientation, in a way similar to
present-day concepts.  

     Peterson, Bailey, Boswell, and Scroggs claim that the homosexual
condition, desire, propensity, or inversion -whatever it is called- cannot be
part of the definition of the term.  They assert this either because the term
is limited to acts of particular kind (Boswell, active male prostitutes; 
Scroggs, pederasty) or because the homosexual condition was unknown in ancient
times (Bailey; Petersen).  The following discussion will show why neither of
these positions is legitimate.  Attention will be devoted to the latter postion
first with the former one being addressed below under "Linguistic Grounds."

     In regard to the latter position, one may rightfully ask, did not the
homosexual condition exist before 1869?  Is it only a modern phenomenon? Yet if
it is universal, as alleged today, it must have existed always including
ancient times, even though there is lack of sophistication in discussing it. 
Indeed, evidence show that the ancients, pre-Christian and Christian, not only
knew about the total spectrum of sexual behavior, including all forms of
same-sex activity (transvestism included), but also knoew about same-sex
orientation or condition.  Petersen admits (190 n. 10) that Plato in
"Symposium" (189d-192d) may be a "sole possible exception" to ancient
ingnorance of this condition.  He discounts this, however, believing that even
here "acts appear to be the deciding factor."  However, this is a very
significant exception, hardly worthy of being called "an exception," because of
the following additional evidence for a homosexual condition.

     THe "Symposium" of Plato gives some of the strongest evidence for
knowledge about the homosexual condition. [24]   Plato posits a third sex
comprised of a maile-female (androgynon ("man-woman"). Hence "original nature"
palai physis, consisted of three kinds of human beings.  Zeus sliced these
human beings in half, to weaken them so that they would not be a threat to the
gods.  Consequently each person seeks his or her other half, either one of the
opposite sex or one of the same sex.  Plato then quotes Aristophances:

    Each of us, then, is but a tally of a man, since every one shows like
    a flatfish the traces of having been sliced in two;  and each is ever
    searching for the tally that will fit him.  All the men who are sections
    of that composite sex that at first was called man-woman are 
    woman-courters;  our adulterers are mostly descended from that sex,
    whence likewise are derived our mancourting women and adulteresses.
    All the women who are sections of the woman have no great fancy for men:
    they are incllined rather to women, and of this stock are the she-minions.
    Men who are sections of the male pursue the masculine, and so long as 
    their boyhood lasts they show themselves to be sliced of the male by
    making griends with men and delighting to lie with them and to be
    clasped in men's embrasces;  these are the finest boys and striplings,
    for they have the most manly nature.  Some say they are shameless
    creatures, but falsely:  for their behavior is due not to shamelessness
    but to daring, manliness, and virility, since they are quick to welcome
    their like.  Sure evidence of this is the fact that on reaching maturity
    these alone prove in a public career to be men.  So when they come
    to man's estate they are boy-lovers, and have no natural interest in
    wiving and getting children but only do these things under stress of
    custom;  they are quite contented to live together unwedded all their days.
    A man of this sort is at any rate born to be a lover of boys or the 
    willing mate of a man, eagerly greeting his own kind.  Well, when
    one of them -whether he be a boy-lover or a lover of any other sort- 
    happens on his own particular half, the two of them are wondrously 
    thrilled with affection and intimacy and love, and are hardly to be 
    induced to leave each other's side for a single moment.  These are
    they who continue together throughout life, though they could not
    even say what they would have of one another (191d-192c) [25]

Should these two persons be offered the opportunity to be fused together for as
long as they live, or even in Hades, Aristophanes says that each "would
unreservedly deem that he had been offered just what he was yearning for all
the time:  (192e).

     Several observations about this text are in order.  Lesbianism is
contemplated, as will as male homosexuality (191e).  "Natural interest" (ton
noun physei), (192b) refelects modern concepts of propensity or inclination. 
The words, "born to be a lover of boys or the willing mate of a man: 
(paiderastes te kai philerastes gignetai), (192b) reflect the modern claims "to
be born this," i.e., as homosexual.  The idea of mutuallity ("the two of them
are wondrously thrilled with affection and intimacy and love," 192b) is
present.  Aristophanes even speaks of "mutual love ingrained in mankind
reassembling our early estate" (ho eros emphytos allelon tois anthropois kai
tes archaias physeos synagogeus, 191d). The concept of permanency ("These are
they who continue together throughout life," 102c) is also present.  Further
mention of and/or allusion to permanecy, mutality, "gay pride," pederasty,
homophobia, motive, desire, passion, and the nature of love and its works is
recognizable.

    Clearly the ancients thought of love (homosexual or other) apart from
actions.  THe speakers in the Symposium argue that motive in homosexuality is
crucial;  money, office, influence, etc. . . bring reproach (182e-183a, 184b). 
They mention the need to love the soul not the body (183e).  There are tow
kinds of love in the body (186b) and each has its "desire" and "passion"
(186b-d).  The speakers discuss the principles or "matters" of love (187c), the
desires of love (192c) and being "males by nature" (193c).  Noteworthy is the
speech of Socrates who devotes much attention to explaining how desire is
related to love and its objects (200a-201c).  Desire is felt for "what is not
provided or present; for something they have not or are not or lack."  This is
the object of desire and love.  Socrates clearly distinguishes between "what
sort of being is love" and the "works" of love (201e).  This ancient
philosopher could think of both realms -seaual acts as well as disposition of
being or nature.  His wors have significance for more than pederasty. [26]

     In summary, virtually every element in the modern discussion of love and
homosexuality is anticipated in the Symposium of Plato.  Petersen is in error
when he claims that the ancients could only think of homosexual acts, not
inclination or orientation.  Widespread evidence to the contray supports the
latter. [27]

     Biblical support for homosexuality inclination in the contexts where
homosexual acts are discribed adds to the case for the ancient distinction.  In
Rom 1:21-28 such phrases as "reasoning," "heart," "becoming foolish," "desires
of the heart." and "reprobate mind" prove Paul's concern for disposition and
inclination along with the "doing" or "working" of evil (also see vv. 29-32). 
Even the catologues of vices are introdiced (I Tim 1:8-10) or concluded (I Cor
6:9-11) by words describing what people "are" or "were," not what they "do." 
Habits betray what people are within, as also the Lord Jesus taught (cf. Matt.
23:28).  The inner condition is as important as the outer act; one gives rise
to the other (cf. Mt 5:27).

     Petersen errs regarding other particulars too.  Transvestism apparently
was accepted by the ancients.   It was practiced among Canaaniteds, Syrian,
people of Asia Minor, as well as Greeks, according to S.R. Driver. [28]  Only a
few moralist and Jewish writers are on record as condemning it.  For example,
Seneca (Moral Epistles 47.7-8) condemns homosexual exploitation that forces an
adult slave to dress, be beardless, and behave as a woman.  Philo also goes to
some length to describe the homosexuals of his day and their dressing as women
(The Special Laws III, 37-41;  see also his On the Virtues, 20-21, where he
justifies prohibition of cross-dressing).  Even the OT forbade the interchange
of clothing between the sexes  (Deut 22:5).

     Petersen is also wrong in attributing to Christianity the creating of the
"new labels" of "natural" and "unnatural" for sexual behavior.  These did not
begin with Paul (Rom 1:26-27) but go as far back as ancient Greece and even
non-Christian contemporaries used them.  Plato, the TEST.NAPH., Philo, Josephu,
Plutarch, and others used these words or related concepts. [29]

Linguistic Grounds

footnotes
___________________________
22  W.L. Petersen, "Can ARSENOKOITAI Be Translated by 'Homosexuals'? (I Cor
6:9; I Tim 1:10)"  VC 40 (1986): 187-91.
23 K.J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality (Cambridge, Harvard Univ, 1978) 1 n. 1.
24    We are conscious of the fact that Plato's writings may not reflect
Athenian society, or that the speakers in "Symposium" may not reflect Plato's
view.  However, it is assumed that they do, and with this agrees Dover
(Homosexuality 12) and other evidence cited below 
25 The translation is that of W.R.M. Lamb, Plato:  Symposioum LCL (Cambridge:
Harvard Univ, 1967) 141-143.  Note the reference to "adulteress."  If there is
a homosexual condition derived from birth or the genes, logically there must
also be an adulterous conditon derived from birth.
26 Elsewhere in the Symposium we are told that it is the heavenly love to love
the male and young men (181c) but this must not be love for boys too young; 
the latter should be outlawed (181d-e).  Such love of youths is to be permanent
(181d), lifelong and abiding (184a).  Where homosexual love is considered a
disgrace, such an attitude is due to encroachments of the rulers and to the
cowardice of the ruled (182d -an early charge of "homophobia"?).  In Athens it
was "more honorable to love openly than in secret" (182d -an ancient expression
of "coming out of the closet").  Mutality was present ("this compels lover and
beloved alike to feel a zealous concern for their own virtue," 184b).
    For Petersen to label the Symposium a "possible" exception to his position
is inadequate and misrepresentative.  It is a significant witness to Greek
society hundreds of years before the time of Christ.
27 Dover (Homosexuality 12, 60-68) finds homosexual desire and orientation in
Plato's works (Symposioum and Phaedrus) and elsewhere.  Philo writes of those
who "habituate themselves" to the practive of homosexual acts (The Special Laws
3.37-42; cf. De Vita Contemplativa 59-63).  Josephus says that homosexuality
had become a fixed habit for some (Against Apion 2.273-75)  Clement of
Alexandria on Matt. 19:12 writes the "some men, from birth, fhave a natural
aversion to a woman; and indeed those who are naturally so consitited do well
not to marry" (Miscellanies 3:1)  It is addressed in Novella 141 of Justinian's
Codex of laws (it referes to those "who have been consumed by this disease" as
in need of renouncing "there plague," as well as acts).  Pseudo Lucian (Erostes
48) and Achilles Tatius (Leucippe and Clitophon II.38) speak of it.  Finally
Thucydides 2.45.2 has: "Great is you glory if you fall not below the standard
which nature has set for your sex."
     Boswell (Christianity 81-87) cites poets (Juvenal, Ovid), witers
(Martial), statesmen (Cicero), and others who describe permanent, mutual
homosexual relationships, even marriages.  Even emperors could be either
gay-married (Nero) or exlusively gay (Hadrian), Boswell says.  Scroggs
(Homosexuality 28, 32-34) admits that both inversion and perversion must have
existed in the past.  He discusses possible references to adult mutual
homosexual and lesbian relationships, but dismisses them (130-44).
28  See specifics in S.R. Driver A critical and Exegetical Commentary on
Deuteronomy (Edinburgh:1895) 250.  He observes that the prohibition of
cross-dressing in Deut. 22:5 is not a "mere rule of conventional propriety." 
See also Dover, Homosexuality  73-76, 144.
29  Plato in his last work, in which he seeks to show how to have a virtuous
citizen, condemned pederasty and marriage between men as "against nature" (para
phosin)(Laws 636a-b;  636c;  836a-c; 838; 841d-e).  According to TEST.NAPH
3:4-5 the sodomites changed the "order of nature."  THe Jewish writers, Philo
(On Abraham 135-137) and Josephus (Ant. 1.322; 3.261, 275; Ag. Ap. 2.199;
2.273, 275) label sexual deviation as "against nature."  Finally,, first
century moralist such as Plutarch (Dianlogue on Love 751c-e; 752b-c) spoke of
homosexuality as "against nature."  Christians clearly did not invent the
labels "natural" and "unnatural".  See J.B. De Young, "The Meaning of 'Nature'
in Romans 1 and Its Implications for Biblical Prosecriptions of Homosexual
Behavior" JETS 31/4 (Dec 1988):429-41.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21787
From: wagner@grace.math.uh.edu (David Wagner)
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

"Alan" == E Alan Idler <aidler@sol.uvic.ca> writes:

Alan> 2.  We can also analyze to whom the Lord is addressing: "Marvel
Alan> not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again" (John 3:7).
Alan> Here Jesus is clearly directing his remarks to Nicodemus -- a
Alan> ruler of the Jews (not a child).

Yes, but Jesus also made a very general and doctrinal statement
in the same conversation:

"Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit."
(John 3:6)

Clearly infants are not born of the spirit.  Thus, without baptism
they are unspiritual.  They are not born with the image of God, but in
Adam's fallen image (cf. Gen 5:3).  They have no righteousness of
their own, just as adults have no righteousness of their own.  There
is only the imputed righteousness of Christ, which believers receive
through faith.

Alan> 3.  We can ask ourselves why the Lord would even introduce the
Alan> concept of spiritual re-birth through baptism if newborn babies
Alan> weren't free from sin?

Your point is a little obscure here, but I think you are saying
that Christ used the "innocence" of newborn babes as a metaphor
for spiritual re-birth.  But this is not what he did.
If you look at the text, he did not speak
of spiritual re-birth but of spiritual birth.  We are
born of the Spirit once, not twice or several times.
We are also born of the flesh once.  The Lord makes it
clear that these are separate and different events.
It is true that other Scriptures refer to spiritual
birth as re-birth because it is a second birth
(for example, Titus 3:5).  But it is not a second
*spiritual* birth.

The only thing the two births have in common is the concept of birth,
which is used as a symbol of `new life' -- not of innocence.  When an
infant is born (or conceived) a new life is begun--but it is neither
innocent nor righteous.  Similarly when that same individual is
baptized, or perhaps when they believe prior to baptism, they begin a
new life in Christ (Romans 6:3, Colossians 2:12, Titus 3:5, Ephesians
2:5).  Then the believer has God's assurance of the forgiveness of
their sins, and of Christ's imputed righteousness.

For references, see 
	The Augsburg Confession Article II, Original Sin, 
	The Apology to the Augsburg Confession, 
		Article II, Original Sin, 
	the Formula of Concord, Article I, Original Sin, and 
	Luther's Large Catechism, Part 4, Baptism.  

For something more recent, see "Baptized into God's Family: The
Doctrine of Infant Baptism" by Andrew Das, available from Northwestern
Publishing House.  Andrew is a graduate of Concordia Lutheran
Seminary, St. Louis, and is now pursuing doctoral studies at Yale
Divinity School.

David Wagner			"But mad reason rushes forth
a confessional Lutheran		and, because Baptism is not
				dazzling like the works we do,
				regards it as worthless."
				--Martin Luther, Large Catechism
				--Part 4, Baptism

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21788
From: ldiel@dante.nmsu.edu (Leisa Diel)
Subject: Info needed


  Ok, let me see if I can get all this out concisely.  I am on an
information gathering venture regarding the various expressions of
Christianity/churches there are.  
        My husband and I come from very different, but completely
Christian backgrounds.  I was a Lutheran when I met him and he was a
born and raised Church of Christ member.  At first I agreed with a lot
of what the C of C was about, I wanted to move from the liturgical
based Lutheran church to something a little more Biblical based.
However over the last year, I've been regretting changing to the
Church of Christ for a number of reasons - for one thing I am not a
fundamentalist and believe that a few things in the Bible are
socio-cultural in nature and don't relate to the Christian doctrine.
One of my sorest spots is the role of women.  I believe that through
Mary and other women, Chris validated women as worthy disciples - but
in the C of C the writings of Paul are taken without exception and I
am told that I am not an equal partner in my marriage but the lesser
member, I am to submit to my husband in all things (if I hear that
verse one more time....) and I am not to take an active role in
anything which might be construed as putting me in authority over men
(ie leading prayers, conducting Bible studies etc).   The last straw
was when the Elders at our church came down on one of our college
groups because it was all-women and they wanted a man to lead the
study.
Also my husband and I really resent the way everyone at our church
feels that if you aren't a conservative republican - you aren't a REAL
Christian (I got told that nobody who voted for Clinton should call
themselves a Christian).  Hence we are subjected during the service to
long prayers calling for things we flatly dont agree with.  We are
also don't agree with the C of C's dread of any new "movement" being
led by the young people.

So, we have been church hunting with NO success.  I want a reasonably
biblical based church where women are viewed as whole people no matter
what their calling ( C of C really looked down on career women).
Christopher is looking for a church with deeply rooted religious
convictions, with adult baptism and a church where the members still
bring their Bibles to service.

We are so confused here and we're drifting around trying to find a
place where we both feel loved and can express our faith honestly and
without reservation.  If anyone can point us in a direction we'd be
thrilled!
I'm afraid that it will be very hard for me to go back to C of C and
even harder for me to stay churchless for long.

any responses would be welcome


the diel family

[I would think somewhere in the Baptist spectrum you might find what
you're looking for.  However the issue is probably more one of the
flavor of the specific local churches in your area than the
denomination -- Baptists cover quite a spectrum.  Adult baptism sort
of narrows your choices on the more liberal end of the spectrum.
Historically that's been associated with movements that have the
character you're trying to avoid.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21789
From: revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality

Bryan Whitsell (whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu) wrote:
: Recently an e-mail to me mentioned:

: (Technically, the messengers aren't even human so
: it *can't* be a case of "homosexuality" -- even of rape.) [...]

: The Jude reference to Sodom is also meaningful only in the context of
: the Sodomites' "lust" for the "other flesh" of angels.  Again,
: application to homosexual behavior in general, or to the position of
: gay Christians is largeely specious.
: ***
: Are angels "flesh"? No. I feel that this is saying that it was because
: of their lust after other men, who are flesh( or of this world).

: what are other opinons on this? I haven't heard much about this verse  
: at all.

Bo Reike in the Anchor Bible volume on _James, Peter, and Jude_ points
out that all the examples given in this section of Jude are distinguishing
the elect from _apostates_, not just the wicked in general.  Hence, those
who were delivered from Egypt, but did not follow Moses (and, by extension,
God); the apostate angels; and Sodom and Gomorrah.  Quoting Reike:

	"Fornication may here, as often in the New Testament,
	refer to idolatry, while "flesh" (as in I Pet 1:24) 
	denotes human society and its violent attempts at self-
	exaltation.  Sodom and Gommorrah represent the leaders
	of apostasy, and the surrounding cities correspond to
	their followers." [p. 199]


There is no inherent reason to read this verse (7) as literally referring
to actual sexual lust for "alien flesh".  Nor is it inherently necessary
to understand it as referring to homosexuality, outside of the circular
reasoning that has already concluded that the sin of Sodom is the sin
of homosexuality.  The only place that the sin of Sodom is specified, and
not merely inferred, is in Ezekiel 16:49 "This was the guilt of your sister
Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease,
bit did not aid the poor and needy.  They were haughty, and did abominable
things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.

For the same reason (overliteralizing the text) your correspondent's
suggestion that the reason the passage doesn't deal with homosexuality
is because the guests were angels and not men is just silly.  There 
are much more solid reasons for pointing out the irrelevance of the
Sodom passages for dealing with homosexuality per se.

revdak@netcom.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21790
From: lieuwen@allegra.att.com (Dan Lieuwen)
Subject: Re: Christian Reformed

The Christian Reformed Church does not allow people to belong to lodges,
the Reformed Church in America does.  The conservatives in both churches
are very similar, as are the "progressives".  The RCA currently ordains
women; the CRC is fighting over the issue.

A significant fraction of both churches live in western Michigan.  (FYI,
I went to the CRC school Calvin College.)
Dan

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21791
From: scott@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Scott Roleson)
Subject: Who is Ram Das??

Who is Ram Das?

According to his brochures, he is a.k.a. Richard Alpert, PhD, and is
somehow associated with the:

  Seva Foundation
  8 N. San Pedro Road
  San Rafael, CA  94903

and the:
  Hanuman Foundation 
  524 San Anselmo Ave #203
  San Anselmo, CA  94960

He speaks publically on such topics as "Consciousness & Current
Events," and has written some books and recorded some tapes on 
similar subjects.  

Why do I care?  My wife wants to go to one of his lectures.  When
I asked why, she said Ram Das was "the greatest spiritual leader
of our time!"

Several years ago my wife got involved with a religious cult, and
we went through 9 months of hell that almost ended our marriage 
before she quit.  Let's just say I'm concerned about this Ram Das
and her interest, especially so with the recent religious cult
events from Texas.  I need information - solid and real - so I 
know what I'm dealing with.

If you have any information about Ram Das or the organizations 
shown above, I would be very interested in your correspondence.
Please reply via e-mail to me at:  scott%hpsdde@SDD.HP.COM

Thank you!

  -- Scott Roleson

[The dictionary of cults that I use classifies this as "new age", with
a basically Hindu orientation.  The headquarters is (or was when this
was written) at that Lama Foundation, which they identify as a "New
Age Commune" in San Cristobel, New Mexico.  For information you might
read Alpert's books, which they list as "Be Here Now" (an
autobiography), "The Only Dance There is", and "Grist for the Mill".
It is dealt with briefly in a citation given as "Larson, New Book, pp
339-41". I assume this is Bob Larson, "Larson's New Book of Cults".
I'd warn you however that the whole approach to the "new age" is
controversial.  Sources such as the reference book I used, as well as
Bob Larson, believe in a Satanic new age conspiracy, which some regard
as hysterical.  However at the very least, it seems clear that this is
not a Christian group.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21792
From: crackle!dabbott@munnari.oz.au (NAME)
Subject: "Why I am not Bertrand Russell" (2nd request)

Could the guy who wrote the article "Why I am not Bertrand Russell"
resend me a copy?

Sorry, I accidently deleted my copy and forgot your name.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21793
From: cs89mcd@brunel.ac.uk (Michael C Davis)
Subject: Leadership Magazine article

I'm looking for the following article:

	``The War Within: an Anatomy of Lust''
	Leadership 3 (1985), pp 30-48

I've looked in the libraries of 3 UK Bible Colleges, but none of them subscribe
to the Magazine (its a US publication, btw). If anyone has access to this
article and would be willing to post me a photocopy (I presume that copyright
restrictions will allow this?), please e-mail me. Thanks,
-- 
Michael Davis (cs89mcd@brunel.ac.uk)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21794
From: maridai@athos.rutgers.edu
Subject: Traveling Fatima (was Re: Consecration and Anniversary)

Hello.
I just like to share this rosary and other prayer propagation
practice we do in my country.  I am not sure if it is going on
also here in the US or any other country.  In all these 4 1/2
yrs. I've been here in Illinois, USA, I have not encountered
it.  May I just call it "Traveling Fatima" since I don't know
of an exact translation of what we call it in my native language.

For certain regions in a district in a town or city, an image/
statue of our Lady of Fatima is moved from one home (originating
from owner) to another.  This will stay with that family for
one (1) week and this family is required to pray the rosary and
other prayers (prayer sheets accompany the image) to our Lady
of Fatima.  The move will be like a simple procession of folks
picking up the image from its current 'home' after 'departing'
prayers and proceeds to move it to the next home which has the
prior notification about the move.  There will be the 'receiving'
prayers at the next home to welcome our Lady of Fatima image
there.  It does not have to be that only members of the family
in that home who must pray to the image.  They may invite others
(or others/friends can invite themselves in ;^)) to participate
during prayer time in that 'new' home everyday for one week.
This image is moved from one family to the next within the
bounded region of that district, until it goes back to the owner
of the image.

This is probably going on around there (Philippines) right now
(or somebody correct me when exactly since I forgot) and every
year, this is part of our devotion to our Lady of Fatima.

It has been easy to facilitate this back home because it is more
likely that your next door neighbor is a Catholic and the image
then is just moved next door.

I am thinking of starting something like it in the village where
my sister and her family lives.  Most of our friends and neighbors
there are Catholics and practicing ones.

I'd like to know if there are any state/community laws that this 
practice will violate, whatsoever, before I go for it.  Thank you 
for any comments or help about this matter.





-- 
-Marida (maridai@ecs.comm.mot.com)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21795
From: atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez)
Subject: Dialogue with conservatives wanted


  Are there any members of conservative, religious, politically active groups
(such as the Christian Coalition) out there?  I come from a very liberal 
background, and I'd like to talk to some conservative people out there in a 
public forum (such as this one.)  I frankly can't understand the rationale or
Christian basis for much of the conservative position, and I'd like to try and
learn more about this movement--after all, we're part of the same church.  Is
anyone interested in explaining a bit about the conservative viewpoint?
  Thanks.

Alan Terlep				"If your children knew just how
Oakland University, Rochester, MI	   lame you were, they'd murder
atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu		      you in your sleep."
Rushing in where angels fear to tread.			      --Frank Zappa

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21796
From: norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak)
Subject: 'Latin' mailing list

From the June newsletter of the Latin Liturgy Association:

There is a new e-mail discussion group: LATIN-L, a forum for people
interested in classical Latin, medieval Latin, Neo-Latin; the languages of
choice are Latin (of course) and whatever vulgar languages you feel
comfortable using.  Please be prepared to translate on request.  The field
is open -- name your topic!  In order to subscribe, BITNET users should
send an interactive message of the form "TELL LISTSERV@PSUVM SUB LATIN-L
[your name]".  INTERNET users should send a message (without a subject
line) to the address LISTSERV@PSUVM.PSU.EDU.  The message should read "SUB
LATIN-L [your name]".  Once subscribed, one may participate by sending
messages to LATIN-L@PSUVM or LATIN-L@PSUVM.PSU.EDU.

---
Richard Aquinas Chonak, norris@mit.edu
orbis unus orans

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21797
From: norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak)
Subject: Re: hate the sin...

In article <May.16.01.56.47.1993.6695@geneva.rutgers.edu>, wjhovi01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu (Bill Hovingh, LPTS Student) writes:
|> scott@prism.gatech.edu (Scott Holt) writes:
|> > "Hate the sin but love the sinner" [...] My question is whether that
|> > statement is consistent with Christianity. I would think not.
|> 
|> I'm very grateful for scott's reflections on this oft-quoted phrase.  Could
|> someone please remind me of the Scriptural source for it? 

It's not scriptural, but comes from the patristic age, I think:
something about "amare errantem, interficere errorem", which sounds
more like "love the errant, slay the error".  No doubt someone else 
will know in particular who minted the phrase.  If I had to guess, I'd
blame :-)  St Augustine, who seems to have had a gift for aphorism.

-- 
Richard Aquinas Chonak, norris@mit.edu
Sometimes, it's necessary to _act_ as if you believed.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21798
From: Mike.Hahn@p57.f714.n7102.z5.fidonet.org (Mike Hahn)
Subject: Translations

Alison J Wyld wrote to All:

 AJW> Does anyone know of an English language edition that does not show the
 AJW> verse (or even chapter) numbers.

[...]

 clh> [The original NEB put verse numbers only in the margin   [...]

Kenneth Wuest's expanded translation of the New Testament does the same - it puts the range of verse numbers next to the top of each paragraph. Being an expanded translation it is quite verbose though - more suitable for detailed study than for quick reading.

Mike

--- GoldED 2.41
--  
INTERNET: Mike.Hahn@p57.f714.n7102.z5.fidonet.org
via:  THE CATALYST BBS in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
       (catpe.alt.za)   +27-41-34-2859, V32bis & HST.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21799
From: Mike.Hahn@p57.f714.n7102.z5.fidonet.org (Mike Hahn)
Subject: The doctrine of Original Sin

Stephen A. Creps writes to All:

[...]

 SAC> Also, we know that
 SAC> the Bible says that _everyone_ must be baptized to enter Heaven.

Where exactly does it say that?

 SAC> _Everyone_ includes infants, unless there is other Scripture to the
 SAC> contrary, i.e. an exception.  Since there is no exception listed in the
 SAC> Bible, we must assume (to be on the safe side) that the Bible means what
 SAC> it says, that _everyone_ must be baptized to enter Heaven.

I think we do see an exception in the case of Cornelius and his
household, mentioned in Acts. Of course, they were baptised, but only
after "God showed that He accepted them by giving them the Holy
Spirit". This means they were already acceptable to God before their
baptism, and had they suddenly died they would have gone to heaven.

In case that seems far-fetched - an ancestor of mine was a missionary
who worked among the Hereros in Namibia. Some of the tribesmen were
jealous of Christianity, and they poisoned the first convert before he
could be baptised. Surely he still went to heaven? I'm inclined to
agree with a comment recorded at the time: "It is not the neglect of
baptism, but its contempt, that condemns."

Mike
--  
INTERNET: Mike.Hahn@p57.f714.n7102.z5.fidonet.org
via:  THE CATALYST BBS in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
       (catpe.alt.za)   +27-41-34-2859, V32bis & HST.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21800
From: revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille)
Subject: Re: Is this ethical?

Just a quick comment.  As a baptist clergyperson, I find the idea
of such a "baptism" (if the news report is in fact accurate, and
they seldom are regarding religion) offensive.  The pastor here seems
to have a most unbaptist view of baptism- one that seems to demand the
ceremony even when comprehension and choice are absent.

We do baptize converts, but no one who has been deceived into hearing
the word is likely to be a convert.  If in fact the grace of God might
work in such a situation, there is no harm done in waiting a day or
two.

Baptist believe in regenerate membership.  Did this church include these
half-baked (at best) converts into their church fellowship? Or do they
somehow feel there is some validity in dunking them and turning them loose?

This kind of "evangelism" is certainly not baptist, and probably not
very christian, either.

revdak@netcom.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21801
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: SOC.RELIGION.CHRISTIAN

In article <May.16.01.56.14.1993.6674@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
sfp@lemur.cit.cornell.edu (Sheila Patterson) wrote:
> As for the atheists/agnostics who read this list: if you aren't
> christian and if you have no intention of ever becoming one why on
> earth do you waste your time and mine by participating on a christian
> discussion list ?

I don't think we should draw borders around newsgroups, christians
are free to read and post entries on the atheist newsgroups, and 
muslims are free to so so in other groups as well.

It's up to each individual to define their time schedule concerning 
postings. The problems we all have noticed on various newsgroups
is the evangelistical method of telling that 'I am right, and you are
wrong'. This is true of both theists and atheists.

Hopefully a more constructive dialogue between the groups 
would help concerning assumptions and colorization of views.

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21802
From: seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson)
Subject: Re: Mary's assumption

In article <May.14.02.11.24.1993.25195@athos.rutgers.edu> David.Bernard@central.sun.com writes:
[ in response to a question about why Jesus' parents would be sanctified 
beyond normal humanity]
>
>When Elizabeth greeted Mary, Elizabeth said something to the effect that
>Mary, out of all women, was blessed.  If so, it appears that this
>exactly places Mary beyond the sanctification of normal humanity.

I would think that simply being pregnant with the incarnation of the 
Almighty God would be enough to make Mary blessed among all women, whether
or not she had special spiritual attributes.  I find that the more special
Mary needs to be, the less human Jesus gets.

==
Seanna Watson   Bell-Northern Research,       | Pray that at the end of living,
(seanna@bnr.ca) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada       | Of philosophies and creeds,
                                              | God will find his people busy
Opinion, what opinions? Oh *these* opinions.  | Planting trees and sowing seeds.
No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.          |
I knew I'd left them somewhere.               |  --Fred Kaan

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21803
From: seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson)
Subject: Re: SOC.RELIGION.CHRISTIAN

In article <May.16.01.56.14.1993.6674@geneva.rutgers.edu> sfp@lemur.cit.cornell.edu (Sheila Patterson) writes:
>
>As for the atheists/agnostics who read this list: if you aren't
>christian and if you have no intention of ever becoming one why on
>earth do you waste your time and mine by participating on a christian
>discussion list ?
>
I find this remark to be awfully arrogant.  I would venture to 
say that there are many people who are Christians now, who at one
point in their lives had no intention of ever becoming a Christian.
I was certainly one such person.  I am quite thankful that there 
were Christians who were willing to continue to talk to me, despite
the appearance that it might have been a waste of their time and 
mine.  (I even married one of them.)

"...Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks
you to give a reason for the hope that you have.  But do this 
with gentleness and respect..."
(1 Peter 3:15)
==
Seanna Watson   Bell-Northern Research,       | Pray that at the end of living,
(seanna@bnr.ca) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada       | Of philosophies and creeds,
                                              | God will find his people busy
Opinion, what opinions? Oh *these* opinions.  | Planting trees and sowing seeds.
No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.          |
I knew I'd left them somewhere.               |  --Fred Kaan

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21804
From: RBNMTM@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com
Subject: Re: Immaculate Conception (was Re: What WAS the immaculate

You forgot one thing "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of
God".
Mark

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21805
From: torsina@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (Who???????)
Subject: Islam = Satanic ???

Dear fellow Christians,  

	I had a dinner last night with a bible study group which      
I am in. We had a discussion about the difference between Christianity
and Islam. And I was shocked to hear that our bible study teacher
said that Mohammad was indeed a prophet but of Satan. I said, "What??"
I did not believe that, because I have some moslem friends who are
so kind and  nice, even sometimes I feel I wish I could be like them
(in my point of view, they don't sin as much as I do). How come if they
were under Satan, they could have such personalities. 

To tell you the truth, I don't know much about Islam.
But I know that they believe in God, they believe in the day of
judgement.
	
	Now I'm  asking you what your opinions about Islam and 
its teaching. 

IMPORTANT : I do not want to discuss whether they are saved or not.
	    I do not want to discuss about politic related to Islam.

P.S: I post this in bit.listserv.christia, soc.religion.christian,
     and bit.listserv.catholic.


In Christ, our Lord,                           Smile.........
					       Jesus loves you.......
	Tabut Torsina
	TORSINA@ENUXHB.EAS.ASU.EDU	   

[Let me start by saying that this is not the right newsgroup for a
discussion of Islam, since there's a group for that.  But I suspect
the point your teacher was making was not specifically about Islam.
Indeed it's going to be impossible to see what he was getting at
within your groundrules, since the question of whether non-Christians
are saved is at the heart of it.

The classic Christian view, which I think most people believed until
the last century or so, was that Christianity (and of course Judaism)
was the only religion founded by God, and that all other religions
worshipped false gods, and came from Satan.  This is more or less a
corollary of another traditional view that no one but Christians (and
possibly Jews) will be saved.  This need not mean that there's no
truth in any other religion, nor that all of their members are
intentionally Satanic.  After all, in order to be an effective snare,
Satanic alternatives would have to be attractive.  Thus they might
contain all kinds of truth, wisdom and spiritual insights.  They would
be missing only one thing -- knowledge of salvation through Christ.
If this is the background of your teacher's remarks -- and I suspect
it is -- that means that a discussion of Islam is not necessarily
relevant.  The point is not that there's anything intrinsically wrong
with it.  It may teach a fine code of behavior, and its practitioners
may all be wonderful people.  But if salvation requires being a
follower of Christ, it could still be a Satanic invention.

This is a reasonable deduction from the classic Protestant position.
Christianity says that salvation isn't a matter of being kind and
nice.  Those are good things, and we should encourage them.  But no
one is able to do them enough to be saved.  Salvation requires Christ.
(Please forgive me for doing this in Protestant terms.  There's a
Catholic equivalent to this that has similar implications, but in
different terms.)  A religion may be quite attractive in all visible
ways.  But if it doesn't have Christ, it's like a diet that consists
of food that looks wonderful, tastes great, but is missing some
essential food element so that you end up dying.

Let me be clear that I am not specifically advocating this position.
What I'm trying to do is (as usual) to clarify issues.  Indeed it is
now relatively uncommon for Christians to believe that all other
religions are Satanic.  Most Christians regard such beliefs as an
unfortunate vestige of the past.  This is part of a general move
within Christianity in the last century or so to a non-judgemental
God.  Christians now find it hard to believe that God would allow
anybody other than a really rotten person to end up in hell, and they
find it hard to envision that real malignant spiritual forces are at
work in the world doing things like creating superficially attractive
alternatives to Christianity.  Whether there is actually a sound basis
for the shift is a decision that people need to make for themselves.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21806
From: mayo@CS.UTK.EDU (Wallace Mayo)
Subject: Re: Consecration of Russia

I will remind this list that I have a booklet on Fatima I will send to any
one who wants it.  It is "Our Lady of Fatima's Peace Plan from Heaven".
It is 30 pages in length and includes the Fatima story.  If you want one
or more, let me know.

Wallace Mayo
mayo@cs.utk.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21807
From: mmiller1@ATTMAIL.COM (Mike Miller)
Subject: Re: Consecration and Anniversary

Not to change the subject, but how was Fr. Gobbi allowed at Notre Dame?  Notre
Dame is an anti Catholic University.  Was this allowed to show that the
crackpots at Notre Dame believe in freedom of speech?  I am glad that they did
allow him to speak.

Mike

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
document_id: 21808
From: CCCAMPER%MIZZOU1.BITNET@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU (Elizabeth Stevens)
Subject: The easy way out....


  Easy vs. Hard .....Easy on who?

I had a rare very personal talk with my mother last year.  She said
that when she and my father were raising we four children, they
did not try to raise us in this world as strictly as they were raised
in their Norwegian Lutheran community. They felt that we would be
alienated from them and it would create problems.
  In other words, my parent did the very tolerant, loving thing. They
raised us without conflict, without what we saw as unreasonable
demands and were always accepting, no matter what the circumstances.
  What happened was that I grew up believing in situation ethics and
never absolutes. I believed in a loving God, and my concept of God
never involved justice or punishment, nor was there any concept that
I may someday be held responsible for the things that offended
Him...sins that the "world" told me were OK.
  My parents are very good, honest and moral people. They raised
four extremely honest children. Yet, before coming to a more
complete knowledge of God (which includes the knowledge of justice
and punishment)I committed what I now believe to be many, many
grave sins. I lived with a partner outside of marriage, was married
and divorced ( only after physical abuse and no apparent hope for
change...but I shouldn't have married to person in the first place )
and more....
  My parents felt they were doing the loving,kind thing by allowing
us to be who we were, by not imposing their standards on us, and by
accepting unquestioningly everything we did without judgement or
counsel.
  Today, it is absolutely appalling for me to look back on what they
*did* accept without a word. It takes courages to dare to help souls
because you must speak up and say what is unpopular and
difficult and what people do not want to hear. You must be able
to say what is hard, and say it as Christ would, with love and
compassion. It involves risk....perhaps someone you love may not
want to hear and will stay away from you.
  This life is "but dust". As long as the comfort of this life
is our highest priority, we will fail God and fail those
with whom we come in contact.
  I wonder how many who engage in sex outside of marriage, who
support the "right" to abortion, who engage in homosexuality,
or who commit any of the range of sins that are plentiful in
this time have ever heard from a quiet, thoughtful, loving
friend that these things are *wrong*. No one ever told me that
what I was doing was wrong, and I saw multitudes around me
living the same way I was and they seemed like good, decent
people. (wouldn't kick dogs or beat the elderly or babies..)
It is more difficult for sinners without a genuine prayer
life to hear the Holy Spirit than it is to hear a loving friend.
Think about this the next time the Holy Spirit tells you that
a friend is in error, but you don't want to "cause trouble".
Righteous prayers is great power, but don't forget that we are
we are Christ's lips and hands on earth. Don't be afraid to
simply voice Truth when the situation calls for it. Say a
fervent prayer and ask the Holy Spirit for Love and guidance.
In more ways than we may realize, we *are* our brother's
keeper.

In Jesus and Mary,
Elizabeth

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20361
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: sex education

In article <Mar.26.02.54.26.1993.8940@athos.rutgers.edu> swansond@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Dennis Swanson) writes:
>In article <Mar.22.02.52.49.1993.330@athos.rutgers.edu> heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:
>>[...]
>>When I do programs, I spend
>>about half the time talking about absitinence [...]
>>I find that most people who object
>>to sex education actually object to the teaching *anything* other than
>>abstinencne, and that IMO is just as irresponsible as only talking
>>about comdom use.
>
>I'm under the impression that most sex ed instructors and/or policy makers
>actually object to making any more than a passing reference to abstinence,
>wishing to spend time only on the "realistic" choices. 

In the "sex ed" portion of the  high school "health" course I took
in 1984, it was impressed that the only 100% positive way to *not*
get pregnant was to *not* have sex.

Other methods of contraception were discussed, in the framework of
a chart which showed both the _expected_ failure rate (theoretical,
assumes no mistakes) and the _actual_ failure rate (based on research).
Top of the chart was something like this:


 Method                  Expected         Actual 
 ------                 Failure Rate    Failure Rate
 Abstinence                 0%              0% 


And NFP (Natural Family Planning) was on the bottom. The teacher even
said, "I've had some students tell me that they can't use anything for
birth control because they're Catholic. Well, if you're not married and
you're a practicing Catholic, the *top* of the list is your slot, not 
the *bottom*.  Even if you're not religious, the top of the list is
safest."

Yes, this was a public school and after Dr Koop's "failing abstinence,
use a condom" statement on the prevention of AIDS.

-jen

-- 

#include <stdisclaimer>  //  jenk@microsoft.com  // msdos testing

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20362
From: by028@cleveland.freenet.edu (Gary V. Cavano)
Subject: Pantheism & Environmentalism

Hi...

I'm new to this group, and maybe this has been covered already,
but does anybody out there see the current emphasis on the
environment being turned (unintentionally, of course) into
pantheism?

I've debated this quite a bit, and while I think a legitimate
concern for the planet is a great thing, I can easily see it
being perverted into something dangerous.

As evidence, may I quote THE WALL STREET JOURNAL (of all
things!), April 2 (Editorial page):
"We suspect that's because one party to the (environmental)
dispute thinks the Earth is sanctified.  It's clear that much
of the environmentalist energy is derived from what has been
called the Religious Left, a SECULAR, or even PAGAN fanaticism
that now WORSHIPS such GODS as nature and gender with a
reverence formerly accorded real religions."  (EMPHASIS MINE).

Thoughts?  Reactions?  Harangues?

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20363
From: morgan@socs.uts.edu.au
Subject: re: technology

In article <Apr.2.02.36.53.1993.22906@athos.rutgers.edu> cathye@cs.uq.oz.au writes:
>I am fairly new to this group. 
>I was wondering about people's opinions on 
>ethical uses of the net, and of technology in general.

the classic references in this area are Jacques Ellul for a
liberal/evangelical perspective and Os Guiness for a straight
evangelical view.  If you want to look at non-christian sources
try Alvin Toffler as the perennial optimist.  His views while
blatently non christian explore where technology may be going.

>For example, there are some chain letters going
>around which claim to have been written by a Christian missionary, but
>which present a misleading image of the Christian religion. 

This is regardless of technology.  Be careful to separate the issues of
related to speed and dispersion of technology (how far the letter
went and how quickly it got there) and the message being passed in the
technology (something that seems to be totally wrong.)

>How can we help to make best use of computer technology ?

When lecturing in this area I challenge my (non-christan/atheistic) class
about the impact technology has on life, quality of life and the rights
that they consider important.  Depending on how you work out your
faith will determine your response to the use of technology.  For example
friends of mine are considering IVF due to a life threatening situation the
wife is going through; when it is over they will have the baby. (God
willing).  In this case the technology is available and my friends have to
decide what to do.  In all cases though you must decide if the technology
is against God's revealed word.

Regards
 David
--
David Morgan| University of Technology Sydney | morgan@socs.uts.edu.au _--_|\
            | Po Box 123 Broadway NSW 2007    | Ph: + 61 2 330 1864   /      \
            | 15-73 Broadway Sydney           | Fax: +61 2 330 1807   \_.--._/
"I paid good money to get my opinions; you get them for free"                v

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20364
From: qtm2w@virginia.edu (Quinn T. McCord)
Subject: Seven castaways w. Gilligan=Seven Deadly Sins

Gilligan = Sloth
Skipper = Anger
Thurston Howell III = Greed
Lovey Howell = Gluttony
Ginger = Lust
Professor = Pride
Mary Ann = Envy

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20365
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Subject: Daily Verse

Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the
kingdom of heaven. 

Matthew 18:4

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20487
From: stanly@grok11.columbiasc.ncr.com (stanly)
Subject: Re: Elder Brother

In article <Apr.8.00.57.41.1993.28246@athos.rutgers.edu> REXLEX@fnal.gov writes:
>In article <Apr.7.01.56.56.1993.22824@athos.rutgers.edu> shrum@hpfcso.fc.hp.com
>Matt. 22:9-14 'Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find
>there, invite to the wedding feast.'...

>hmmmmmm.  Sounds like your theology and Christ's are at odds. Which one am I 
>to believe?

In this parable, Jesus tells the parable of the wedding feast. "The kingdom
of heaven is like unto a certain king which made a marriage for his son".
So the wedding clothes were customary,  and "given" to those who "chose" to
attend.  This man "refused" to wear the clothes.  The wedding clothes are
equalivant to the "clothes of righteousness".  When Jesus died for our sins,
those "clothes" were then provided.  Like that man, it is our decision to
put the clothes on.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20488
From: davem@bnr.ca (Dave Mielke)
Subject: Does God love you?

I have come across what I consider to be an excellent tract. It is a
bit lengthy for a posting, but I thought I'd share it with all of you
anyway. Feel free to pass it along to anyone whom you feel might
benefit from what it says. May God richly bless those who read it.
 
=======================================================================
 
                   D O E S  G O D  L O V E  Y O U ?
 
 
Q. What  kind  of  question  is that?   Anyone who can read sees signs,
   tracts, books, and bumper stickers that say, "God Loves You."  Isn't
   that true?
 
A. It  is  true that God offers His love to the whole world, as we read
   in one of the most quoted verses in the Bible:
 
      For  God  so  loved  the world, that he gave his only begotten
      Son, that whosoever believeth in him should  not  perish,  but
      have everlasting life.                               John 3:16
 
   However, God's love is qualified.  The Bible says:
 
      The way of the wicked is an abomination unto the LORD:  but he
      loveth him that followeth after righteousness.   Proverbs 15:9
 
      For  the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of
      the ungodly shall perish.                            Psalm 1:6
 
 
Q. But  I am not wicked.  I am a decent, moral person.  Surely the good
   I have done in my life far outweighs whatever bad I have done.   How
   can these verses apply to me?
 
A. By  God's  standard  of  righteousness even the most moral person is
   looked upon by God as a desperate sinner on his way to  Hell.    The
   Bible teaches that no one is good enough in himself to go to Heaven.
   On  the  contrary,  we  are all sinners and we are all guilty before
   God.
 
      As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:  There
      is  none  that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after
      God.                                            Romans 3:10-11
 
      The  heart  is  deceitful  above  all  things, and desperately
      wicked: who can know it?                         Jeremiah 17:9
 
 
Q. If I am such a wicked person in God's sight, what will God do to me?
 
A. The  Bible  teaches that at the end of the world all the wicked will
   come under eternal punishment in a place called Hell.
 
      For  a  fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the
      lowest hell, and shall consume the earth  with  her  increase,
      and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.  I will heap
      mischiefs upon them; I will spend mine arrows upon them.  They
      shall  be  burnt  with hunger, and devoured with burning heat,
      and  with  bitter  destruction:  I will also send the teeth of
      beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust.
                                                Deuteronomy 32:22-24
 
 
Q. Oh,  come  on now!   Hell is not real, is it?  Surely things are not
   that bad.
 
A. Indeed,  Hell is very real, and things are that bad for the individ-
   ual who does not know the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior.    The  Bible
   makes  many  references  to Hell, indicating that it is both eternal
   and consists of perpetual suffering.
 
      And  whosoever  was  not found written in the book of life was
      cast into the lake of fire.                   Revelation 20:15
 
      So  shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come
      forth, and sever the wicked from among  the  just,  And  shall
      cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and
      gnashing of teeth.                            Matthew 13:49-50
 
      ...    when  the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with
      his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking  vengeance  on  them
      that  know  not  God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord
      Jesus   Christ:    Who  shall  be  punished  with  everlasting
      destruction  from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory
      of his power;                            2 Thessalonians 1:7-9
 
 
Q. That is terrible!  Why would God create a Hell?
 
A. Hell  is  terrible,  and  it  exists  because  God created man to be
   accountable to God for his actions.  God's perfect  justice  demands
   payment for sin.
 
      For the wages of sin is death;                     Romans 6:23
 
      For  we  must  all  appear before the judgment seat of Christ;
      that every one may  receive  the  things  done  in  his  body,
      according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
                                                  2 Corinthians 5:10
 
      But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak,
      they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
                                                       Matthew 12:36
 
 
Q. Does that mean that at the end of the world everyone will be brought
   to life again to be judged and then to be sent to Hell?
 
A. Indeed  it  does;  that  is,  unless  we  can find someone to be our
   substitute in bearing the punishment of eternal  damnation  for  our
   sins.    That  someone  is  God  Himself, who came to earth as Jesus
   Christ to bear the wrath of God for all who believe in Him.
 
      All  we  like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one
      to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity  of
      us all.                                            Isaiah 53:6
 
      But  he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for
      our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace  was  upon  him;
      and with his stripes we are healed.                Isaiah 53:5
 
      For  I  delivered  unto  you  first  of  all that which I also
      received, how that Christ died for our sins according  to  the
      scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the
      third day according to the scriptures:    1 Corinthians 15:3-4
 
      For  he  hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that
      we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
                                                  2 Corinthians 5:21
 
 
Q. Are  you  saying that if I trust in Christ as my substitute, Who was
   already punished for my sins, then I will not have  to  worry  about
   Hell anymore?
 
A. Yes, this is so!  If I have believed in Christ as my Savior, then it
   is  as  if  I  have already stood before the Judgment Throne of God.
   Christ as my substitute has already paid for my sins.
 
      He  that  believeth  on  the Son hath everlasting life: and he
      that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but  the  wrath
      of God abideth on him.                               John 3:36
 
 
Q. But  what  does it mean to believe on Him?  If I agree with all that
   the Bible says about Christ as Savior, then am I saved from going to
   Hell?
 
A. Believing  on  Christ  means  a  whole lot more than agreeing in our
   minds with the truths of the Bible.  It means that we hang our whole
   lives  on Him.   It means that we entrust every part of our lives to
   the  truths  of the Bible.  It means that we turn away from our sins
   and serve Christ as our Lord.
 
      No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one,
      and  love  the  other;  or  else  he will hold to the one, and
      despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
                                                        Matthew 6:24
 
      Repent  ye  therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be
      blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from  the
      presence of the Lord;                                Acts 3:19
 
 
Q. Are  you  saying  that  there  is no other way to escape Hell except
   through Jesus?   What about all the other  religions?    Will  their
   followers also go to Hell?
 
A. Yes, indeed.  They cannot escape the fact that God holds us account-
   able  for  our  sins.   God demands that we pay for our sins.  Other
   religions  cannot  provide  a  substitute  to bear the sins of their
   followers.  Christ is the only one who is able to bear our guilt and
   save us.
 
      Neither  is  there  salvation  in any other: for there is none
      other name under heaven given among men, whereby  we  must  be
      saved.                                               Acts 4:12
 
   Jesus said:
 
      I  am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the
      Father, but by me.                                   John 14:6
 
      If  we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us
      our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
                                                          1 John 1:9
 
 
Q. Now I am desperate.  I do not want to go to Hell.  What can I do?
 
A. You  must  remember  that God is the only one who can help you.  You
   must throw yourself altogether on the mercies of God.   As  you  see
   your hopeless condition as a sinner, cry out to God to save you.
 
      And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much
      as  his  eyes  unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying,
      God be merciful to me a sinner.                     Luke 18:13
 
      ...  Sirs, what must I do to be saved?  And they said, Believe
      on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, ...
                                                       Acts 16:30-31
 
 
Q. But how can I believe on Christ if I know so little about Him?
 
A. Wonderfully,  God  not  only saves us through the Lord Jesus, but He
   also gives us the faith to believe on Him.  You can pray to God that
   He will give you faith in Jesus Christ as your Savior.
 
      For  by  grace  are  ye  saved  through faith; and that not of
      yourselves: it is the gift of God:               Ephesians 2:8
 
   God works particularly through the Bible to give us that faith.  So,
   if  you  really  mean  business  with  God about your salvation, you
   should  use  every opportunity to hear and study the Bible, which is
   the only Word of God.
   In  this  brochure,  all  verses  from the Bible are within indented
   paragraphs.  Give heed to them with all your heart.
 
      So  then  faith  cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of
      God.                                              Romans 10:17
 
 
Q. But does this mean that I have to surrender everything to God?
 
A. Yes.    God wants us to come to Him in total humility, acknowledging
   our sinfulness and our helplessness, trusting totally in Him.
 
      The  sacrifices  of  God  are  a broken spirit: a broken and a
      contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.      Psalm 51:17
 
   Because  we  are sinners we love our sins.  Therefore, we must begin
   to pray to God for an intense  hatred  of  our  sins.    And  if  we
   sincerely desire salvation, we will also begin to turn from our sins
   as  God  strengthens  us.    We know that our sins are sending us to
   Hell.
 
      Unto  you  first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him
      to bless you, in turning  away  every  one  of  you  from  his
      iniquities.                                          Acts 3:26
 
 
Q. Doesn't  the  Bible teach that I must attend church regularly and be
   baptized?  Will these save me?
 
A. If  possible,  we should do these things, but they will not save us.
   No work of any kind can secure our salvation.   Salvation  is  God's
   sovereign gift of grace given according to His mercy and good pleas-
   ure.  Salvation is
 
      Not of works, lest any man should boast.         Ephesians 2:9
 
 
Q. What else will happen at the end of the world?
 
A. Those  who have trusted in Jesus as their Savior will be transformed
   into their glorious eternal bodies and will be with Christ  forever-
   more.
 
      For  the  Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout,
      with the voice of the archangel, and with the  trump  of  God:
      and  the  dead  in Christ shall rise first:  Then we which are
      alive  and remain shall be caught up together with them in the
      clouds,  to meet the Lord in the air:  and so shall we ever be
      with the Lord.                         1 Thessalonians 4:16-17
 
 
Q. What will happen to the earth at that time?
 
A. God  will destroy the entire universe by fire and create new heavens
   and a new earth where Christ will reign with His believers  forever-
   more.
 
      But  the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in
      the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise,  and
      the  elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and
      the   works  that  are  therein  shall  be  burned  up.    ...
      Nevertheless  we,  according  to  his  promise,  look  for new
      heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
                                                     2 Peter 3:10,13
 
 
Q. Does  the  Bible  give us any idea of when the end of the earth will
   come?
 
A. Yes!    The end will come when Christ has saved all whom He plans to
   save.
 
      And  this  gospel  of the kingdom shall be preached in all the
      world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall  the  end
      come.                                            Matthew 24:14
 
 
Q. Can we know how close to the end of the world we might be?
 
A. Yes!   God gives much information in the Bible concerning the timing
   of the history of the world and tells us that while the Day  of  the
   Lord  will come as a thief in the night for the unsaved, it will not
   come  as  a  thief for the believers.  There is much evidence in the
   Bible  that  the  end  of  the world and the return of Christ may be
   very, very close.* All the time clues in the Bible point to this.
 
      For  when  they  shall  say,  Peace  and  safety;  then sudden
      destruction cometh upon them, as travail  upon  a  woman  with
      child; and they shall not escape.          1 Thessalonians 5:3
 
      Surely  the  Lord  GOD  will  do nothing, but he revealeth his
      secret unto his servants the prophets.                Amos 3:7
 
 
Q. But that means Judgment Day is almost here.
 
A. Yes,  it  does.    God  warned  ancient Nineveh that He was going to
   destroy that great city and He gave them forty days warning.
 
      And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he
      cried,  and  said,  Yet  forty  days,  and  Nineveh  shall  be
      overthrown.                                          Jonah 3:4
 
 
Q. What did the people of Nineveh do?
 
A. From  the  king on down they humbled themselves before God, repented
   of their sins, and cried to God for mercy.
 
      But  let  man  and  beast  be  covered with sackcloth, and cry
      mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his  evil
      way,  and  from  the violence that is in their hands.  Who can
      tell  if  God  will  turn  and  repent, and turn away from his
      fierce anger, that we perish not?                  Jonah 3:8-9
 
 
Q. Did God hear their prayers?
 
A. Yes.  God saved a great many people of Nineveh.
 
 
Q. Can  I still cry to God for mercy so that I will not come into judg-
   ment?
 
A. Yes.   There is still time to become saved even though that time has
   become very short.
 
      How  shall  we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which
      at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed
      unto us by them that heard him;                    Hebrews 2:3
 
      In  God is my salvation and my glory: the rock of my strength,
      and my refuge, is in God.   Trust in  him  at  all  times;  ye
      people,  pour  out  your heart before him: God is a refuge for
      us.                                               Psalm 62:7-8
 
 
 
 
            A R E  Y O U  R E A D Y  T O  M E E T  G O D ?
 
 
 
A  book  entitled  1994?,  written by Harold Camping, presents Biblical
information that we may be very near the end of time.  For  information
on  how to obtain a copy or to receive a free program guide and list of
radio  stations on which you can hear our Gospel programs, please write
to Family Radio, Oakland, California, 94621 (The United States of Amer-
ica), or call 1-800-543-1495.
 
               ----------------------------------------
 
 
The  foregoing  is a copy of the "Does God Love You?" tract printed by,
and available free of charge from, Family Radio.   A  number  of  minor
changes  have  been  made to its layout to facilitate computer printing
and  distribution.  The only change to the text itself is the paragraph
which  describes  the  way in which Biblical passages appear within the
text.    In  the  original  tract they appear in italic lettering; they
appear here as indented paragraphs.
 
 
I have read Mr. Camping's book, compared it with what the Bible actual-
ly  says, find it to be the most credible research with respect to what
the  future holds that I have ever come across, and agree with him that
there  is just too much data to ignore.  While none of us is guaranteed
one  more  second  of  life, and while we, therefore, should take these
matters  very seriously regardless of when Christ will actually return,
it  would appear that our natural tendency to postpone caring about our
eternal  destiny  until we feel that our death is imminent is even more
senseless  now  because,  in  all  likelihood, the law of averages with
respect  to life expectancy no longer applies.  If you wish to obtain a
copy  of  this book so that you can check out these facts for yourself,
you may find the following information helpful:
 
      title:       1994?
      author:      Harold Camping
      publisher:   Vantage Press
      distributor: Baker and Taylor
      ISBN:        0-533-10368-1
 
 
I  have  chosen  to share this tract with you because I whole-heartedly
agree with everything it declares and feel that now, perhaps more  than
ever  before,  this information must be made known.  To paraphrase Acts
20:27,  it  does not shun to declare unto us all the counsel of God.  I
am  always  willing  to  discuss  the  eternal truths of the Bible with
anyone who is interested as I believe them to be the only issues of any
real  importance since we will spend, comparatively speaking, so little
time  on this side of the grave and so much on the other.  Feel free to
get in touch with me at any time:
 
      e-mail: davem@bnr.ca
      office: 1-613-765-4671
      home:   1-613-726-0014
 
      Dave Mielke
      856 Grenon Avenue
      Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
      K2B 6G3

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20489
From: nichael@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Subject: Re: Dead Sea Scrolls

dhancock@teosinte.agron.missouri.edu (Denis Hancock) writes:
   > [A very nice article on the DSS, which I thought answered
   >  David Cruz-Uribe's original queries quite well]

   Here are some books I have read recently that helped me not only
   prepare for a 5 week series I taught in Sunday School, but greatly
   increased my knowledge of the Qumran scrolls. [...]

One other recent book I would heartily recommend is Joseph Fitzmyer's
_Response to 101 Questions about the Dead Sea Scrolls_ (Paulist,
1992).

Fitzmyer is one of the preeminent modern NT scholars.  He was also one
of the early workers on the DSS.  His book is written in a
straightforward Q&A that allows it to serve as a source for a great
wealth of clearly presented basic, up-to-the-moment information about
the DSS.

(This book is something of a companion volume to Raymond Brown's
_Response to 101 Questions about the Dead Sea Scrolls_.)

Nichael

Pop Quiz: What's wrong with the cover of this book?     ;)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20490
From: jemurray@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John E Murray)
Subject: quality of Catholic liturgy

I would like the opinion of netters on a subject that has been bothering my
wife and me lately: liturgy, in particular, Catholic liturgy.  In the last few
years it seems that there are more and more ad hoc events during Mass.  It's
driving me crazy!  The most grace-filled aspect of a liturgical tradition is
that what happens is something we _all_ do together, because we all know how to 
do it.  Led by the priest, of course, which makes it a kind of dialogue we 
present to God.  But the best Masses I've been to were participatory prayers.

Lately, I think the proportion of participation has fallen, and the proportion
of sitting there and watching, or listening, or generally being told what to do
(which is necessary because no one knows what's happening next) is growing.
Example.  Last Sunday (Palm Sunday) we went to the local church.  Usually
on Palm Sunday, the congregation participates in reading the Passion, taking
the role of the mob.  The theology behind this seems profound--when we say
"Crucify him" we mean it.  We did it, and if He came back today we'd do it
again.  It always gives me chills.  But last week we were "invited" to sit
during the Gospel (=Passion) and _listen_.  Besides the Orwellian "invitation", 
I was really saddened to have my (and our) little role taken away.  This seems
typical of a shift of participation away from the people, and toward the
musicians, readers, and so on.  New things are introduced in the course of the
liturgy and since no one knows what's happening, the new things have to be
explained, and pretty soon instead of _doing_ a lot of the Mass we're just
sitting there listening (or spacing out, in my case) to how the Mass is about
to be done.  In my mind, I lay the blame on liturgy committees made up of lay
"experts", but that may not be just.  I do think that a liturgy committee has a
bias toward doing something rather than nothing--that's just a fact of
bureaucratic life--even though a simpler liturgy may in fact make it easier for
people to be aware of the Lord's presence.

So we've been wondering--are we the oddballs, or is the quality of the Mass
going down?  I don't mean that facetiously.  We go to Mass every Thursday or
Friday and are reminded of the power of a very simple liturgy to make us aware 
of God's presence.  But as far as the obligatory Sunday Masses...maybe I should 
just offer it up :)  Has anyone else noticed declining congregational
participation in Catholic Masses lately?

John Murray

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20491
From: gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham)
Subject: Re: Prophetic Warning to New York City

Regarding David Wilkerson's prophecies.  While I'm not real sure of
his credibility, I do remember a book he wrote, called A VISION or
something like that.  He made a prediction that people who bought gold
would be hurt financially.  At the time, gold was up to about $800;
now it is less than half that.  This prediction stuck in my mind
because a lot of people where I worked were buying gold.

The problem is, we tend to remember predictions that come true and
forget ones that didn't (a la Jean Dixon).  Does anyone know if there
any of his predictions, perhaps from the book I mentioned, that can
pretty definitely be said to have not come true?
--
-Fred Gilham    gilham@csl.sri.com
"Peace is only better than war when it's not hell too.  War being hell
makes sense."
               -Walker Percy, THE SECOND COMING

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20492
From: leonard@aix3090b.uky.edu (Leonard Lauria)
Subject: Re: Prayer in Jesus' Name

munns@cae.wisc.edu (Scott Munns) writes:

>I am doing a dormitory bible "discussion" with my Christian roommate and
>2 of the non-Christian guys on my floor.  They are very close to
>accepting Christ, so we have started to disciple them (treat them like
>baby believers) and go into more indepth subjects than the parables, etc.
>Our first discussion was on prayer.  Eventually, we got around to how
>we should pray in Jesus' name.  Then, an excellent question came up, one
>that I don't have a real answer to.  The question was, "If we need to pray
>in Jesus' name, what about the people before Jesus?  They prayed to God
>and he listened then, in spite of their sins.  Why can't it be the same
>way now?"

I'll take a try at this...

From the discussions I have been in, and from how *I* have interpreted
the bible, I feel that one can pray either way.  BUT remember this,
before Jesus, the people talked to God (no other way) and he talked 
back.  (audible and dreams, etc.)  Today we have the bible to know 
Gods will, and we have his son you died for US.  He was given as our
savior, and while we still do things according to Gods will, we pray
THROUGH his son.  In the bible it says that if we are not known to 
Jesus, we are not known to God.  (sorry I do not have the verses
with me)  So, if we are to be granted eternal life, we must present
ourselves to Jesus first, who will then present us to God.

Leonard



--

===========================================================================
   -This space intentionally left blank.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20493
From: KSTE@vm.cc.purdue.edu (Kerry Stephenson)
Subject: Request for research subjects

Please excuse the interruption.
 
I am seeking pro-life activists to fill out a 13-page questionnaire
on attitutes, opinions, and activities.  If you would be willing
to participate in this research, please email me privately at
KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET.  All replies and questionnaires will be
made anonymous prior to printout and will be kept confidential.
 
Thank you very much for your help.
 
--Kerry at Purdue

[Note that I don't normally accept postings on abortion.  So this
isn't an invitation to a discussion in this group.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20494
From: HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com
Subject: Re: Deification

Aaron Bryce Cardenas writes:

>Basically the prophet's writings make up the Old Testament, the apostles' 
>writings make up the New Testament.  These writings, recorded in the Bible, 
>are the foundation of the church.

hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes) writes:

>That seems a most peculiar interpretation of the text. The "apostles and
>prophets" were PEOPLE, rather than writings. And there were new testament
>prophets as well, who built up the churches.

Remember the OT doctrine of 2 witnesses?  Perhaps the prophets
testified He is coming.  The Apostles, testified He came.
 
After all, what does prophesy mean?  Secondly, what is an Apostle?  Answer:
an especial witness--one who is suppose to be a personal witness.  That means
to be a true apostle, one must have Christ appear to them.  Now lets see
when did the church quit claiming ......?

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20495
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Subject: Daily Verse

Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above
yourselves.

Romans 12:10

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20496
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Revelations

In article <Apr.9.01.11.00.1993.16923@athos.rutgers.edu> topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) writes:

>Now, as to the suggestion that all prophecy tends to be somewhat cyclical,
>can you elaborate?  I'm not exactly sure what you mean.  How does the
>suggestion relate to Isaiah's prophecy of the birth of Christ by a virgin? 
>I don't see any cycles in that prophecy.

Maybe cyclical is not the best word.  That is one aspect of it.  In the
case of the virgin birth prophecy, it applied to the then and there, and
also prophetically to Christ.  The army that threatened the king would 
cease to be a threat in a very short time.  Yet it also prophecied of 
Christ.

Several prophecies that refered to Christ also had application at the
time they were made.  "Out of Egypt have I called my Son" refers both
to Israel, and prophetically to Christ.   "Why do the heathen rage"
was said of David and also of Christ.  

Another example would be the Scripture quoted of Judas, "and his bishoprick
let another take."  Another example is something that Isaiah said of His
disciples which is also applied to Christ in Hebrews, "the children thou
hast given me."

How does the preterist view account for this phenomenon.

Link


Link Hudson.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20497
From: mussack@austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Subject: Re: Sin

In article <Apr.8.00.59.20.1993.28493@athos.rutgers.edu>, jadaley@cwis.unomaha.edu (Jill Anne Daley) writes:
> What exactly is a definition of sin and what are some examples. How does a
> person know when they are committing sin?
> 

Anything that does not bring me closer to God is a sin. 
(If you think this is too strict, just consider how ambiguous it is.)

This implies that staying the same is a sin. A Christian should
never be satisfied. It does not imply that
having fun is a sin. It does not imply that sleeping is a sin.
It does imply that I sin every day.

A perhaps simpler definition:
Anything that is counter to the two Great Commandments: 
love God, love your neighbor, is a sin.
Anything I do that is not from love is a sin.

The same action can be a sin sometimes and not a sin sometimes.

I could yell at my kids as discipline, all the time loving them,
considering only to teach them proper behavior, or I could yell at my
kids out of anger or selfishness.

I could post an excellent article because I am interested in sharing
my opinions and getting feedback and learning, or I could post an
article because I want everyone to realize how wise I am.

Chris Mussack

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20498
From: jkellett@netcom.com (Joe Kellett)
Subject: Re: Opinions asked about rejection

William Mayne (mayne@pipe.cs.fsu.edu) wrote:
: In article <Apr.1.02.34.21.1993.21547@athos.rutgers.edu> jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas) writes:

: >People who reject God don't want to be wth Him in heaven.  We spend our 
: >lives choosing to be either for Him or against Him.  God does not force 
: >Himself on us.

: I must say that I am shocked. My impression has been that Jayne Kulikaskas
: usually writes this much less offensive and ludicrous than this. I am not
: saying that the offensiveness is intentional, but it is clear and it is
: something for Christians to consider.

Jayne stands in pretty good company.  C.S. Lewis wrote a whole book
promoting the idea contained in her first sentence quoted above.  It is
called "The Final Divorce".  Excellent book on the subject of Heaven and
Hell, highly recommended.  It's an allegory of souls who are invited, indeed
beseeched to enter Heaven, but reject the offer because being with God in
Heaven means giving up their false pride.

-- 
Joe Kellett
jkellett@netcom.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20499
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Prophetic Warning to New York City

In article <Apr.9.01.10.38.1993.16892@athos.rutgers.edu> evensont@spot.Colorado.EDU (EVENSON THOMAS RANDALL) writes:

>Which brings me around to asking an open question.  Is the Bible a closed
>book of Scripture?  Is it okay for us to go around saying "God told
>me this" and "Jesus told me that"?  Wouldn't that imply that God is STILL
>pouring out new revelation to us?  I know that some people will feel
>that is okay, and some will not.  The concept of a closed canon would
>certainly cast a shadow on contemporary prophets.  On the other hand,
>an open canon seems to be indicated sometimes.

There are a lot of people running around saying "God told me this" and 
"God told me that" these days.  Some people really have heard God, and others
heard their glands.  Mario Murrillo mentioned this in a sermon once.  He
said someone told him, "The Lord gave me a song."  He said that it was
the worst song he had ever heard.

"I know why he gave you that song," Murillo said, "He didn't want it anymore."

But God does still speak to His people today, and the idea is contrary to the
idea of a closed cannon.  Ireneaus wrote about all the gifts of the Spirit
in the church of His day (2nd and 3rd century) and he was one of the first
to put forth a New Testament cannon, which was almost identical to the one
we have today.  He believed in a closed cannon.  

Many prophets prophesied prophecies which were not recorded in the Scriptures.
For example, one prophet in Kings, whose name starts with an "M" who
prophecied that the king would lose a battle.  That is the only prophecy
he gave recorded in Scripture, and we no that he had given other prophecies
because the king complained before he heard the prophecy, "He never prophesies
anything good about me."  Yet only one little paragraph of all of his 
lifetime of prophecies are recorded in Scripture.  There are numerous examples.
Barnabas was a prophet, Acts says, before he was even sent out as an 
apostle.  Yet his writings are not recorded in Scripture.  Only two of
Agabus prophecies are mentioned in Scripture.  He was already a prophet
before he gave them.  

So prophecy may be genuine and from God, but that does not make it 
Scripture.  

>Also interesting to note is that some so called prophecies are nothing new
>but rather an inspired translation of scripture.  Is it right to call
>that prophecy?  Misleading?  Wouldn't that be more having to do with
>knowledge?

I don't know about translations of Scripture, but I am familiar with 
prophecies that give applications for Scripture.  There are also 
similar examples in the Bible.  Several times Peter interprets prophecies
in a seemingly prophetic way, for example, "And his bishoprick let another
take" concerning Judas office.

A clearer example can be found in Matthew 24.  Jesus is prophesying about
what will happen before His return and He quotes a passage out of Joel
about the sun being darkened and the moon turning to blood.  So Scriptural
prophecy can be used in later prophecy.  

Sometimes this sort of thing can cross over into being a word of knowledge,
but gifts of the Spirit seem to overlap.  Words of knowledge and wisdom
can overlap.  The word of knowledge and prophecy can overlap.  
Interpretation of tounges is very similar to prophecy.  Healings are often
considered miracles.  So sometimes the distinction between gifts is a 
bit hazy.  Imho, it doesn't usually matter that much if we are able to
label a phenomenon, as long as we recognize them as the work of the 
Spirit, and use them according to His leading.

Link Hudson.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20500
From: conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt)
Subject: Re: christians and aids

In article <Apr.8.00.57.49.1993.28271@athos.rutgers.edu> marka@travis.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley) writes:
>In article <Apr.7.01.55.33.1993.22762@athos.rutgers.edu> kevin@pictel.pictel.com (Kevin Davis) writes:
>>Many Christians believe in abstinence, but in a moment will be overcome
>>by desire.  We all compromise and rationalize poor choices (sin).  Last
>>week I was guilty of anger, jealousy, and whole mess of other stuff,
>>yet I am forgiven and not condemned to suffer with AIDs.  To even
>>suggest that AIDS is "deserved" is ludicrous.
>
>Some rules are made because at some point man is too stupid
>to know better. Yet, eventually man learns. But only after
>getting a lesson from experience.

Yes, it's important to realize that all actions have consequences,
and that "rules" were made for our own good.  But to suggest that a
*disease* is a *punishment* for certain types of sin I think is 
taking things much too far.  If we got some kind of mouth disease
for lying, would any of us have mouths left?  What if we developed
blindness every time we lusted after someone or something?  I dare
say all of us would be walking into walls.
>
>I wonder if AIDS would be a problem now if people didn't get
>involved in deviant sexual behaviour. Certainly, people who
>received tainted blood are not to blame. But it just goes
>to show that all mankind is affected by the actions of a few.

Yes, sin can have terrible consequences, but we need to be *real*
careful when saying that the consequences are a *punishment* for 
sin.  The Jews of Jesus's time believed that all sickness was the
result of a sin.  Then Jesus healed a blind man and said that man was
blind to show the glory of God, not because of sin.  If AIDS, or any
other STD is a *punishment" for sexual sin, what do we do with 
diseases like cancer, or multiple sclerosis, which are just as
debilitating and terrible as AIDS, yet are not usually linked to a
specific behavior or lifestyle?
>
>In addition, IMHO forgiveness is not the end of things.
>There is still the matter of atonement. Is it AIDS ?
>I don't know.

Atonement is *extremely* important, but I think you've missed the mark
about as far as you can by suggesting that AIDS is an atonement for sin.
The atonement for sin is JESUS CHRIST - period.  This is the central
message of the Gospel.  A perfect sacrifice was required for our sins,
and was made in the Lamb of God.  His sacrifice atoned for *all* of
our sins, past present and future.  God does not require pennance for
our sins, nor does he require us to come up with our own atonement.  He
has graciously already done that for us.  To suggest that AIDS or 
some other consequence is an atonement for sins is literally spitting
on the sacrifice that Jesus made.

In case you couldn't tell, I get *extremely* angry and upset when
I see things like this.  Instead of rationalizing our own fears and
phobias, we need to be reaching out to people with AIDS and other
socially unacceptable diseases.  Whether they got the disease through
their own actions or not is irrelevant.  They still need Jesus Christ,
no more and no less than we do.  I've said this before, but I think
it's a good analogy.  People with AIDS are modern-day lepers.  Jesus
healed many lepers.  He can also heal people with AIDS, maybe not on
this earth, but in an ultimate sense.  My next-door neighbor has AIDS.
She has recently come to have a much deeper and more committed 
relationship with God.  Her theology isn't what I would want it to be,
but God's grace covers her.  The amazing thing is that she is gaining
weight (she's had the disease for over 2 years) and her health is
excellent apart from occassional skin rashes and such.  She attributes
her improvement in her health to God's intervention in her life.  Who
are we to suggest that her disease is some kind of punishment?  It
seems to me that God is being glorified through her disease.

Paul Overstreet, the country singer, has a good song title that I 
think applies to all of us - But for the Grace of God, There Go I
(or something like that).

May we all experience and accept God's grace.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Mark Ashley                        |DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed
>marka@gcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com      |here are my own; they do not
>..!uunet!gcx1!marka               |reflect the opinion or policies
>The Lost Los Angelino              |of Harris Corporation.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------


===============================================================================
Paul Conditt		Internet: conditt@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu
Applied Research	Phone:	  (512) 835-3422   FAX: (512) 835-3416/3259
  Laboratories		Fedex:	  10000 Burnet Road, Austin, Texas 78758-4423
University of Texas	Postal:	  P.O. Box 8029, Austin, Texas 78713-8029
Austin, Texas <----- the most wonderful place in Texas to live


  TTTTTTTTTTTTTTT              
  TTT   TTT   TTT                 
        TTT                    
   TTTTTTTTTTTTT                  Texas Tech Lady Raiders
   TT   TTT   TT                   1992-93 SWC Champions
        TTT                    1992-93 NCAA National Champions
        TTT
      TTTTTTT

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20501
From: harwood@umiacs.umd.edu (David Harwood)
Subject: Re: Essene New Testament

[William Christie asked about the Essene NT.
Andrew Kille reponded
>There is a collection of gospels which usually goes under the name of the
>"Essene Gospel of Peace."  These are derived from the gnostics, not the
>essenes, and are ostensibly translations from syriac texts of the fourth 
>and fifth centuries (I vaguely recall; I can't find my copy right now).
--clh]

There had been recent criticism of this in a listserv for academic
Biblical scholars: they all say the book(s) are modern fakes.
D.H.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20502
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Subject: Anybody out there?

I seldom see any posts in this group. Is anyone out there in Christendom
listening? If so, why don't we get some dialog going here?

Here's a topic to get things started. My daughter's Christian school sends
home a weekly update on school related topics. This week they sent
something *very* interesting. It was an article written by the leader of a
national (US) Christian school organization about a trip he recently made
to Jerusalem. While there, he was introduced to one of the rabbis who is
working on a project to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem. The article
included photos of the many furnishings that have already been made in
preparation for furnishing the rebuilt temple according to the
specifications given in the Bible. 

What was even more striking is the fact that the plans for the temple are
complete and the group is only awaiting permission from the Israeli
government before beginning the building. The other startling fact is the
very recent archeological discovery that the original site of the temple is
unoccupied and available for building. Previously it has been thought that
the original site was underneath what is now a mosque, making rebuilding
impossible without sparking a holy war. 

Now it appears that nothing stands in the way of rebuilding and resuming
sacrifices, as the Scriptures indicate will happen in the last days.
Although the Israeli government will give the permission to start, I think
it is the hand of God holding the project until He is ready to let it
happen. Brothers and sisters, the time is at hand. Our redemption is
drawing near. Look up!

[Postings are in the range of 30 to 50 per day, except weekends.
If people aren't seeing that, we've got propagation problems.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20503
From: daniels@math.ufl.edu (TV's Big Dealer)
Subject: Prayer in Jesus' name


	Hmm...makes you wonder whether prayer "in Jesus' name" means
"saying Jesus' name" or whether we're simply to do all things with the
attitude that we belong to Jesus.
					Frank D.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20504
From: rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe)
Subject: Re: What did Lazarus smell like?

In the discussion as to why Jesus spoke aloud the "Lazarus, come out",
I'm surprised that no one has noticed the verse immediately preceeding.

Jn 12:41  "Father, I thank you for listening to me, though I knew that
you always listen to me.  But I have said this for the sake of the
people that are standing around me that they may believe that you have
made my your messenger."  (Goodspeed translation)

My guess is that the "Lazarus, come out!" was also for the sake of the
crowd.
-- 
                                                    --- Tim Rolfe
                                                 rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu
                                                 rolfe@junior.dsu.edu
                                                RolfeT@columbia.dsu.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20505
From: luomat@alleg.edu (Timothy J. Luoma)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

In article <Apr.9.01.11.16.1993.16937@athos.rutgers.edu>  
emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:
[much of the excellent post deleted for space -- TjL]

)->With all the suffering and persecution that it meant to be a believer,  
it
)->would be quite probable that at least one of those in the supposed  
conspiracy
)->would come forward and confess that the whole thing was a big hoax.   
Yet
)->not one did.  It seems rather reasonable that the disciples did not  
make
)->up the resurrection but sincerely believed that Jesus had actually  
risen
)->from the dead; especially in light of the sufferings that came upon  
those
)->who believed.


I was at the "Jubilee" conference this year in Pittsburgh PA, and the  
speaker there spoke of this as well. He talked about many of the same  
things you mentioned in your post, but here he went into a little more  
detail.  I'll paraphrase as best I can:

"Suppose you were part of the `Christian consipracy' which was going to  
tell people that Christ had risen.  Never mind the stoning, the being  
burned alive, the possible crucifixion ... let's just talk about a  
scourging.  The whip that would be used would have broken pottery, metal,  
bone, and anything else that they could find attached to it.  You would be  
stood facing a wall, with nothing to protect you.

"When the whip hit you the first time, it would tear the flesh off you  
with instant incredibly intense pain.  You would think to yourself `All  
this for a lie?'  The second hit would drop you to your knees, you would  
scream out in agony that your raw back was being torn at again.  You would  
say to yourself: `All this for a lie?'  And you had 37 more coming.

"At the third hit you would scream out that it was all a lie, beg for them  
to stop, and tell them that you would swear on your life that it had all  
been a lie, if they would only stop...."

It is amazing enough that those who believed kept their faith under such  
torture.... but for a lie?  There is no one fool enough to do that.... And  
no one came forward.

Excellent post John, thanks for taking the time.


--
Tj Luoma <luomat@alleg.edu>	"God be merciful to 
"I have fought a good fight,	 me a sinner."--St Luke
 I have finished my course,	"For me to live is Christ, and
 I have kept the faith." 2 TIM   to die is gain"  -- PHILIPPIANS 1:21             

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20506
From: qtm2w@virginia.edu (Quinn T. McCord)
Subject: Questions from a newbie


	Is life a pass/fail course, and does God grade on a
curve?
	I'm new here, and only vaguely religious, but I want to
know what some of you people think.  Specifically, are there an
infinite number of Heavens, and a person goes to the one that
he/she deserves?  Or is it simply Heaven or nothing (Hell?)
Also, are we "graded" by those around us, or has there always
been some unchanging method?  Is the person's childhood taken
into account?
	I'm sure these must sound like over-simplifications to
most of you, but I figure that you're the experts.

						-Quinn

[Eschatology is an area on which Christians do not agree.  I suspect
that's because our primary source of information is prophets and
visionaries, and their writings tend to be highly symbolic.  However
both Jesus' teachings in the Gospels and books such as the Revelation
to John talk primarily about the difference between eternal life and
eternal death.  On a number of occasions Jesus does say things that
imply some sort of differentiation, e.g. Lk 10:14 and a number of
similar passages where Jesus says things like "even XXX will be better
off than you in the judgement."  Also, I Cor 3 talks about someone who
gets into heaven, but by the skin of his teeth, as it were.  But these
passages are not normally interpreted as suggesting separate heavens,
so much as differing levels of prestige or punishment in heaven or
hell (and not all Christians would even go as far as that).  The only
Christian group I know of that believes in multiple heavens is the
Mormons, and they are very far from mainstream Christianity (far
enough that many of our readers would not call them Christian).  Their
ideas in this area involve specific Mormon revelations, in addition
to the Bible and "Holy Tradition" of a more generic Christian sort.

Note that many Christians will cringe at the very thought of
associating grading with God.  The whole point of Christ was to free
us from the results of a test that we couldn't possibly pass.  If you
like test analogies, God grades on a very strict and unbending scale,
but he also cheats -- he replaces our test papers with an exam that
was prepared by the teacher, before actually doing the grading.
Because some people end up in heaven and others in hell, it's easy to
see why you'd be inclined to think of it as grading.  While there are
differences among branches of Christianity on details, I think we all
agree that in one way or another, God cheats.

I am personally very sceptical about anyone who claims to know exactly
how far God's cheating extends.  Will he accept people who don't
explicitly acknowledge Christ, but somehow still follow him in their
hearts?  Many Christians believe that this is possible, at least in
principle, but certainly not all do.  Jesus provided us with a clear
description of how to be saved, but it's not clear to me that he
provided an exact description of how he's going to place the dividing
line.  Certainly he made it clear that we can't expect to know whether
other individuals are saved or not.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20507
From: reid@cs.uiuc.edu (Jon Reid)
Subject: Re: Prophetic Warning to New York City

evensont@spot.Colorado.EDU (EVENSON THOMAS RANDALL) writes:

>Yes, I suppose it is true that people make mistakes.  It is interesting to
>note that in those long ago OT days, if you weren't 100% correct in
>your prophecies, people got very mad and you were no longer believed,
>even put to death.

This is one of the differences between OT prophecy and NT prophecy.  In the
NT, it is expected that when believers gather,
  - people will prophesy
  - the prophecy must be judged (1 Cor 14:29)
There is nothing about killing someone who makes a mistake.

>To say that we make mistakes is true.  To say that we make mistakes
>while filled with the spirit is not true.  Were that true, the entire
>Bible, having been written by men inspired by God would be subject also
>to those errors, for what is prophecy but like those revelations given
>in scripture?

Scripture is scripture; there is no "gift of scripture".  And I don't know
about you, but I know that _I_ have made mistakes while filled with the
spirit.  If you don't give grace to allow people to make mistakes, they
will never grow in the use of the spiritual gifts!

When we minister in my small group, I encourage people to speak out any
impressions or images they think might be from the Lord.  Only by trying
will they know whether they were right or wrong -- and in either case,
they'll have a better handle on it the next time.

Didn't you fall when you were learning to ride a bicycle?  But you kept on
trying, and you learned both from your failures and your successes.
Spiritual gifts are no different -- you get better with experience.

>Which brings me around to asking an open question.  Is the Bible a closed
>book of Scripture?  Is it okay for us to go around saying "God told
>me this" and "Jesus told me that"?  Wouldn't that imply that God is STILL
>pouring out new revelation to us?  I know that some people will feel
>that is okay, and some will not.  The concept of a closed canon would
>certainly cast a shadow on contemporary prophets.  On the other hand,
>an open canon seems to be indicated sometimes.

The canon of Scripture is complete.  Does this mean that God no longer
speaks?  I have heard his voice -- not audibly (though some have), but
clearly nonetheless.  Is what I heard equivalent to Scripture?  No.  I have
never heard contemporary prophets claim that what they receive from the
Lord is on the same level as Scripture; on the contrary, those who are
mature obey the Scriptures by submitting their prophecies to fellow
believers for judgement.  And the most reliable yardstick for judging
prophecies is, certainly, the Scriptures themselves.  The canon is closed
-- but God is not silent!

>Also interesting to note is that some so called prophecies are nothing new
>but rather an inspired translation of scripture.  Is it right to call
>that prophecy?  Misleading?  Wouldn't that be more having to do with
>knowledge?  I know, the gift of knowledge may not be as exciting to
>talk about, but shouldn't we call a horse a horse?

Does it matter what it is called?  The question is not how to label it, but
how to receive it.  Words of knowledge, incidentally, are similar to
prophecy (and sometimes the two overlap), but generally it is supernatural
knowledge of some fact that could not be known otherwise.
-- 
******************************************************************
*     Jon Reid     * He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep *
* reid@cs.uiuc.edu * to gain what he cannot lose.   - Jim Elliot *
******************************************************************

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20508
From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal F Lillywhite)
Subject: Re: Ancient Books

{I sent in something on this before but I believe it got lost in the
weekend accident the moderator described.  This is an improved
version anyway so no loss the first time.  HL}

The standard work on detecting forgeries of ancient documents 
is probably the writing of Friedrich Blass, "Hermeneutrik und 
Kritik," _Einleitende und Hilfsdisziplinen_, vol 1 of
_Handbuch der Klassischen Altertums- wissenshaft_ (Noerdlingen:
Beck, 1886).  Portions of this are described in Nibley, _The 
Prophetic Book op Mormon_, pp 219-242 (SLC:  Deseret Book, 1989).
(If you want to attempt reading this be forewarned.  Nibley
describes Blass as a typical German scholar who claims little
knowledge of his subject, then proceeds to exhaust both the subject
and the reader.)  Nibley's extract from Blass's work is in the form
of "rules for forgers."  It makes interesting reading.

I confess that I have not read Blass's work, only Nibley's extract
thereof.  My German falls far short of what would be required and
as far as I know there is no English translation available.  However,
I believe the techniques he describes are known widely enough that 
any competent classical scholar could examine a purportedly ancient
document and at least determine if it is consistent with what one 
would expect of a genuine document of that time frame.  We will not 
be able to prove who wrote it but at least we should be able to 
determine with reasonable confidence if it is from that time and 
culture or is a later forgery.

Actually there are 2 types of purportedly ancient documents:

1.  Alleged actual holographs or early copies thereof.  For example
the Dead Sea Scrolls.  These can be tested by various scientific
means to determine the age of the paper, inks, and objects found
with them.  This can provide a pretty clear dating of the actual
physical objects.

2.  Documents claiming to be copies of ancient works although the
copy itself may be much more recent.  For example we might find a
document which monks in a monastary claim is a copy of something
from centuries ago (perhaps even having been through several
generations of copists).  This is more of a problem but can still 
be tested (although the test is not likely to be simple).  We cannot
expect a test of the age of the physical objects to tell us much so
we must confine our testing to the text itself.

It is important to remember that none of these tests can tell us if
the document is really what it claims to be.  They can only date the
document and identify its culture of origin.  For example I've heard
of a letter supposed to have been written by Jesus himself to a king
in what is now Iraq.  If this document were to actually turn up
scholars could date the paper and ink (assuming they have the
holograph).  They could check the language, content and writing
style to see if they are consistent with what would be expected of a
Palestinian Jew of that time.  However even if all test results were
positive there is no way to determine if Jesus himself actually
wrote it.  We would know what time and culture it came from but
(barring a known sample of Jesus handwriting or other clues for 
comparison) scholarship must stop there.  There is seldom any way to
determine who the actual author was.

As I say, I'm no expert on Blas's work.  I do remember some of the
tests which can be applied to alleged copies of ancient works.  
Specifically we might ask:

1.  Is the document internally consistent?  Does it contradict
itself?  If the work it is short it would be relatively easy to 
maintain internal consistency, even if it is a forgery.  The 
longer the forgery the more difficult it is to maintain consistency.
For this reason most successful forgers stick to short documents.

2.  Is it consistent with the history and geography of the time?
Again a short, non-specific work might not be testable but if the
writing is of any significant length no latter-day forger would be
able to escape detection.  Here we look for the minor, inconspicuous
things which someone from that culture would get right without even
thinking about it but which a later forger would find too numerous 
and trivial to check.  The devil is in the details.

3.  What about the literary style of the work, figures of speech
etc.  Any ancient writer would almost certainly speak in ways that 
seem strange to us.  Are there any such odd phrases in this book?  
If so do they fit in with the culture?

Of course there are complications if the document has been
translated, or possibly even if somebody just updated language
when he copied it.  A few cases of language not from the culture
claimed may be allowed in recent copies.  They cause problems and
reduce certainty to be sure but don't necessarily prove forgery.

These tests can be quite effective (given enough material to work 
with) but they are not easy.  They require the skills of the 
historian, the linguist, the anthropologist etc.  The questions to 
ask are, "Is every aspect of this document consistent with what we 
know about the culture of claimed origin?"  If there are things 
which don't fit how significant are they?  Are problem areas due to
our lack of knowledge, later changes by copists or are they really 
significant?  There will often be some ambiguity since we never
know everything about the culture.

The end result of any such testing is occasionally certain
(particularly in the case of holographs or other ancient copies).
However often it may just be a probability or an indication that
the document (or maybe parts of it) is probably authentic (or
sometimes maybe other parts are later additions).  This is often 
unsettling to a generation raised on TV where all problems are
solved in 30 to 60 minutes with time out for commercials.  It is, 
however, the real world and what scholarship has to offer.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20509
From: anasaz!karl@anasazi.com (Karl Dussik)
Subject: Re: Is "Christian" a dirty word?

In article <Mar.25.03.53.08.1993.24855@athos.rutgers.edu> @usceast.cs.scarolina.edu:moss@cs.scarolina.edu (James Moss) writes:
>I was brought up christian, but I am not christian any longer.
>I also have a bad taste in my mouth over christianity.  I (in
>my own faith) accept and live my life by many if not most of the
>teachings of christ, but I cannot let myself be called a christian,
>beacuse to me too many things are done on the name of christianity,
>that I can not be associated with.  

A question for you - can you give me the name of an organization or a
philosophy or a political movement, etc., which has never had anything
evil done in its name?  You're missing a central teaching of Christianity -
man is inherently sinful.  We are saved through faith by grace.  Knowing
that, believing that, does not make us without sin.  Furthermore, not all
who consider themselves "christians" are (even those who manage to head
their own "churches").  "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will
enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who
is in heaven." - Matt. 7:21.

>I also have a problem with the inconsistancies in the Bible, and
>how it seems to me that too many people have edited the original
>documents to fit their own world views, thereby leaving the Bible
>an unbelievable source.

Again, what historical documents do you trust?  Do you think Hannibal
crossed the Alps?  How do you know?  How do you know for sure?  What
historical documents have stood the scrutiny and the attempts to dis-
credit it as well as the Bible has?

>I don't have dislike of christians (except for a few who won't
>quit witnessing to me, no matter how many times I tell them to stop), 
>but the christian faith/organized religion will never (as far as i can 
>see at the moment) get my support.

Well, it's really a shame you feel this way.  No one can browbeat you
into believing, and those who try will probably only succeed in driving
you further away.  You need to ask yourself some difficult questions:
1) is there an afterlife, and if so, does man require salvation to attain
it.  If the answer is yes, the next question is 2) how does man attain this
salvation - can he do it on his own as the eastern religions and certain
modern offshoots like the "new age movement" teach or does he require God's
help?  3) If the latter, in what form does - indeed, in what form can such
help come?  Needless to say, this discussion could take a lifetime, and for
some people it did comprise their life's writings, so I am hardly in a
position to offer the answers here - merely pointers to what to ask.  Few,
of us manage to have an unshaken faith our entire lives (certainly not me).
The spritual life is a difficult journey (if you've never read "A Pilgrim's
Progress," I highly recommend this greatest allegory of the english language).

>Peace and Love
>In God(ess)'s name
>James Moss

Now I see by your close that one possible source of trouble for you may be a
conflict between your politcal beliefs and your religious upbringing.  You
wrote that "I (in my own faith) accept and live my life by many if not most
of the teachings of christ".  Well, Christ referred to God as "My Father",
not "My Mother", and while the "maleness" of God is not the same as the
maleness of those of us humans who possess a Y chromosome, it does not
honor God to refer to Him as female purely to be trendy, non-discriminatory,
or politically correct.  This in no way disparages women (nor is it my intent
to do so by my use of the male pronoun to refer to both men and women - 
english just does not have a decent neuter set of pronouns).  After all, God
chose a woman as his only human partner in bringing Christ into the human
population.

Well, I'm not about to launch into a detailed discussion of
the role of women in Christianity at 1am with only 6 hours of sleep in the
last 63, and for that reason I also apologize for any shortcomings in this
article.  I just happened across yours and felt moved to reply.  I hope I
may have given you, and anyone else who finds himself in a similar frame of
mind, something to contemplate.

Karl Dussik

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20510
From: dleonar@andy.bgsu.edu (Pixie)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article <Apr.7.01.55.50.1993.22771@athos.rutgers.edu>,
vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.) wrote:

> 
> 	"We affirm the absolutes of Scripture, not because we are arrogant
> moralists, but because we believe in God who is truth, who has revealed His
> truth in His Word, and therefore we hold as precious the strategic importance
> of those absolutes."


					Pardon me, a humble atheist, but exactly what is the difference
between holding a revealed truth with blind faith as its basis (i.e.
regardless of any evidence that you may find to the contrary) as an
absolute truth, fully expecting people to believe you and arrogance?

     They sound like one and the same to me.

     And nearly every time I meet a christian (or for that matter, any
other theist) who tries to convert me, I find this proven over and over
again.

     I see no wisdom whatsoever in your words


                                       Unfaithfully yours,

                                       Pixie


     p.s.  If you do sincerely believe that a god exists, why do you follow
it blindly?  

     Do the words "Question Authority" mean anything to you?

     I defy any theist to reply.      

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20511
From: gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric Molas)
Subject: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."

Firstly, I am an atheist. I am not posting here as an immature flame
start, but rather to express an opinion to my intended audience.

The meaning of my existence is a question I ask myself daily.  I live 
in fear of what will happen when I  die.   

I bet some of you are licking your lips now, because you think that
I'm a person on the edge of accepting jeezus.             

I was raised in a religious atmosphere, and attended 13 years of
religious educational institutions..  I know the bible well. So well
I can recognize many passages from memory.  

<<****Strong opinions start here...****>>

1) The human being is an _animal_ who has, due to his/her advanced
mental facilities, developed religious as a satisfiable solution to
explain the unexplainable.  (For example the ancient Greeks believed
that Apollo drove his chariot across the sky each day was real.  Due
to the advancement of our technology, we know this to be false.  

Christianity is an infectious cult.  The reasons it flourishes are 
because 1) it gives people without hope or driven purpose in life
a safety blanked to hide behind.  "Oh wow..all i have to do is 
follow this christian moral standard and I get eternal happiness."
For all of you "found jeezus" , how many of you were "on the brink?"

but i digress...   The other reason christianity flourishes is its
infectious nature.  A best friend of mine breifly entered a christian
group and within months, they set ministry guidelines for him which
basicaly said this -->Priority #1 Spread the Word.


We are _just_ animals.  We need sleep, food, and we reproduce.  And we
die.      

Religion (especially Christianity) is nothing more than a DRUG.
Some people use drugs as an escape from reality.  Christians inject
themselves with jeezus and live with that high. 

It pities me how many millions of lives have been lost in religious
wars, of which Christianity has had no small part.

When Christians see a "non-believer", they say that person is blind
to the truth, but they cannot realize that it is _they_ who live
with this mask of fakeness each day.  Jesus was just prophet #37696 
who happened to have a large influence because at that time the Romans
were (circa 69ad) dispersing the Jewish population and communities
needed some sort of cohesive element to keep them strong in that time
of dire need.

I must go.  These are but a few of my thoughts on Christianity.



-- 
//Damien Endemyr the Unpure Knight of Doom                          //
//"So I've acquired a taste for blood and have adopted a nocturnal  //
//lifestyle.  That Doesnt mean I'm a vampire....."                  //

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20512
From: caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.) writes:

> 	I just thought I'd share some words that I received in a letter 
> from Moody Bible Institute a couple of months ago.  The words are by
> James M. Stowell, the president of MBI.
> 
> 	"The other day, I was at the dry cleaner and the radio was playing.
> It caught my attention because a talk show guest was criticizing evangelical
> Christians, saying we believe in absolutes and think we are the only ones
> who know what the absolutes are.
> 
> 	"He missed the point.

No, IMO, Mr. Stowell missed the point.

> 	"We affirm the absolutes of Scripture, not because we are arrogant
> moralists, but because we believe in God who is truth, who has revealed His
> truth in His Word, and therefore we hold as precious the strategic importance
> of those absolutes."

Mr. Stowell seems to have jumped rather strangely from truth to absolutes.
I don't see how that necessarily follows.  

Are all truths also absolutes?
Is all of scripture truths (and therefore absolutes)?

If the answer to either of these questions is no, then perhaps you can 
explain to me how you determine which parts of Scripture are truths, and
which truths are absolutes.  And, who is qualified to make these 
determinations?  There is hardly consensus, even in evangelical 
Christianity (not to mention the rest of Christianity) regarding 
Biblical interpretation.

I find Mr. Stowell's statement terribly simple-minded.

Carol Alvin
caralv@auto-trol.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20513
From: whheydt@pbhya.pacbell.com (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: Ancient Books

In article <Apr.9.01.11.35.1993.16957@athos.rutgers.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
> But, since the manuscripts are so close to the actual event, especially as 
> compared with ancient "non-Christian" history, could it help show that we have
> accurate copies of the original texts?  

That's a very weak argument--due the lack (with regard to critical
events) of independent supporting texts.

As for the dating of the oldest extant texts of the NT....  How would
you feel about the US Civil War in a couple of thousand years if the
only extant text was written about *now*?  Now adjust for a largely
illiterate population, and one in which every copy of a manuscript is
done by hand....

	--Hal

-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |  If you think the system is working,
510-823-5447                 |  Ask someone who's waiting for a prompt.
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |    

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20514
From: teama@bucknell.edu (meyers@bucknell.edu)
Subject: Doug Sturm

Is anyone familiar with Doug Sturm?

If so, please post what you think.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20515
From: jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas)
Subject: Re: technology

mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:

> ...the computer is not a fantasyland where one's responsibilities
> disappear.  The people on the net are real; slander and deception carried
> out by net are just as wrong as they would be if carried out on paper
> or face to face.

Well said, Michael!

The Catholic traditon has a list of behaviours called the Spiritual 
Works of Mercy:

admonish the sinner
instruct the ignorant
counsel the doubtful
comfort the sorrowful
bear wrongs patiently
forgive all injury
pray for the living and the dead (yes, I know there is some controversy 
                           on this and I don't want to argue about it.)

These are all things that have a direct application to usenet.  People 
ask questions and express doubts.  Some are in need of comfort or 
prayers.  Imagine what would happen to flame wars if we bore wrongs 
patiently and forgave injuries.   I would add that it is probably more 
appropriate to do any admonishing by private email than publicly.

Jayne Kulikauskas/ jayne@mmalt.guild.org

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20516
From: jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas)
Subject: Re: post

jono@mac-ak-24.rtsg.mot.com (Jon Ogden) writes:

> My advice is this:  If you know someone that you have the hots for who is
> NOT a Christian, befriend them and try to develop just a friendship with
> them.  At the same time, witness and share the gospel with them, not so
> that you can date them, but so that they can be saved.  Once they become a
> Christian, then it is quite possible to let the relationship progress
> beyond friendship.  However, if they don't accept Christ, you still have a
> good friendship and you haven't wasted a lot of emotional energy and gotten
> hurt.

While I agree with most of Jon says (I deleted those parts, of course), I 
have serious reservations about this advice.  Maintaining a `just 
friends' level of relationship is much easier said than done.  People 
usually end up getting hurt.  This is especially likely to happen when 
they start off with feelings of attraction.  

When people feel attracted those feelings can cloud their judgement.  
I've had the experience of going quickly from believing that I shouldn't 
date non-Christians to believing that dating this man would be okay to 
believing that premarital sex is fine when people really love each 
other.  When the relationship ended my beliefs immediately returned to 
their original state.  

This is an especially extreme case because I was young and away from home 
and fellowship.  I don't think it would work exactly this way for most 
people.  However, it's important not to underestimate the power of 
feelings of attraction.  

Jayne Kulikauskas/ jayne@mmalt.guild.org

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20517
From: jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas)
Subject: re: Pantheism and Environmentalism

KEVXU@cunyvm.bitnet writes:

[deleted]
> first paragraph and the mention of pantheism.  Is pantheism "perverted"
> and "dangerous", or just not one's cup of tea?  None of this is clear.

I can't speak for Mr. Cavano, but I understood his comment to refer to 
the idea that unrecognized pantheism is dangerous to Christians.  If we 
unthinkingly adopt pantheistic ideas that are opposed to Christianity, 
we can pervert our faith.  When we clearly recognize pantheism when we 
encounter it we have the opportunity to embrace what is consistent with 
Christianity and reject what isn't.    

We need to be alert, always thinking and questioning.  We must examine 
the underlying assumptions of every book we read, tv program we watch 
and socio-political movement we participate in.  Ideas are important.  
Philosophies and doctrines are what give form to the events of our 
lives.  They are the basis from which we live our lives of love and 
service.  The command to love God with all one's mind means no fuzzy-
headed drifting from idea to idea. 

> and that consumerism and our rapacious style of living
> are so rarely called by their appropriate name: Greed.

One Christian who acknowledges this is the Pope.  It is a frequent theme 
in his writings.  Indeed, thoughtful Christians from most traditions 
recognize that consumerism has no place in the lives of Christians.  It 
too is a perversion and dangerous to our faith.  Thank you, Jack, for 
pointing out the parallel. 

Jayne Kulikauskas/ jayne@mmalt.guild.org

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20518
From: jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas)
Subject: Easter: what's in a name? (was Re: New Testament Double Standard?

seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson) writes:

> In Quebec French, the word for the celebration of the resurrection is
> "Pa^ques"--this is etymologically related to Pesach (Passover) and the
> pascal lamb.  So is the French Canadian (mostly Roman Catholic) celebration
> better because it uses the right name?

I was at my parents' Seder and noticed the labelling on one of the 
packages was English, Hebrew and French.  In the phrase "kosher for 
passover" the French word used was "Pa^ques."   We've deliberately 
mistranslated this at the Kulikauskas home and keep referring to foods 
being kosher for Easter. :-)

Back to the original questions in this thread concerning Christians of 
Jewish descent and the Law:  I always wonder when I see posts on this 
subject whether the writers are Christians of Jewish descent relating 
the life-decisions God has led them to or people who take only an 
academic interest in the topic.  (Having known Seanna since she was nine 
years old, I do know in this case.)  I admit that the answer to this 
question affects the amount of weight I give to the writer's statement.

Jayne Kulikauskas/ jayne@mmalt.guild.org

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20519
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: sex education

In article <Apr.7.23.20.08.1993.14209@athos.rutgers.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>In <Apr.5.23.31.32.1993.23904@athos.rutgers.edu> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>
>> Method                  Expected         Actual 
>> ------                 Failure Rate    Failure Rate
>> Abstinence                 0%              0% 
>
>
>    These figures don't seem to take account of rape. Or is a woman who
>is raped considered not to have been abstaining?

I no longer have the textbook, but abstinence was defined as something
like "no contact between the penis and the vagina, vulva, or area 
immediately surrounding the vulva, and no transfer of semen to the
vagina, vulva, or area surrounding the vulva".  

That is, abstinence wasn't discussed as "sex outside of marriage is
morally wrong" but as keep  the sperm away from the ovum and conception 
is impossible. The moral question I recall the teacher asking was,
"is it okay to create a child if you aren't able to be a good parent
yet?"

-jen

-- 

#include <stdisclaimer>  //  jenk@microsoft.com  // msdos testing

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20520
From: halsall@murray.fordham.edu (Paul Halsall)
Subject: Weirdness of Early Christians


	I am a good Catholic boy. A convert no less, attracted by the
rational tradition [Aquinas et al] and the emotional authenticity
[in comp. with the faddishness of Anglicanism] to Roman Catholicism. I
never had much time for the pope - or any other heirarchs - but I did, and
do, believe in the sacremental system. I always felt quite happy to
look down my nose at those such as John Emery [a few posts back] who
had to engage in circuitous textual arguments to prove their faith, entirely
oblivious to the fact that a dozen other faiths can do the same [with
miracles too], and that since their arguments depend on the belief in the
Bible as God's sole revelation, it was not very good logic to argue
that the Bible proved God. No, I was happy to accept the CHURCH as God's
revelation. It was the Church after all that existed before the Bible, the
Church that choose [under grace of course] the canon of scripture. Protestant
ludicrosity, I thought, was shown by Protestants breathtaking acceptance
of Luther's right to reject a dozen or so books he disliked.
	But recently I read Peter Brown's _Body and Society_. It is very
well researched, and well written. But is raises some very upsetting
questions. The early Christians were weird - even more so than today's
carzy fundies. They had odd views on sex, odder views on the body, 
totally ludicrous views about demons, and distinctly uncharitable
views about other human beings. 
	now the question is this: were the first Christians just as
weird, but we've got used to them, or did the pristine "Fall of the
Church" happen within one generation. It certainly did'nt have to
wait until the Triumph of the Church under Constantine. If so,
wha does  this say about God's promise to always support the Church.
It's no use throwing the usual Protestant pieties about the Church
not being an organization at me. It's a community or it is nothing,
and it was the early communities that were weird. The institional
church was a model of sanity by comparison.
	I would be interested in serious Catholic and Orthodox responses to
this entirely serious issue. I'm not sure it is an issue for Protestants
with their "soul alone with Jesus" approach, but for we who see the
"ecclesia" as a "koinoia" over time and space, the weird early
Christians are a problem.

[This is an exaggeration of the Protestant view.  Many Protestants
have a strong appreciation for the role of the Church.  "The soul
alone with God" is certainly important for Protestants, but it's by no
means the whole story.

I have read the sort of history you talk about.  As you point out,
Protestants don't have quite the same problem you do, because we
believe that the church had a Fall at some point.  However Protestant
mythology typically places the Fall around the time of Constantine (or
more likely, regard it as happening in a sort of cumulative fashion,
starting from Constantine but getting worse as the Pope accumulated
power during the medieval period.)  The consequences of having it
earlier are somewhat worrisome even to us.  Most Protestants accept
the theological results of the early ecumenical councils, including
such items as the Trinity and Incarnation.  Indeed in the works of
Reformers such as Luther and Calvin, you'll find Church Fathers such
as Augustine quoted all the time.  I think you'll find many
Protestants resistant to the idea that the Early Church as a whole was
"wierd".  (There is an additional problem for Protestants that I don't
much want to talk about in this context, since it's been looked at
recently -- that's the question of whether one can really think of
Augustine and other Fathers as being proto-Protestants.  Their views
on Mary, the authority of the Pope, etc, are not entirely congenial to
Protestant thought.)

One thing that somewhat worries me is a question of methodology.
There are certainly plenty of wierd people in the early church.  What
concerns me is that they may be overrepresented in what we see.  We
see every Christian who courted martyrdom.  But I think there's good
reason to believe that most ordinary Christians were more prudent than
that.  We see the heroic virgins.  But I think there's good reason to
think that many Christians were happily married.  I can't help
suspecting that the early church had the same range of wierdos and
sane people that we do now.  I think there's also a certain level of
"revisionism" active in history at the moment.  I don't mean that
they're manufacturing things out of whole cloth.  But don't you think
there might be a tendency to emphasize the novel?

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20521
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: Hell

Quoth the Moderator:

>I have to say that I some qualms about giving you this explanation,
>because it raises additional problems: If God is the source of all
>existence, then a complete separation from him would make existence
>itself impossible.  So, does God maintain just enough connection with
>those who are rejected to keep them in existence so he can punish
>them?

In a short poem ("God in His mercy made / the fixed pains of Hell"),
C. S. Lewis expresses an idea that I'm sure was current among others,
but I haven't be able to find its source:

that even Hell is an expression of mercy, because God limits the amount
of separation from Him, and hence the amount of agony, that one can
achieve.

-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington         internet mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs       phone 706 542-0358 :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia                fax 706 542-0349 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20522
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

The two historic facts that I think the most important are these:

(1) If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then he must have done something
else equally impressive, in order to create the observed amount of impact.

(2) Nobody ever displayed the dead body of Jesus, even though both the
Jewish and the Roman authorities would have gained a lot by doing so
(it would have discredited the Christians).

-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington         internet mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs       phone 706 542-0358 :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia                fax 706 542-0349 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20523
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Legitimate bawdy humor; was: Re: sex education - it's a joke !

In article <Apr.8.01.01.06.1993.28740@athos.rutgers.edu> Lubosh.Hanuska@anu.edu.au (ljh) writes:

>"Well, my son, the best advice I can give you is this: Eat a lot of
>carrots!"
>"Oh, do you really think that will work ?!? And should it be before or
>after intercourse?"
>"INSTEAD, my son, INSTEAD!"
...
>Disclaimer: As a single Catholic I didn't have any business to post this
>kind of joke to this group, so if you found it inappropriate [...]

But what was wrong with it?  It won't tempt anyone to any kind of sin, as
far as I can tell.  It doesn't belittle anyone.  It does not substitute
offensiveness for humor (it's genuinely funny).

We shouldn't assume that _all_ jokes that mention sexuality are "dirty"
merely because so many are.

And we should never mistake prudery for spirituality.  It can be the direct
opposite -- a symptom of the _lack_ of a healthy perspective on God's
creation.


-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington         internet mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs       phone 706 542-0358 :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia                fax 706 542-0349 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20524
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: Easter: what's in a name? (was Re: New Testament Double Standard?

In article <Apr.10.05.33.25.1993.14413@athos.rutgers.edu> jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas) writes:
>seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson) writes:
>
>> In Quebec French, the word for the celebration of the resurrection is
>> "Pa^ques"--this is etymologically related to Pesach (Passover) and the
>> pascal lamb.  So is the French Canadian (mostly Roman Catholic) celebration
>> better because it uses the right name?
>
>I was at my parents' Seder and noticed the labelling on one of the 
>packages was English, Hebrew and French.  In the phrase "kosher for 
>passover" the French word used was "Pa^ques."   We've deliberately 
>mistranslated this at the Kulikauskas home and keep referring to foods 
>being kosher for Easter. :-)

however, the word "pa^ques" in french _is_ the word for easter.  ask
any francophone, whether from quebec or from paris.  besides, haven't
you heard of the phrase "the paschal lamb" (meaning jesus)?

sorry to nitpick on the more trivial part of this thread....

:) vera
*******************************************************************************
I am your CLOCK!     |  I bind unto myself today    | Vera Noyes
I am your religion!  |  the strong name of the	    | noye@midway.uchicago.edu
I own you!	     |  Trinity....		    | no disclaimer -- what
	- Lard	     |	- St. Patrick's Breastplate | is there to disclaim?

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20525
From: xx155@yfn.ysu.edu (Family Magazine Sysops)
Subject: WITNESS & PROOF OF CHRIST'S RESURRECTION


     IMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM;
     :        T H E   W I T N E S S   &   P R O O F   O F        :
     :                                                           :
     :   J E S U S   C H R I S T ' S   R E S U R R E C T I O N   :
     :                                                           :
     :                 F R O M   T H E   D E A D                 :
     HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM<

* The WITNESS Of The LORD JESUS CHRIST:

Mark 8:31 And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer
     many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests
     and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Mark 9:31 For He was teaching His disciples and telling them, "The Son
     of Man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will
     kill Him; and when He has been killed, He will rise three days
     later."                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     ^^^^^
Mark 10:34 "And they will mock Him and spit upon Him, and scourge Him,
     and kill Him, and three days later He will rise again."
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Mark 12:26 "But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you
     not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning
     bush, how God spoke to him, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, and
     the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'?

Luke 18:33 and after they have scourged Him, they will kill Him; and
     the third day He will rise again. "
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Luke 24:46 and He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ
     should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day;^^^^^^
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
John 11:25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he
     who believes in Me shall live even if he dies,

John 20:9 For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He
     must rise again from the dead.                              ^^
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Acts 17:3 ...explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to
     suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus whom
     I am proclaiming to you is the Christ."

* The WITNESS Of The APOSTLE PAUL:  1 Corinthians 15:1-26

 1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to
   you, which also you received, in which also you stand,

 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I
   preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,
   that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day
   according to the Scriptures,     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one
   time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;

 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;

 8 and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me
   also.

 9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not fit to be called an
   apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did
   not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I,
   but the grace of God with me.

11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead,
   how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has
   been raised;

14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your
   faith also is vain.

15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we
   witnessed against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise,
   if in fact the dead are not raised.

16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised;

17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are
   still in your sins.

18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.

19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most
   to be pitied.

20 BUT NOW CHRIST HAS BEEN RAISED FROM THE DEAD, the first fruits of
   those who are asleep.

21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection
   of the dead.

22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.

23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those
   who are Christ's at His coming,

24 then comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to the God and
   Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.

25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.

26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death.


             LOGICAL PROOFS OF JESUS CHRIST'S RESURRECTION

            1.  Jesus's enemies *would not* have stolen His
                body because that would have perpetrated the
                resurrection--the very opposite of what they
                desired.

            2.  Jesus' disciples *could not* have stolen His
                body because Pontius Pilate established guards
                to stand watch over the tomb lest His body be
                stolen.

            3.  Sadly (and ironically), many of Jesus' disciples
                did not believe in the Resurrection until Jesus
                had risen from the dead.

            4.  In nearly 20 centuries, no body has ever been
                produced to refute Jesus' assertion that He
                *would indeed* rise from the dead.

            5.  The probability of being able to perpetrate such
                a hoax successfully upon the entire world for
                nearly 20 centuries is astronomically negative!
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20526
From: rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe)
Subject: Re: quality of Catholic liturgy

In <Apr.10.05.30.16.1993.14313@athos.rutgers.edu>
jemurray@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John E Murray) writes:

>I would like the opinion of netters on a subject that has been bothering my
>wife and me lately: liturgy, in particular, Catholic liturgy.  In the last few
>years it seems that there are more and more ad hoc events during Mass.  It's
>driving me crazy!  The most grace-filled aspect of a liturgical tradition is
>that what happens is something we _all_ do together, because we all know how 
>to do it.  Led by the priest, of course, which makes it a kind of dialogue we 
>present to God.  But the best Masses I've been to were participatory prayers.

[ . . . ]

Having lived through the kicking and screaming in the 60s and 70s as the
Catholics were invited to participate in the liturgy instead of counting
their rosary beads during Mass, I find this comment interesting.  There
is a _massively_ longer tradition for proclaiming the Passion accounts
without active participation.  If you know the Latin, one really
beautiful way to hear the Passion is it's being chanted by three
deacons:  the Narrator chants in the middle baritone range, Jesus chants
in the bass, and others directly quoted are handled by a high tenor.
This is actually the basis for the common proclamation of the Passion
that John would prefer.

But there is always a judgement call based on pastoral considerations.
Each pastor makes his own decisions (it isn't a church-wide conspiracy
against participation).  The Palm Sunday liturgy, with its initial
blessing and distribution of the palms and procession, is already
getting long before you get to the Passion; some pastors feel that they
should not make the people stand through that long narrative.  Also, the
orchestrated proclamation with multiple readers and public participation
in the crowd quotations runs longer than the single-reader proclamation
--- in churches with multiple Masses for the Sunday, it might be
necessary to go with the briefer options just to "get 'em in and get 'em
out".

Each parish is different.  Catholics are no longer canonically tied to
their geographic parishes.  It is possible that another Catholic parish
in the Columbus area (based on the Ohio State address) has a liturgy
closer to your preferences.  Or talk to some of your fellow
parishioners and see how common your preferences are --- pastors
generally ARE willing to listen to non-confrontational requests.  Though
you probably should bring along a paramedic in case he reacts too strongly
to the shock of people asked for a _longer_ Sunday Mass.

Perhaps the problem is that recent liturgical development hasn't follow
the continuous evolution model (the accumulation of small changes, no
single one of which is too hard to take) but rather the punctuated
equilibrium model (things stay the same and we get accustomed to them,
then the marked mutation hits).  {My apologies if I am mis-remembering
the names of the evolutionary theories.}
-- 
                                                    --- Tim Rolfe
                                                 rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu
                                                 rolfe@junior.dsu.edu
                                                RolfeT@columbia.dsu.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20527
From: shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker)
Subject: Re: christians and aids

In article <Apr.8.00.57.49.1993.28271@athos.rutgers.edu> marka@travis.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley) writes:
>In article <Apr.7.01.55.33.1993.22762@athos.rutgers.edu> kevin@pictel.pictel.com (Kevin Davis) writes:
>>Many Christians believe in abstinence, but in a moment will be overcome
>>by desire.  We all compromise and rationalize poor choices (sin).  Last
>>week I was guilty of anger, jealousy, and whole mess of other stuff,
>>yet I am forgiven and not condemned to suffer with AIDs.  To even
>>suggest that AIDS is "deserved" is ludicrous.
>
>When man was told not to have sex with relatives, did they listen ?
>NO! And man found out why !

So what's your point?  Mark's comment still is valid.  To suggest that
AIDS is "deserved" IS ludicrous.  I sin.  I can resolve to abstain from 
sin, and do weekly (more often, actually).  Yet I routinely fail.
I surely do deserve what I get, yet God compassionately provided 
the Incarnate Logos, Jesus, as a rememdy and a way out of our situation.
If AIDS is deserved, I surely deserve instant death just as much, as do
we all, as St. Paul so cogently remids us.

To willingly judge "others" as deserving punishment seems to me
to be the height of arrogance and lack of humility.  
 
>I wonder if AIDS would be a problem now if people didn't get
>involved in deviant sexual behaviour. Certainly, people who
>received tainted blood are not to blame. But it just goes
>to show that all mankind is affected by the actions of a few.

So what's the point here?  I can get AIDS and NEVER engage in
"deviant" sexual behavior.  In fact, I could engage in LOTS
of deviant sexual behavior with HIV+ people and never be
infected.  AIDS is a consequence of particular behaviors,
many of which are not sexual.  And not all sexual behaviors
carry the risk of transmission.  
 
>In addition, IMHO forgiveness is not the end of things.
>There is still the matter of atonement. Is it AIDS ?
>I don't know.

The end of all things is to know, love and serve God, growing
daily closer through prayer, meditation and discipline.  Even so
I could get AIDS.  Anyone could, unless they remain forever celibate,
IV-drug-free, and transfusion free.

Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com)
-- 
-------
Lawrence Overacker
Shell Oil Company, Information Center    Houston, TX            (713) 245-2965
llo@shell.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20528
From: aaronc@athena.mit.edu (Aaron Bryce Cardenas)
Subject: Re: christians and aids

Paul Conditt writes:
>Yes, it's important to realize that all actions have consequences,
>and that "rules" were made for our own good.  But to suggest that a
>*disease* is a *punishment* for certain types of sin I think is 
>taking things much too far.  
[text deleted]
>Yes, sin can have terrible consequences, but we need to be *real*
>careful when saying that the consequences are a *punishment* for 
>sin.  

I wish that you had followed this thread before jumping to conclusions.
I haven't seen anybody write that AIDS was a *punishment* for certain
types of sin (this includes Mark Ashley who you were responding to
here).  I myself wrote that when you don't do things God's way that
curses will come on you and others.  Although one definition of 'curse'
is 'retribution', I only meant 'harm or misfortune' when I used the
word.  Because God loves us he has told us the best way to live in his
Bible.  God doesn't cause curses, he warns us of them.

Kevin Davis wrote (a while ago):
>Last week I was guilty of anger, jealousy, and whole mess of
>other stuff, yet I am forgiven and not condemned to suffer with
>AIDs.  To even suggest that AIDS is "deserved" is ludicrous.

The Bible makes it clear that we all equally deserve death (which is
much worse than AIDS) -- we have all hurt God with our sin.

Paul Conditt reveals his feelings:
>In case you couldn't tell, I get *extremely* angry and upset when
>I see things like this.  Instead of rationalizing our own fears and
>phobias, we need to be reaching out to people with AIDS and other
>socially unacceptable diseases.  Whether they got the disease through
>their own actions or not is irrelevant.  They still need Jesus...

The first issue you bring up is your anger.  It is "obvious"ly wrong to
be angry (Gal 5:19-20) for any reason, especially *extremely* angry
which is on par with hatred.  Jesus has every reason to be angry at us
for putting him on the cross with our sin, yet his prayer was "forgive
them Father, they know not what they do."  Knowing how forgiving Jesus
has been with me calls me to be more forgiving with everyone out of
love for Him.  Please don't give in to anger, it will only cause
foolish quarrels and more bad feelings.

It's okay if you read something that bothers you, but you need to
address it in a loving way.  If right now, I felt like someone out
there was saying that God punishes gay or sexually immoral people with
AIDS because they deserve punishment that others don't then I would
frame a response something like this:

"It makes me feel very sad for someone to believe that AIDS, which is
simply a harmful disease not so unlike any other, is God's punishment
for people who have committed certain sins.  God loves all of his
children equally and rejoices when a single one comes back to him.  We
will all be judged after we die, but until then we all have the
opportunity to accept God's grace by earnestly seeking after him with
all of our hearts, believing the gospel's testimony, repenting of our
sin, confessing that Jesus is Lord at baptism, and living a new life
for him.
 Let us not judge someone to be eternally condemned.  God's arm is not
to short to save.  He will do anything he can to move a hardened heart
or a misled person.  He works for the good of all men.  Even through
the worst of situations, he has set the times and places for all men
that they may perhaps reach out and find him."

The second issue you bring up is seeing people rationalize their fears
of people with AIDS.  Fortunately, what you describe as seeing is
actually misperceiving.  You have been missing the points made in the
earlier posts and reacting in anger to attitudes that haven't been
expressed.  I know that its sometimes hard to discount your
perceptions, but please try to be open-minded.

You are quite correct in saying that we should reach out to all people
because they all need Jesus.  This is what my brothers and sisters and
I do on a daily basis.  If you would like to send me the name of the
city and state you live in, I will find and get you in touch with some
brothers who have AIDS or know people with AIDS and live nearby you so
that you can see the loving attitudes for yourself.

The third issue you bring up is the importance of how some individual
contracted AIDS.  How someone gets AIDS is only relevant to their
salvation in that there may be repetence involved.

The important point to be made, however, is that not listening to God's
commands (or advice or warnings), i.e. sinning, causes harm or
misfortune to yourself and others.  For this reason, a good way to
prevent the misfortune of AIDS, which can be transmitted in sinful ways,
is to listen to God's advice and have sex only with your wife or
husband.

I hope that you are feeling better now, Paul.

Love,

Aaron Cardenas

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20529
From: chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie)
Subject: Re: Essene New Testament

In <Apr.10.05.31.12.1993.14351@athos.rutgers.edu> harwood@umiacs.umd.edu (David Harwood) writes:

>There had been recent criticism of this in a listserv for academic
>Biblical scholars: they all say the book(s) are modern fakes.
>D.H.

Which listsev was this and is the discussion still current?  My questioning
is based on some information presented from the Essene NT that challenges
some of my eating choices.  As the info came from a biased (opposed to my
preferences) third party I am looking for info as to whether I should
dismiss this work or put some consideration into it.  Thanks again for info!
-- 
     Will Christie       |    AATCHOO!      | PHILOSOPHY: the principles and 
 University of Manitoba  |    Uh-oh...      |  science of thought and reality
  Winnipeg, MB, Canada   |   I'm leaking    | PHILOSOPHER: someone who thinks
chrstie@ccu.UManitoba.CA | brain lubricant. |  they're useful to society

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20530
From: tbrent@florin.ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent)
Subject: Re: Pantheism & Environmentalism

In article <Apr.9.01.09.29.1993.16586@athos.rutgers.edu> jono@mac-ak-24.rtsg.mot.com (Jon Ogden) writes:

>So we see that we are masters of this planet.  It IS ours to care for and
>ours to look after.  We will be judged on how well we do this task.
>C.)  We are not to be in the business of spreading lies.  What we tell
>others we must be sure is true.  We should check out the information,
>verify it with scientific fact and go from there.
			   ^^^^

Just what are these "scientific facts"?  I have never heard of such a thing.
Science never proves or disproves any theory - history does.

-Tim

 ______________________________________________________________________________
|				|				       	       |
|       Timothy J. Brent        |   A man will come to know true happiness,    |
|   BRENT@bank.ecn.purdue.edu   |   only when he accepts that he is but a      |
|=========$$$$==================|   small part of an infinite universe.	       |
|       PURDUE UNIVERSITY       |			  	   -Spinoza    |
| MATERIALS SCIENCE ENGINEERING |			 	 [paraphrased] |
|_______________________________|______________________________________________|

[I hope we don't get embroiled in a discussion over words here.  When
somebody says "get the facts", I'm not sure we need to get into
arguments over the philosophy of science.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20531
From: cpage@two-step.seas.upenn.edu (Carter C. Page)
Subject: Re: Prayer in Jesus' Name

In article <Apr.9.01.09.22.1993.16580@athos.rutgers.edu> munns@cae.wisc.edu (Scott Munns) writes:
>Eventually, we got around to how
>we should pray in Jesus' name.  Then, an excellent question came up, one
>that I don't have a real answer to.  The question was, "If we need to pray
>in Jesus' name, what about the people before Jesus?  They prayed to God
>and he listened then, in spite of their sins.  Why can't it be the same
>way now?"

	"And in that day you will ask Me no question.  Truly, truly, I say to 
	you, if you shall ask the Father for anything, He will give it to you 
	in my name.  Until now you have asked for nothing in My name; ask, and 
	you will receive, that your joy may be made full."
				-John 16:23-24

I don't believe that we necessarily have to say " . . . In Christ's name.  
Amen," for our prayers to be heard, but it glorifies the Son, when we 
acknowledge that our prayer is made possible by Him.  I believe that just as 
those who were saved in the OT, could only be saved because Jesus would one day
reconcile God to man, He is the only reason their prayers would be heard by 
God.

	For all of us have become like one who is unclean,
	And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment;
	And all of us wither like a leaf,
	and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.
				-Isaiah 64:6, NAS

Our prayers like the rest of our deeds are too unholy to go directly to the
Father because they are tainted by our sin.  Only by washing these prayers with
Christ's blood are they worthy to be lifted to to the Father.

	"First, I thank my God through Christ Jesus . . ."
				-Romans 1:8, NAS

Some scholars believe that this is Paul recognizing that even his thanks are 
too unholy for the Father.
	Basically, prayer is a gift of grace, I believe that only through Jesus
do our prayers have any power; thus, praying in His name glorifies and praises 
Jesus for this beautiful and powerful gift He has given us.

+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=
Carter C. Page           | Of happiness the crown and chiefest part is wisdom,
A Carpenter's Apprentice | and to hold God in awe.  This is the law that,
cpage@seas.upenn.edu     | seeing the stricken heart of pride brought down,
                         | we learn when we are old.  -Adapted from Sophocles
+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=+-=-+-=+-=-+=-+-=-+-=-+=-+-=

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20532
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe)
Subject: Re: Easter: what's in a name? (was Re: New Testament Double Standard?

seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson) writes:
> Since the_day_upon_which_most_Christians_celebrate_the_resurrection_of_Jesus
> is approaching, I thought I would comment on this:
> 
> In article <Mar.29.03.23.31.1993.19711@athos.rutgers.edu> dsegard@nyx.cs.du.edu (Daniel Segard) writes:
> >
> What is the objection to celebration of Easter?  It is celebration of the
> resurrection of Jesus.  I don't recall a command in Scripture for us to
> celebrate the resurrection, but it is the sole and only reason that we
> are Christians--how could we not celebrate it?  If it is only the name

Not quite correct.  Biblical teaching expects us to celebrate the
resurrection of Christ not once a year but every time someone is baptized.
 Col. 2:12-Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him
through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the
dead."  Rom. 6:4-Therefore we are buried with him in baptism into death:
that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the
Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."
Those really want to celebrate the resurrection should by faith walk in
newness of life after baptism.  It is not necessary to celebrate a pagan
goddess in the process.

> >      So, as we see from Scripture, those who are of Israel will observe
> >the 7th Day *FOREVER*.  The Gentiles who believe in the Messiah of Israel
> >are welcome to observe the 7th Day as well, but it is not required of them
> >since the are adopted into the Commonwealth of Israel.  The Gentiles who
> >are grafted into the Commonwealth of Israel are only required to observe
> >the basic commands given to those who came before Abram (see also Acts
> >15).  No further requirements are placed upon them once they come to faith
> >in Messiah.
> > 
> So from this I infer that there are different rules for Christians of Jewish
> descent?  What happened to "there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free,
> male nor female, for all are one in Christ Jesus"?  Jewish Christians/Messianics
> may find certain forms of worship and certain disciplines meaningful because
> of their cultural background, but I have a hard time understanding the 
> justification for applying rules or commandments to those who have been 
> justified by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
> 
Paul answered your question in Romans 9.  In v. 4 he stated that the
adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of
God, and the promises were given to the Israelites.  It is a package deal.
 He goes on to identify those who are true Israelites.  Vs 6-8 makes it
plain that the true Israelites are not those who are born that way but
those who accept the promise of God.  Paul continued to emphasize that he
was an Israelite in 2 Cor. 11:22, then in Gal 3:29 he says that all those
who belong to Christ are Abraham's seed, and heirs to all the promises
given to the Israelites.  The promises come with the law.  It is all or
nothing.  Why is it that you only want to discard one part of the law? 
Certainly you would want your husband to be faithful to you.  Or do you
believe that adultery is no longer forbidden?  Same law.

BTW  please give a reference for your statement that the Gentiles are only
required to observe the basis commandmants.  Could you list those
please.  Acts 15 deals with circumcision and the law of Moses which was
added because of transgression of God's eternal law (Gal 3:19; Rom 4:15)

++++++++++++
Darius A. Lecointe                     | I got my BA when I was Born Again
Department of Educational Research     | And my MA when I was Made Anew
Florida State University               | Now I'm getting my PhD as I become 
Tel: (904) 644-0706                    | A Patient, Humble, Disciple.
E-mail: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20533
From: cpage@two-step.seas.upenn.edu (Carter C. Page)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."

In article <Apr.10.05.32.36.1993.14391@athos.rutgers.edu> gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric Molas) writes:
>Firstly, I am an atheist. . . .

(Atheist drivel deleted . . .)

			Untitled
			========

	A seed is such a miraculous thing,
	It can sit on a shelf forever.
	But how it knows what to do, when it's stuck in the ground,
	Is what makes it so clever.
	It draws nutrients from the soil through it's roots,
	And gathers its force from the sun
	It puts forth a whole lot of blossoms and fruit,
	Then recedes itself when it is done.
	Who programmed the seed to know just what to do?
	And who put the sun in the sky?
	And who put the food in the dirt for the roots?
	And who told the bees to come by?
	And who makes the water to fall from above,
	To refresh and make everything pure?
	Perhaps all of this is a product of love,
	And perhaps it happened by chance.
				Yeah, sure.

			-Johnny Hart, cartoonist for _B.C._

+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=
Carter C. Page           | Of happiness the crown and chiefest part is wisdom,
A Carpenter's Apprentice | and to hold God in awe.  This is the law that,
cpage@seas.upenn.edu     | seeing the stricken heart of pride brought down,
                         | we learn when we are old.  -Adapted from Sophocles
+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=+-=-+-=+-=-+=-+-=-+-=-+=-+-=

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20534
From: cpage@two-step.seas.upenn.edu (Carter C. Page)
Subject: Re: Reason vs. Revelation

In article <Apr.8.00.58.08.1993.28309@athos.rutgers.edu> trajan (Stephen McIntyre) writes:
>In article <Apr.2.01.58.09.1993.17541@athos.rutgers.edu> writes:
>
>> I can only reply with what it says in 1 Timothy 3:16 :

>I'm not here to discount parts of the Bible.  Rather, I'm
>     here only to discount the notion of "revelation."
>     The author of 1 Timothy told what he thought was the
>     truth, based on his belief in God, his faith in Jesus
>     as the resurrected Son, and his readings of the Old
>     Testament.  But again, what had been revealed to him
>     was based on (at best) second-hand information, given
>     by friends and authors who may not have given the
>     whole truth or who may have exaggerated a bit.
 
First of all, the original poster misquoted.  The reference is from 2 Tim 3:16.
The author was Paul, and his revelations were anything but "(at best) 
second-hand".

	"And is came about that as [Saul] journeyed, he was approaching
	 Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; and
	 he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul,
	 why are you persecuting Me?"  And he said, "Who art Thou, Lord?"  And
	 He said, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, . . ."
		(Acts 9:3-5, NAS)

Paul received revelation directly from the risen Jesus!  (Pretty cool, eh?)  He
became closely involved with the early church, the leaders of which were 
followers of Jesus throughout his ministry on earth.

>Now, you may say, "The Holy Spirit revealed these things
>     unto him," and we could go into that argument, but
>     you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that the Holy
>     Spirit exists.  

I agree.  I don't believe anyone but the Spirit would be able to convince you 
the Spirit exists.  Please don't complain about this being circular.  I know
it is, but really, can anything of the natural world explain the supernatural?
(This is why revelation is necessary to the authors of the Bible.)

>     Additionally, what he has written is
>     again second-hand info if it were given by the Spirit,
>     and still carries the chance it is not true.

The Spirit is part of God.  How much closer to the source can you get?
The Greek in 2 Timothy which is sometimes translated as "inspired by God", 
literally means "God-breathed".  In other words, God spoke the actual words 
into the scriptures.  Many theologians and Bible scholars (Dr. James Boice is 
one that I can remember off-hand) get quite annoyed by the dryness and 
incompleteness of "inspired by God".

>The only way you would be able to escape this notion of
>     "second-hand" info is to have had the entire Bible
>     written by God himself.  And to tell the truth, I've
>     studied the Bible extensively, and have yet to 
>     hear of scholars who have put forth objective evidence
>     showing God as the first author of this collection of
>     books.

That's what the verse taken from 2 Timothy was all about.  The continuity of a 
book written over a span of 1500 years by more than 40 authors from all walks 
of life is a testimony to the single authorship of God.

>> And as for reason, read what it says in 1 Corinthians 1:18-31 about
>> human wisdom. Basically it says that human wisdom is useless when
>> compared with what God has written for our learning.

>If you knew of Jesus as well as you know the Bible, you'd
>     realize he reasoned out the law and the prophets for 
>     the common man.  

What source to you claim to have discovered which has information of superior
historicity to the Bible?  Certainly not Josephus' writings, or the writings 
of the Gnostics which were third century, at the earliest.

>     And though some claim Jesus was 
>     he was human, with all of the human wisdom the
>     apostle Paul set out to criticize.  Yet, would you not
>     embrace the idea that Jesus was wise?

Jesus was fully God as well.  That's why I'd assert that he is wise.

>> I realise that you may not accept the authority of the Bible. This is
>> unfortunate to say the least, because there is no other way of learning
>> about God and Christ and God's purpose with the earth than reading the
>> Bible and searching out its truth for yourself.
>
>For your information, I was raised without any knowledge of
>     God.  By the time some of the faithful came to show me
>     the Word and share with me its truth, I was living
>     happily and morally without acknowledging the existence
>     of a supreme being.  I have, though, read the Bible
>     several times over in its entirety and have studied it
>     thoroughly.  It contains truth in it, and I consider
>     Jesus to be one of the most moral of human beings to
>     have lived (in fact, I darn-near idolize the guy.)  But
>     there's no rational reason for me to except God's
>     existence.

Please rethink this last paragraph.  If there is no God, which seems to be your
current belief, then Jesus was either a liar or a complete nut because not
only did he assert that God exists, but he claimed to be God himself!  (regards
to C.S. Lewis)  How then could you have the least bit of respect for Jesus?
	In conclusion, be careful about logically unfounded hypotheses based
on gut feelings about the text and other scholars' unsubstantiated claims.  
The Bible pleads that we take it in its entirety or throw the whole book out.
	About your reading of the Bible, not only does the Spirit inspire the
writers, but he guides the reader as well.  We cannot understand it in the 
least without the Spirit's guidance:

	"For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit 
	searches all things, even the depths of God."  (1 Cor 2:10, NAS)
 
Peace and may God guide us in wisdom.

+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=
Carter C. Page           | Of happiness the crown and chiefest part is wisdom,
A Carpenter's Apprentice | and to hold God in awe.  This is the law that,
cpage@seas.upenn.edu     | seeing the stricken heart of pride brought down,
                         | we learn when we are old.  -Adapted from Sophocles
+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=+-=-+-=+-=-+=-+-=-+-=-+=-+-=

[Other theologians get quite annoyed at the misleadingess of
"God-breathed."  It's true that the Greek word has as its roots "God"
and "breath".  However etymology doesn't necessarily tell you what a
word means.  Otherwise, "goodbye" would be a religious expression
(since it comes from "God be with ye").  You have to look at how the
word was actually used.  In this case the word is used for wisdom or
dreams that come from God.  But "God-breathed" is an overtranslation.
--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20535
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Salvation by deeds

Another guess to your salvation riddle would be "saved".

Joe Fisher

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20536
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Deification

In article <Apr.10.05.30.35.1993.14329@athos.rutgers.edu> HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com writes:
>Aaron Bryce Cardenas writes:
>After all, what does prophesy mean?  Secondly, what is an Apostle?  Answer:
>an especial witness--one who is suppose to be a personal witness.  That means
>to be a true apostle, one must have Christ appear to them.  Now lets see
>when did the church quit claiming ......?

Actually, an apostle is someone who is sent.  If you will, mailmen could
be called apostles in that sense.  However, with Jesus, they were
designated and were given power.  Remember that there were many
thousands of people who witnessed what Jesus did.  That didn't make them
apostles, though.

Joe Fisher

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20537
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Revelations

He doesn't contradict himself.  The church is to last for all time.
However, there are those who use the church to bolster themselves.  This
is evident in many letters.  For instance, Paul talks about the
"super-apostles" to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 11-12), he mentions
how people will be led away by miracles, signs, and wonders (2
Thessalonians 2:9-12), he tells Timothy that it is clear that some will
abandon the faith and teach lies (1 Timothy 4:1-3) and that some will
search for teachers to suit what they want to hear (2 Timothy 4:3-4).
Such passages go throughout the letters and Jesus does warn about them
(Matthew 24:4-14).  But look at the promise in this last part.  Verse
14:  "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world
as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."  Even today,
there are false teachings.  I can name two which I am well familiar
with:  the non-need of baptism and the "praying of Jesus into your life
for salvation".  Both are taught.  Both are DEAD wrong.  They have been
taken out of context from some verses, interpreted from others, and just
plain made up.  The ONLY way Jesus taught is given in Luke 9:23-26 and
Luke 14:25-33.  He then commands baptism in Matthew 28:18-20.  The
church Jesus founded, though, is alive and well.  It's not being
persecuted as much as back then (the laws won't allow it yet), but it is
being persecuted.

Joe Fisher

>
>Peace,
>Lou
>
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>+       Lou Nunez   (e-mail lnunez@vaxa.stevens-tech.edu)       +
>+   + Ps 42(43):4 + Ps 90(91):5-6 +  Dn 3:52-90 + Ml 1:11 +     +
>+  + Ad Altare Dei + Ad Deum Qui Laetificat Juventutem Meam +   +
>+  + 1Cor 4:15 + MT 16:13-19 + 1Cor 13:1-13 + Luke 10:25-37 +   + 
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20538
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Ancient Books

Of course, I'd still recommend that Michael read _True and Reasonable_
by Douglas Jacoby.

Joe Fisher

Oh, and Michael, I wait to see any dents in any armor and my faith
hasn't wavered since the day I became a disciple.  You may want to try
it sometime.  It's life-changing!

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20539
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Sin

Sorry for taking this off of Sharon's resp, but I'd also like to add
some more verses to that and perhaps answer the second Q.

Verses:
   1 Corinthians 6:9-10
   Colossians 3:5-10

As for knowing when, that's a bit tricky.  People normally have
consciences which warn them about it.  However, as in my case, a
conscience can be hardened by sin's deceitfulness (Hebrews 3:12:13) so
that the person has no idea (or doesn't care about it) that they are
sinning.  Of course, there are those sins which we do when we don't know
that they're sinful to begin with.  Those take searching and examining
of Scripture to find out that they are sinful and then repent and
change.  The best question to ask in every circumstance to judge sinful
possibilities is:  "Would Jesus wholeheartedly do this at this point in
time?"  I know, it sounds like a cop-out, but it truly is a stifling
question.

Joe Fisher

Oh, I missed one.  1 John 1:8-2:11,15-23.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20540
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Unity

In article <Apr.8.00.59.50.1993.28560@athos.rutgers.edu> Maarten.van.Loon@cwi.nl (Maarten van Loon) writes:
>Hello fellow-netters and fellow christians,
>about the subject of unity between christians and christian churches.
>to a bible study group. Alltough I do have a personal opinion on this
>issue, I thought it would be nice to hear opinions of fellow christian
>brothers and sisters from different countries and in different situations.
>
>My background: member of a (orthodox) Reformed Church. Let us say a little
The ONLY unity I've found which is true is when all parties involved are
disciples.  I came out of a church in which even the different
congregations were always competing and arguing about which one was
better and who had the better messages (while none of them put anything
into practice from those messages).  Since becoming a disciple, I've
found that when I travel to another church in the same movement, they
are just as accepting there as any other.  We had a retreat back in
January when some of the congregation from Louisville, KY came up (this
retreat was for college students) and it was as though I had known even
the people from Louisville for years (and I had only become a disciple
the previous April and had never been to the church in Kentucky).  One
of the keys to unity is unselfish love and self-sacrifice.  That is only
one area in which disciples stand out from "Christians".  Also, another
part of unity is a common depth of conviction.  I've also been a part of
some "Christian" campus fellowships who were focused on unity between
churches and saw that those churches had one thing involved:  a lack of
conviction about everything they believed.  That was why they could be
unified, they didn't care about the truth but delighted in getting along
together.

>The problem here in The Netherlands is that there are two other churches
>(denominations) with the same characteristics. Both have the same
>confessions; there are only some differences with respect to - for
>example - the matter of appropriation of salvation and how to "use"
>our creeds. In essence a lot of people of these three churches have to
>same faith and feel that they should become one church. But how, that is
>the question.
>
Creeds?  What need is there of creeds when the Bible stands firmly
better?

>So, here is a first question:
>- can the congregation of Christ be separated by walls of different
>  denominations? Or is this definitely an untolerable situation
>  according to the Scriptures?

According to the Scriptures, splits and differences of opinion are going
to be there.  As per a previous note, I mentioned that there are those
who teach falsely by many means.  There are also differences of opinion
and belief.  However, Scripture states:  
   In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your
meetings do more harm than good.  In the first place, I hear that when
you come together as a church, there re divisions among you, and to some
extent I believe it.  No doubt there have to be differences among you to
show which of you have God's approval (1 Corinthians 11:17-19).

How will God show his approval?  By fruitfulness (see Acts 2:47), but
before that, there are these qualities:
   devotion to the apostles teaching
   fellowship
   communion
   filling with awe for God
   all having everything in common.
   glad and sincere hearts
   praising God
   enjoying the favor of the people
All these are mentioned in Acts 2:42-47.  God also shows that those who
have these qualities are persecuted.  Look at Stephen, "a man full of
faith and of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 6:5) who was later stoned (Acts
7:54-60).  

>- can one say that only one of these three churches is the
>  true church of Jesus Christ?

One can say that a church is the true church only if that church is
perfect not only in the congregation but worldwide as a movement.  I
have yet to find that, but the closest one I've found is the Boston
Church of Christ movement, which constantly strives to have errors
pointed out and corrected.  It is also the only one I've seen which is
totally sold out to God.

>
>A problem closely related to these question is:
>- can we cooperate with other Christians - from these two churches - 
>  before there is a unity? This question is especially important
>  for those who think that only one church can be the "true one".
>
As for cooperation, that can always occur.  Unity, on the other hand may
never occur.  As for those who think about only one church being the
"true one", I remind them that Mark 9:38-41 states that there are
disciples who are not a part of the main group to begin with, but they
will not lose their reward.  As with the Boston movement, I've heard
numerous times this exact same thing, that there are disciples out there
that are not a part of the Boston movement but that does not make them
any less disciples.  Of course, few people admit that they've ever run
into someone who has the qualities of a disciple outside the movement.
I know I haven't.

>Maybe this last problem sounds a little strange to most of you.
>For your information: we have a lot of organizations here which
>are founded by people of one specific church and whose members
>are all members of that church. This has been considered as
>"correct" for years. Only a few years ago people started to
>discuss about this and now we are in the middle of this process.
>Some organizations are opening their doors for people from
>other churches etc.
>
I must warn that this sounds cliquey to me.  A clique is a group which
runs around together to some extent exclusively.  This causes problems
in fellowship and causes divisions.  I would not say at all that this is
something "correct" for a church/group to do for any reason.  In one of
the churches I attended, for example, there was an internal clique of
people who were on the 14 different groups/committees/organizational
heads of the congregation.  They rarely talked to anyone else outside of
the committees and seldom were voted out of office without another
office being "opened up" so that they would have to step right back in.
Their degree of exclusion was such that when the new pastor came, he
nearly had to wipe out everything and start from scratch (I wish he
would've since they still have no clue about what it means to be a
disciple).  Anyway, this rigidity in the clique is beginning to be
broken down, but is still there.  So, I must warn against such division
within.  There's enough division without.

>Thanks for your opinions in advance!
>
>Maarten

Joe Fisher

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20541
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: Weirdness of Early Christians

Were the early Christians weird?  Yes!  So were their non-Christian
contemporaries (the more familiar you are with late Republican Rome
or the Pricipate, the weirder those people will seem -- forget the
creative filtering done by Renaissance and Eighteenth Century hero
worship.)  So are modern non-Christians.  And Christians.

You are pretty weird, yourself, with your rather acid dismissal of
Luther and of Protestantism -- and in apparently buying into a
simplistic propaganda model about Catholicism *not* being faddish.  
Sure, it's so large that global fads take longer cycles than they
do in smaller denominations (and local ones are not usually visible
unless you do a lot of traveling to exotic lands :-)).  May I recom-
mend, as a salutary antidote to this nonsense Philippe Aries' book
_The Hour of our Death_, a longitudinal study of death customs in 
Western [specifically Catholic] Christendom?

And it won't help to escape into the obscurity of the first Christian
century.  Paul was pretty weird, too; as were Peter and the others in
the (apparently quite weird) circle around Jesus.

What I think you might find helpful is a bit more charity -- try to
understand these weirdos and nutcases with the same respect and love
you would expect others to show YOUR notions.  We *are* commanded to
love one another, after all.  And Brown's book is, in fact, a heroic
attempt to SEE the groupings he talks about as motivated in love and
the gospel and their social contexts.  (If anything, Brown is *too*
heroic here -- he manages to overstrain himself at times :-))

I don't suggest that we *follow* any of these old cult paths -- and
it raises hard questions from the skeptic inside me that so much of
early Christianity *was* like the weird (Christian and non-Christian)
cults we see today.  To that extent, I think you raise a serious
problem (and perhaps your phrasing is implicitly self-deprecatory
and ironic.)

But the first principle for *answering* these questions is respect and
love for those we do not understand.  And it helps to *work* at under-
standing (as long as we do not get overwhelmed by revulsion and begin
to withdraw our respect for them as people.)  I would advise, in other
words, MORE historical reading (Brown's other books are also good, most
especially his bio. of Augustine; also try Robin Lane Fox's _Christians
and Pagans_, maybe the Paul Veyne ed. _History of Private Life_, some
of Foucault's books on sexuality in the ancient world ...)

Humanity *is* weird -- we have known ONE sane person, and we killed Him.
Fortunately for us, this has proved a Comedy rather than a Tragedy.

Easter, 1993.

(yes; this is a tad early -- our Vigil service here has been moved forward
because so many churches in the area have taken to doing their own Vigils,
and the seminarians must therefore worship-and-run if they are to do it
here and there as well.  Think of this as an Anglican fad.  :-))
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		We must know the truth, and we must
mls@ulysses.att.com		love the truth we know, and we must
     - or -			act according to the measure of our love.
mls@panix.com		  				-- Thomas Merton

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20542
From: Steve.Hayes@f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
Subject: Confession & communion

04 Apr 93, David Cruz-Uribe writes to All:

 DC> Also, what is Orthodox practice regarding communion?  I read
 DC> a throw-away remark someplace that the Orthodox receive less
 DC> frequently than Catholics do, but was is their current practice?
 DC> Have their been any variations historically?

I think Orthodox practice varies from place to place, from parish to parish and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In some parishes here in South Africa the only ones who receive communion are infants (i.e. children under
 7). In our parish it is expected that one will have been to Vespers and confessional prayers the evening before, and that one will have been fasting. As we have to travel 70km to the church, we don'
t receive communion every Sunday, but about every third Sunday.

Steve

--- GoldED 2.40

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20543
From: Steve.Hayes@f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
Subject: Sin

09 Apr 93, Jill Anne Daley writes to All:

 JAD> What exactly is a definition of sin and what are some examples. How does
 JAD> a person know when they are committing sin?

To answer briefly: sin is falling short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)

Steve

--- GoldED 2.40

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20544
From: Steve.Hayes@f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
Subject: Pantheism & Environmentalism

09 Apr 93, Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik writes to All:

 >> "We suspect that's because one party to the (environmental)
 >> dispute thinks the Earth is sanctified.  It's clear that much
 >> of the environmentalist energy is derived from what has been
 >> called the Religious Left, a SECULAR, or even PAGAN fanaticism
 >> that now WORSHIPS such GODS as nature and gender with a
 >> reverence formerly accorded real religions."  (EMPHASIS MINE).

 SHK> First of all, secular and pagan are not synonyms.  Pagan, which is
 SHK> derived from the latin paganus, means "of the country."  It is, in
 SHK> fact, a cognate with the Italian paisano, which means peasant.
 SHK> Paganism, among other things, includes a reverence for the planet and
 SHK> all life on the planet -- stemming from the belief that all life is
 SHK> interconnected.  So, rather than be something secular, it is something
 SHK> very sacred.

I would go further, and say that much of the damage to the environment
has been caused by the secular worldview, or by the humanist
worldview, and especially by the secular humanist worldview.

This is not to say that ALL secular humanists are necessarily avid
destroyers of the environment, and I am sure that there are many who
are concerned about the environment. But at the time of the
Renaissance and Ref ormation in Western Europe man became the centre,
or the focus of culture (hence "humanism"). This consciousness was
also secular, in the sense that it was concerned primarily with the
present age, r ather than the age to come. Capitalism arose at the
same time, and the power of economics became central in philosophy.
This doesn't mean that economics did not exist before, simply that it
began to dominate the conscious cultural values of Western European
society and its offshoots. This cultural shift was, in its later
stages, accompanied by industrial revolutions and the values that
justified
 them.

There was a fundamental cultural shift in the meaning of "economics" -
from the Christian view of man as the economos, the steward, of
creation to the secular idea of man as the slave of economic forces
and powers. There were denominational differences among the new
worshippers of Mammon. For some the name of the deity was "the free
rein of the market mechanism", while for others it was "the
dialectical forces of history". But in both the capitalist West and
the socialist East the environment was sacrificed on the altar of
Mammon. The situation was mitigated in the West because thos e who
were concerned about the damage to the environment had more freedom to
oppose what was happening and state their case.

Steve

--- GoldED 2.40

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20545
From: atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez)
Subject: Re: Ancient Books

cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:

>If I talk with an atheist and tell him the New Testament is an historically 
>reliable document, what reasons would I give him?

  I have found that this isn't a very effective argument.  Most atheists are
perfectly willing to acknowledge the existence and ministry of Jesus--but are
quite capable of rationalizing the miracles and the resurrection into 
misunderstandings, hoaxes, or simple fabrications.  They can always make an
analogy with the _Iliad_, a book that tells the story of the historical Trojan
War, but also talks about gods and goddesses and their conversations.
  I don't think it's possible to convince atheists of the validity of 
Christianity through argument.  We have to help foster faith and an
understanding of God.  I could be wrong--are there any former atheists here who
were led to Christianity by argument?

Alan Terlep				    "Incestuous vituperousness"
Oakland University, Rochester, MI			
atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu				   --Melissa Eggertsen
Rushing in where angels fear to tread.		

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20546
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe)
Subject: Re: Revelations

hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

> Biblical prophecy tends to be somewhat cyclical.  For example, the virgin
> prophecy of Isaiah also prophecied of Christ.  How does this apply to the 
> book of Revelation in regard to the perterist view?

Much of the OT prophecies have a double application: to the Jewish
captivity, and to the end of time.  But if Rev. is dated at AD96 its
prophecies could not apply to the AD70 destructioin of Jerusalem.

Darius

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20547
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Prayer in Jesus' Name

In article <Apr.9.01.09.22.1993.16580@athos.rutgers.edu> munns@cae.wisc.edu (Scott Munns) writes:
>I am doing a dormitory bible "discussion" with my Christian roommate and
>in Jesus' name, what about the people before Jesus?  They prayed to God
>and he listened then, in spite of their sins.  Why can't it be the same
>way now?"
>

[insert huge deletion of all following material since it had little
relevance to what I've found]

OK.  The people before Jesus didn't have Jesus, right (so far, I've
announced that space is a vacuum)?  The people who lived during the time
Jesus lived (especially disciples) were taught this:  "I tell you the
truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing.  He
will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the
Father.  And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may
bring glory to the Father.  You may ask me for anything in my name, and
I will do it." (John 14:12-14)
So, Jesus asked them to pray for things in his name.  Since that time,
the request has been the same, not to ask for intercession from other
beings, but from Jesus.  Remember that "there is one God and one
mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as
a ransom for all men--the testimony given in its proper time." (1
Timothy 2:5-6.  Also, "there have been many of those priests [talking
about priests among the Hebrews], since death prevented them from
continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a
permanent priesthood.  Therefore he is able to save completely those who
come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them."
(Hebrews 7:23-25).  Hebrews is also full of areas talking about Jesus
being our mediator rather than any other man.

Joe Fisher

["The people before Jesus didn't have Jesus, right" may not be as
obvious as you think.  In what sense to you mean didn't have?
Christian thought has generally said that they had Jesus in the sense
that they were saved by his death.  God is not bound by our
chronology.  So in some real spiritual sense they did "have Jesus".
Even in terms of knowledge, while they surely didn't have the explicit
knowledge that we have, Christians have normally seen messianic
prophecy as knowledge of Jesus, even if knowledge from afar.
--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20548
From: xx155@yfn.ysu.edu (Family Magazine Sysops)
Subject: THE EMPTY TOMB...


 
                   THE EMPTY TOMB:  CAN WE TRUST IT?

                   by the late Wilbur M. Smith, D.D.
                              (1894-1977)

          When Jesus was on Earth, He made an amazing prediction about
     Himself, and frequently repeated it.  Let me quote it for you:

                 Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son
               of Man shall be betrayed unto the chief
               priests and unto the scribes, and they shall
               condemn Him to death, and shall deliver Him
               to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and
               to crucify Him; and the third day He shall
               rise again" (Matthew 20:18-19).

          Wholly different from the normal experience of men, Jesus,
     who had *never* done anything worthy of death, even deserving
     reproval, knew He would die before He was 40 years of age.  He
     knew the very city where He would die.  He knew that the religious
     leaders of His own race would condemn Him to death.  He knew that
     one of His own would betray Him.  He knew that before His actual
     death took place He would be mocked and scourged.  He knew exactly
     how He would die--*by crucifixion.*

          All this is in itself remarkable.  But more amazing than the
     minute particulars of His foreknowledge was what He predicted
     would follow shortly after He was buried--*that He would rise
     again.*  He even designated the time--on the third day.

          But since it is on this central fact--the death and resurrec-
     tion of Jesus Christ--that the whole truth or untruth of Chris-
     tianity turns, let us examine it more closely.

          The body of Jesus was embalmed in long sheets of cloth
     between the layers of which a great abundance of spices and
     ointments was distributed.  The body was placed in a tomb which
     had never before been used, and a great stone was rolled against
     the entrance.  The Jewish authorities, fully aware that Jesus had
     predicted He would rise again, had the stone officially sealed and
     on Saturday placed a guard before the tomb to prevent the
     disciples from carrying away the body.  Early Sunday morning some
     of the women who were faithful followers of Christ went out to the
     tomb to further anoint the body.  To their utter astonishment,
     they found the stone rolled away, the body gone.  They rushed back
     to tell the disciples.  Shortly two of Jesus' friends, Peter and
     John, utterly skeptical about the whole affair, came and found the
     tomb empty, just as the women had said.  Even the guards came
     hurrying into the city to tell the Sanhedrin that had hired them
     to guard the tomb that the body was gone (Matthew 28:11).

          How did this tomb become empty?

          One of the most famous New Testament scholars in America--
     professor of New Testament literature in a large theological
     seminary--wrote to the author in answer to my question of *how*
     the tomb became empty, and wrote it in a letter *not* marked by
     bitterness or sarcasm, that he could no more explain how the tomb
     became empty than he could explain how Santa Claus comes down the
     chimney at Christmas time.

          But he didn't realize that Santa Clause never did come down
     any chimney at Christmas time, *because there never was a Santa
     Claus!*  ...And there *is* a Jesus.  He died; He was buried in the
     tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, and on Sunday the body was gone.

          Those are facts of history.  No one can escape the responsi-
     bility of coming to some conclusion about what really happened by
     mentioning a myth we all abandoned before we were eight years old.

          Another professor, Dr. Kirsopp Lake of Harvard University,
     tried to explain the empty tomb by saying (what no other scholar
     in the field of New Testament criticism has ventured to adopt)
     that the women went to the wrong tomb.

          The facts are these:

          First, so far as we know, there was no other tomb nearby to
     which by mistake they could have gone.

          Second, it is contrary to all similar experience for three or
     more people to forget the place where they have buried their
     dearest loved one within less than three days.  Even if the women
     did miss the tomb, when Peter and John came, did they too go to
     the wrong tomb?

          Third, were the soldiers *guarding* the wrong tomb?

          There is, of course, a record of an attempt to escape the
     evidence of the empty tomb in the New Testament itself.

                  Now when they were going, behold, some
               of the watch came into the city and showed
               unto the chief priests all the things that
               were done.  And when they were assembled
               with the leaders and had taken counsel, they
               gave large money unto the soldiers, Saying,
               Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole
               Him away while we slept.  And if this come to
               the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and
               secure you.  So they took the money, and did
               as they were taught:  and this saying is com-
               monly reported among the Jews until this day
               (Matthew 28:11-15).

          This is a good illustration of many later attempts to escape the
     fact that the tomb was empty.

          You will notice at once that the chief priests and the elders never
     questioned but that the tomb *was* empty.  They never even went out to
     see if what the guards had reported was true--they *knew* it was true.

          Another fact about this story makes it ridiculous to maintain that
     the tomb was empty--the soldiers were told to say that Jesus' disciples
     came and stole the body away *while they* (the soldiers) *were asleep!*

          How could they know what was going on while they were asleep?
     Obviously, such testimony would be valueless in any court.

          Even aside from the shallowness and sordidness that make us reject
     the explanation, the very character and the later history of the
     disciples compel us to believe they did not steal and secretly carry away
     the body of Jesus.

          First, as Professor Heffern points out, the leaders of Judaism in
     Jerusalem, who had put the Lord Jesus to death, had nothing to offer to
     contradict these disciples as they continued to preach Jesus and His
     resurrection--because all Jerusalem knew the tomb was empty.  If there
     had been trickery here, sooner or later it would have been suspected,
     then proved.

          Second, surely *one* of the disciples, even *most* of them, would
     have confessed the fraud under the terrific persecution they underwent.
     It may be possible to live a lie, but men seldom die for a lie--and most
     of these men did.

          The result ultimately would have been that the message that Christ
     had risen would have suffered the fate of all such unfounded stories--it
     would have lost it *power.*  Instead, this truth swept the world, closed
     pagan temples, won millions of disciples, brought hope to a despairing
     humanity, was the very foundation truth of the early church, and is today
     as believable and as freshly glorious as ever.

          But not only did Jesus come alive again, He did not disappear to
     leave the disciples speculating through all the subsequent days as to
     what had happened to Him.

          Instead, He appeared to them--literally, visibly, frequently.

          He appeared to the women at the tomb on Resurrection morning
     (Matthew 28:1-10); later that day to Mary Magdalene alone (John 20:11-
     18); and to Simon Peter, also alone (Luke 24:34).  In the afternoon He
     walked with two of His followers toward Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35); and that
     night He appeared to ten of the apostles gathered together in an upper
     room at Jerusalem (Mark 16:14-16; Luke 24:36-40; etc.).

          A week later He appeared to all eleven of the apostles, probably at
     the same place (John 20:26-28).  Once He was seen by above 500 brethren
     on a mountain in Galilee (I Corinthians 15:6); and finally to the
     apostles just before His ascension (Mark 16:19; Luke 24:50-52; Acts 1:3-
     8).

          As with the fact of the empty tomb, so in regard to these histor-
     ically recorded appearances, all kinds of theories have been proposed
     attempting to deny their literalness.  But these theories are
     unreasonable, without supporting evidence.  None has ever won the
     unanimous approval of those who refuse to believe in the reality of the
     appearances.

          Moreover, while it is true we are living in an age when may of our
     leading scientists and agnostics and many of our philosophers are
     antisuperanaturalistic, let us not forget that some of the greatest
     thinkers of the ages have firmly believed in this great miracle.
     Increase Mather, president of Harvard; Timothy Dwight, president of Yale;
     Nathan Lord, president of Dartmouth; Edward Hitchcock, president of
     Amherst; Mark Hopkins, president of Williams; John Witherspoon, president
     of Princeton--these men and countless others have believed it.

          But suppose Christ *did* rise from the dead, what of it?  What has
     it to do with *my* life?  What has it to do with *your* life?  Just this:
     it seals with certitude the teachings of Christ.

          Jesus taught many great truths--especially many about Himself.  He
     claimed to have come down *from* God.

          He said He was the way *to* God.

          He said He was the Son of God, who alone knew God perfectly.

          He said that whoever believed on Him had eternal life, and no one
     else had it.

          He said that whatever we ask God in His name, He would grant it to
     us.

          Thus when He did rise from the grave on the third day, He revealed
     that in these amazing, unparalleled predictions, *He spoke the truth!*

          Do you know any reason, *any good reason,* why we should not believe
     that His words are all true?

          The point is, does not the truth of the Resurrection convince us
     that He is none other than the One He claimed to be--the Son of God?

          And then, of course, the fact that Christ rose from the dead
     testifies that He has broken the power of death, and that He will some
     day raise us also up from the grave, as He promised.

          In other words, if this Person, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, in all
     this, He should be the cornerstone of the foundation of your life.  For
     He said a life built on Him would know forgiveness of sins, His compan-
     ionship and help, a joy that no circumstances can ever take away, and a
     hope that shineth more and more unto a perfect day.

          Those who have tried it down through the ages--*and there have been
     many*--have given their testimony.  And we today who believe also know.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20549
From: topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Subject: Re: old vs. new testament

REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov writes:

>We can jillustrate this by pointing to the way God administers His judgment. 
>In the OT, sins were not forgiven, but rather covered up.  In the age of the
>Church not only are sins forgiven (taken away), but the power of SIN is put to
>death.  ...

My, this distinction seems quite arbitrary.

  Blessed is the man whose iniquities are forgiven, whose sin is covered.
  (Ps. 32:1).

and quoted by the apostle Paul:

  Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God
  imputeth righteousness without works,
  Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins
  are covered.
  Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.  (Rom. 4:6-8)

The biblical perspective seems to be that foregiveness and covering are
parallel/equivalent concepts in both testaments.  The dispensational
distinction is unwarranted.

>        During the millenium, we read that sins are dealt with immediately
>under the present (ie that Christ is present on earth) rulership of Christ.

I'm sure Rex has Scripture to back this up.  You're suggesting Jesus is
going to travel around dealing with individual violations of His law -- for
millions perhaps billions of people.  Such activity for Moses the lawgiver
was considered unwise (cf. Ex. 18:13ff).  It makes for interesting
speculation, though.

I'll leave comments on the so-called "bema seat" vs. "throne" judgments to
someone else.  This also seems like more unnecessary divisions ala
dispensationalism.

--
Tom Albrecht

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20550
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Christ references in OT

Adam, I just finished a study on this, not only looking at the
prophecies themselves, but where they were fulfilled.  While going only
through the OT, I found 508 references.  After starting to show their
fulfillment, I found out that I had missed some, so needless to say I
cannot post them here.  However, the study I did I intend to publish (I
am in the process of organizing and showing the fulfillments, then I
will be ready to write and send it to a publisher).  With any luck
(and/or free time) I should have it finally done sometime around
September (I hope).

Joe Fisher

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20551
From: atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez)
Subject: Re: A question that has bee bothering me.

wquinnan@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Malcusco) writes:

>Especially as we approach a time when Scientists are trying to match God's 
>ability to create life, we should use the utmost caution.

  I question the implications of this statement; namely, that there are certain
physical acts which are limited to God and that attempting to replicate these
acts is blasphemy against God.  God caused a bush to burn without being
consumed--if I do the same thing, am I usurping God's role?  
  Religious people are threatened by science because it has been systematically
removing the physical "proofs" of God's existence.  As time goes on we have to
rely more and more on faith and the spiritual world to relate to God becuase
science is removing our props.  I don't think this is a bad thing.

Alan Terlep				    "Incestuous vituperousness"
Oakland University, Rochester, MI			
atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu				   --Melissa Eggertsen
Rushing in where angels fear to tread.		

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20552
From: atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez)
Subject: Re: Pantheism & Environmentalism

by028@cleveland.freenet.edu (Gary V. Cavano) writes:

>...does anybody out there see the current emphasis on the
>environment being turned (unintentionally, of course) into
>pantheism?

>I've debated this quite a bit, and while I think a legitimate
>concern for the planet is a great thing, I can easily see it
>being perverted into something dangerous.

  Many pagans are involved in environmentalism--this is only natural, since
respect for the earth is a fundamental tenet of all pagan denominations.  This
doesn't mean that environmentalism is wrong, any more than supporting peace in
the Middle East is wrong because Jews and Muslims also work for it.

  Nonetheless, paganism is certainly on the rise, and we as Christians should
address this and look at what draws people from paganism to Christianity.  Like
it or not, pagan religions are addressing needs that Christianity should be,
and isn't.  
  I believe that paganism has hit upon some major truths that Christianity has
forgotten.  This doesn't mean that paganism is right, but it does mean that we
have something to learn from the pagan movement.
  First, paganism respects the feminine.  Christianity has a long history of
oppressing women, and many (if not most) male Christians are still unable to
live in a non-sexist manner.  The idea that God is sexless, or that Christ 
could have been a women and still accomplished his mission, is met with a great
deal of resistance.  This insistance on a male-dominated theology (and the 
male-dominated society that goes with it) drives away many young women who have
had to put up with sexist attitudes in their churches.
  Second, paganism respects the physical world.  This is an idea with great
ramifications.  One of these is environmentalism--respect for our surroundings
and our world.  Another is integration of sexuality.  Christianity has a long
tradition of calling ALL sexual feeelings sinful and urging people to suppress
and deny their sexuality.  This is too much--sex is clearly a part of human
experience and attempting to remove it is simply not a feasible option.  
Christianity has only begun to develop a workable sexual ethic, and paganism
is an attractive option.
  I'm not advocating that Christian doctrines (no sex before marriage, etc.)
should be changed--just that Christians work toward a more moderate ethic of
sexuality.  Denial of sexuality places as much emphasis on sex as unmoderated
sexuality, and neither one does much to bring us closer to God.

Alan Terlep				    "Incestuous vituperousness"
Oakland University, Rochester, MI			
atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu				   --Melissa Eggertsen
Rushing in where angels fear to tread.		

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20553
From: atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez)
Subject: Re: Opinions asked about rejection


  Here's how I talk to non-Christians who are complaining about Hell.

ME:	"Do you believe you're going to Heaven?"
HIM:	"I don't believe in Heaven."
ME:	"So are you going there?"
HIM:	"If there was a heaven, I would."
ME:	"But since there isn't a Heaven, you're not going there, are you?"
HIM:	"No."

  The point is that Heaven is based on faith--if you don't believe in heaven,
there's no way you're going to be in it.
  Of course, the next step is, "I don't believe in Hell either, so why will I
be there?"  It seems to me that Hell is eternal death and seperation from God.
Most atheists do believe that when they die they will die forever, and never
see God--so they do, in fact, believe that they're going to Hell.
  Hell doesn't have to be worse than earth to be Hell--because it's eternal, 
and it's a lot worse than Heaven.  That's the only comparison that matters.

Alan Terlep				    "Incestuous vituperousness"
Oakland University, Rochester, MI			
atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu				   --Melissa Eggertsen
Rushing in where angels fear to tread.		

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20554
From: mhsu@lonestar.utsa.edu (Melinda . Hsu   )
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

I'd like to share my thoughts on this topic of "arrogance of
Christians" and look forward to any responses.  In my
encounters with Christians, I find myself dismayed by their
belief that their faith is total truth.  According to them,
their beliefs come from the Bible and the bible is the word of
God and God is truth - thus they know the truth.  This stance
makes it difficult to discuss other faiths with them and my own
hesitations about Christianity because they see no other way.
Their way is the 'truth.'

But I see their faith arising from a willful choice to believe
a particular way.  That choice is part faith and part reason,
but it seems to me a choice.

My discussions with some Christians remind me of schoolyard
discussions when I was in grade school:

A kid would say, "All policemen are jerks!"  I'd ask, "How do
you know?"  "Because my daddy told me so!"  "How do you know
you're daddy is right?"  "He says he's always right!"

Well the argument usually stops right there.  In the end,
aren't we all just kids, groping for the truth?  If so, do we have
the authority to declare all other beliefs besides our own as
false?

-------------

This is only my third time browsing through this newsgroup.  I
apologize if I'm covering tired old ground.  Some of the
discussions on this topic have piqued my interest and I welcome
any comments.

| Louis J. Kim                      ---  _ O                PH:512-522-5556 |
| Southwest Research Institute    ---  ,/  |\/'            FAX:512-522-3042 |
| Post Office Drawer 28510      ----      |__                 lkim@swri.edu |
| San Antonio, TX 78228-0510   ----    __/   \    76450.2231@compuserve.com |
-- 

[I'm sort of mystified about how a Christian might respond to this.  I
can understand criticisms of Christianity that say there's not enough
evidence to believe it, or that there's just as good evidence for
other religions.  I don't agree, but clearly there are plenty of
intelligent people who don't find the evidence convincing.  But that
doesn't seem to be your point.  Rather, you seem upset that people who
believe Christianity is true also believe that things which contradict
it are false.

This suggests a model of spiritual things that's rather different than
the Christian one.  It sounds more like an existentialist view, where
people choose what value to follow, but there's no actual independent
spiritual reality, and so no way to say that a specific choice is in
some unique sense right.  This sort of model -- with modifications of
one sort or another -- may be appropriate for some religions.  But
Christianity is in its essense a "historical" religion.  That is, it's
based on the concept that there are actual spiritual entities out
there, that one of them has intervened in history in specific ways,
and that we see evidence of that in history.  In the "mundane" world,
we are not free to choose how things work.  When we drop something, it
falls (aside from well-defined situations where it doesn't).  The
Christian concept is that spiritual matters, there is also an actual
external reality.  I hope we're all honest enough not to claim that we
have perfect understanding.  But while we may not think we know
everything, we are confident that we know some things.  And that
implies that we think things that contradict them are false.  I don't
see how else we could proceed.

This needn't result in arrogance.  I'm certainly interested in talking
with people of other religions.  They may have things to teach me, and
even if they don't, I respect them as fellow human beings.  But it's
got to be possible to respect people and also think that on some
matters they are wrong.  Maybe even disasterously wrong.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20555
From: topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Subject: Re: Revelations

phil.launchbury@almac.co.uk (Phil Launchbury) writes:

> >The "apostate church" of Revelation most likely refers to the 1st century
> >Jews who rejected their Messiah and had Him crucified.  John refers to them

> I'm afraid not. It refers to the church that Christ founded. Many, many
> times he warns that the church will fall away into heresy as do the
> apostles. For an example look at the parables in Matthew 13:31-33. They
> refer to 'the kingdom of heaven' (the church) and the process of how
> they will be corrupted.

Sorry, but I think this interpretation of the Matthew 13 parables is
nonsense. I.e.,

> 'yeast' - *ALWAYS* stands for sin/corruption/heresy. For example 'beware
> of the yeast of the Pharisees'. ...

Matthew 16:12 explains that by "leaven of the Pharisees" Jesus was simply
referring to their teaching; not sin/corruption/heresy.

Jesus gaves His apostles the keys of the kingdom and said that
the gates of hell would not prevail against His church.

--
Tom Albrecht

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20556
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Environmentalism and paganism

I would like to see Christians devote a bit less effort to _bashing_
paganism and more to figuring out how to present the Gospel to pagans.

Christ is the answer; the pagans have a lot of the right questions.
Unlike materialists, who deny the need for any spirituality.


-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20557
From: wquinnan@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Malcusco)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article <Apr.10.05.32.15.1993.14385@athos.rutgers.edu> dleonar@andy.bgsu.edu (Pixie) writes:
>In article <Apr.7.01.55.50.1993.22771@athos.rutgers.edu>,
>
>					Pardon me, a humble atheist, but exactly what is the difference
>between holding a revealed truth with blind faith as its basis (i.e.
>regardless of any evidence that you may find to the contrary) as an
>absolute truth, fully expecting people to believe you and arrogance?
>     They sound like one and the same to me.

>                                       Pixie
>
>
>     p.s.  If you do sincerely believe that a god exists, why do you follow
>it blindly?  

	Why do we follow God so blindly?  Have you ever asked a
physically blind person why he or she follows a seeing eye dog?
The answer is quite simple--the dog can see, and the blind person
cannot.

	I acknowledge, as a Christian, that I am blind.  I see,
but I see  illusions as well as reality.  (Watched TV lately?)
I hear, but I hear lies as well as truth.  (Listen to your 
radio or read a newspaper.)  Remember, all that tastes well is
not healthy.  So, I rely one the one who can see, hear, and
taste everything, and knows what is real, and what is not.
That is God.

	Of course, you may ask, if I cannot trust my own senses,
how do I know whether what I see and hear about God is truth or
a lie.  That is why we need faith to be saved.  We must force
ourselves to believe that God knows the truth, and loves us
enough to share it with us, even when it defies what we think
we know.  Why would He have created us if He did not love us 
enough to help us through this world?

	I also do trust my experiences to some extent.  When
I do things that defy the seeming logic of my experience, 
because it is what my Father commands me to do, and I see
the results in the long term, I find that He has led me
in the proper direction, even though it did not feel right
at the time.  This is where our works as Christians are
important:  As exercises of the body make the body strong,
excercises of faith make the faith strong.  

	As for you, no one can "convert" you.  You must
choose to follow God of your own will, if you are ever to
follow Him.  All we as Christians wish to do is share with
you the love we have received from God.  If you reject that,
we have to accept your decision, although we always keep
the offer open to you.  If you really want to find out
why we believe what we believe, I can only suggest you try
praying for faith, reading the Bible, and asking Christians
about their experiences personally.  Then you may grow to
understand why we believe what we do, in defiance of the
logic of this world.

	May the Lord bring peace to you, 
			
			Malcusco         

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20558
From: jonh@david.wheaton.edu (Jonathan Hayward)
Subject: Re: Pantheism & Environmentalism

In article <Apr.5.23.31.36.1993.23919@athos.rutgers.edu> by028@cleveland.freenet.edu (Gary V. Cavano) writes:
>I'm new to this group, and maybe this has been covered already,
>but does anybody out there see the current emphasis on the
>environment being turned (unintentionally, of course) into
>pantheism?

Yes.

(I am adamantly an environmentalist.  I will not use styrofoam table service.
Please keep that in mind as you read this post - I do not wish to attack
environmentalism)

A half truth is at least as dangerous as a complete lie.  A complete lie will
rarely be readily accepted, while a half truth (the lie subtly hidden) is more
powerfully offered by one who masquerades as an angel of light.

Satan has (for some people) loosened the grip on treating the earth as something
other than God's intricate handiwork, something other than that on which the
health of future generations is based.  It is being treated with respect.  You
think he's going to happily leave it at that?  No.  When one error is rejected,
it is his style to push people to the opposite error.  Therefore the earth is
not God's intricate handiwork, not because it is rubbish, but because it is
God.  Mother earth is the one you are to primarily love and serve.

I see two facets of a response to it:

1: Care for the environment.  Treat it with proper respect, both because it is
   God's intricate handiwork and the health of future generation, and because
   showing the facet of one who is disregardful of such things does not
   constitute what the Apostle Paul called "becoming all things to all men so
   that by all possible means I might save some."

   Don't say "Forget the environment, I've got important things to spend my time
   on." - putting your foot in your mouth in this manner will destroy your
   credibility in expressing the things that _are_ more important.

2: Show that it is not the ultimate entity, that it is creature and not
   creator.  Show that its beauty and glory points to a greater beauty and
   glory.  Show that it is not the ultimate tapestry, but one of many cords
   woven in the infinite tapestry.

################################################################################
# "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            #
################################################################################

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20559
From: apodaca@spot.Colorado.EDU (mu'tafikah)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

I don't understand who this post is directed towards; who are you
trying to convince? By its subject i would assume you are directing
the argument towards people who do not believe that Christ rose
from the dead, but in your "proof," you use the bible exclusively.

The post is therefore immediately useless to anyone who doesn't
believe that the bible is an unadulterated truth, and to everyone
else, it is just a reaffirmation of a belief already held. As far
as i know, there is no disagreement between christians over
the resurrection of christ.

so my question is: what is the purpose of this post?

tomas

-- 
 "Because no battle is ever won he said. They are not even fought.
  the field only reveals to man his own folly and despair, and
  victory is an illusion of philosophers and fools."
  William Faulkner

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20560
From: vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."

In article <Apr.10.05.32.36.1993.14391@athos.rutgers.edu> gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric Molas) writes:
>
>I was raised in a religious atmosphere, and attended 13 years of
>religious educational institutions..  I know the bible well. So well
>I can recognize many passages from memory.  

[stuff deleted for brevity]

>Christianity is an infectious cult.  The reasons it flourishes are 
>because 1) it gives people without hope or driven purpose in life
>a safety blanked to hide behind.  "Oh wow..all i have to do is 
>follow this christian moral standard and I get eternal happiness."
>For all of you "found jeezus" , how many of you were "on the brink?"

Your very starting point is wrong.  Christianity is not based on following
a moral standard.  "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith...
NOT BY WORKS so that no man may boast."  (Eph. 2:7-8)  You say that
you know the Bible well, and can recognize (do you mean recite?) many
passages from memory.  That could very well be so.  However, it looks like
there are a few more passages that you should pay attention to.  (Titus 3:5
and James 2:10 are among them.)

Obedience to the moral law is imporant.  However, it is supposed to be the
result of turning your life over to Christ and becoming a Christian.  It is
by no means the starting point.

-- 
Virgilio "Dean" Velasco Jr, Department of Electrical Eng'g and Applied Physics 
	 CWRU graduate student, roboticist-in-training and Q wannabee
    "Bullwinkle, that man's intimidating a referee!"   |    My boss is a 
   "Not very well.  He doesn't look like one at all!"  |  Jewish carpenter.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20561
From: Deon.Strydom@f7.n7104.z5.fidonet.org (Deon Strydom)
Subject: Re: Prophetic Warning to New York City

--> Note:
Reply to a message in soc.religion.christian.

EVENSON THOMAS RANDALL wrote in a message to All:

> Which brings me around to asking an open question.  Is the
> Bible a closed book of Scripture?  Is it okay for us to go
> around saying "God told me this" and "Jesus told me that"? 

> Also interesting to note is that some so called prophecies
> are nothing new but rather an inspired translation of
> scripture.  Is it right to call that prophecy?  Misleading? 

Hi, You might want to read Charismatic Chaos by John MacArthur.  In it
he discussed exactly this queation, amongst others.  In my own words,
VERY simplified, his position is basically that one must decide, what
is the most important - experience or Scripture?  People tend to say
Scripture, without living according to that.  Their own
feeling/prophecy/etc tends to be put across without testing in the
light of Scripture.

There's a lot more than this, really worthwhile to read whether you're
Charismatic or not.

Groetnis (=cheers)
 Deon

--- timEd/B8
--  
INTERNET: Deon.Strydom@f7.n7104.z5.fidonet.org
via:  THE CATALYST BBS in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
       (catpe.alt.za)   +27-41-34-1122 HST or +27-41-34-2859, V32bis & HST.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20562
From: dwatson@cser.encore.com (Drew Watson)
Subject: Ethics vs. Freedom

Being a parent in need of some help, I ask that you bear with me while I
describe the situation which plagues me...

I am a divorced father. Chance would have it that "my weekend" with my 
daughter has fallen upon Easter Weekend this year.

Although I am Presbyterian, I had married a Catholic woman. We decided
that the Catholic moray of indoctrination of the spouse into the faith
was too confining (and restrictive due to time as we had already set a
date), and we were married in a Christian Church which was non-denominational.

During the years of our marriage, we did not often attend church. 

When our daughter was born, some years later, my wife insisted that she 
be baptised as Catholic. This wasn't a problem with me.

During a separation of five years, my ex-wife was taken ill with a disease
that affected her mental capacities. She was confined to a mental ward for
two months before it was diagnosed. It has since been treated "effectively".

In other words, professionals have deemed her a functioning member of society.

During the recuperation, my ex-wife has embraced Buddism. Her influence over
my daughter has been substantial, and has primarily allowed me only Saturday
visitation for a number of years. During this period I have read Bible study
books to my daughter, and tried to keep her aware of her Christian heritage.

Last fall, our divorce was finalized after a year of viscious divorce hearings.
At that time I was awarded visitation rights every other weekend. At that time,
I started taking my daughter to church quite often, although not every weekend.
I did this to attempt to strengthen the Christian ethic and expose her to a
religious community.

Today, Easter Sunday, I took my daughter to church. When it came time for 
Communion, my daughter took the bread (The body of Christ) but left the wine
(The blood of Christ) professing that she was too young for wine. She then
balled the bread up in her hand and tried to descretely throw it under the
pew in front of us.

I feel this was a slap in the face to me, my religion, and an afront to her
religious heritage. It can be construed as breaking several of the commandments
if you try. I really felt dishonored by the action.

My daughter is only nine years old, but I think she should have been old and
mature enough to realize her actions. I have difficulty blaming her directly
for religious teachings her mother swears to, but when I discussed this with
my daughter she made it clear she believed in Buddhism and not Christianity.

My initial response of anger (moderated) was to suggest if there is no faith
in Christ then why does she celebrate Easter, or Christmas? I suggested I
would never force her to practice my religious beliefs by celebrating holidays
with her again.

I do not want to "drive her from the fold", and would be willing to allow her
to continue practicing Buddhism (as though I had a choice seeing her only
for two days out of fourteen) but I want her to want to embrace Christianity.

Any suggestions?

If you have a response, please e-mail me a copy. (I'm not a regular reader
of this newsgroup.) (Naturally, feel free to post too!)

Thanks, and I hope you've had a happy Easter.

Drew

-- 
Drew Watson                 Systems analysis             Encore Computer Corp
dwatson@encore.com     (301)497-1800 || (703)691-3500       Customer services
=============================================================================

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20563
From: topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Subject: Re: Revelations

hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

> >Now, as to the suggestion that all prophecy tends to be somewhat cyclical,
> >can you elaborate?  I'm not exactly sure what you mean.  How does the
> >suggestion relate to Isaiah's prophecy of the birth of Christ by a virgin? 
> >I don't see any cycles in that prophecy.
> 
> Maybe cyclical is not the best word.  ...
> 
> Another example would be the Scripture quoted of Judas, "and his bishoprick
> let another take."  Another example is something that Isaiah said of His
> disciples which is also applied to Christ in Hebrews, "the children thou
> hast given me."
> 
> How does the preterist view account for this phenomenon.

Ah, double-fulfillment.  First of all I would say that I'm not sure all
the prophecies had double-fulfillment, e.g., the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy.

I would say that just because this happens on some occasions does not mean
it will occur always, especially with regard to NT prophecies. The apostles
who quoted the OT and applied those passages to Jesus were acting as divine
messengers and giving the inerrant Word of God to the Church.  No one has
that authority today.  No one has the apostolic authority to say that
such-and-such a prophecy has double-fulfillment.  If the imagry of
Revelation fits with events of the 1st century, it is folly for us to try
and make it apply to events 20 centuries later.

--
Tom Albrecht

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20564
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: Easter: what's in a name? (was Re: New Testament Double Standard?

(MODERATOR: THIS IS A REPLACEMENT FOR AN EARLIER, MORE CLUMSILY WORDED
SUBMISSION ON THE SAME TOPIC WHICH I SUBMITTED A FEW MINUTES AGO.)

I think we need to distinguish etymology from meaning.  Regardless of
how the word 'Easter' *originated*, the fact is that it does not *now*
mean anything to Christians other than 'the feast day of the Resurrection
of Jesus Christ'. 

The meaning of a word is _only_ what people understand it to mean.

And the same goes for other cultural practices.  The festival of Easter
may possibly have some historical association with some pagan festival,
but *today* there are, as far as I know, no Christians who *intend* to
honor any kind of "pagan goddess" by celebrating Easter.

It is nonsense to say "this word (or this practice) 'really' means so-
and-so even though nobody realizes it."  Words and practices don't mean
things, people do.  

(This is basic semantics; I'm a linguist; they pay me to think about
things like this.)
-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

[Further, Easter is specific to English.  In many other languages,
the word used is based on Passover or resurrection.  Is it OK to
celebrate it in countries using those languages, but not in those
using English?  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20565
From: halsall@murray.fordham.edu (Paul Halsall)
Subject: Catholic Liturgy


	The problems with Catholic liturgy are likely to continue for
some time.  The problem is, in a nutshell, this: the Liturgy is a
symbolic action - in other words Catholics do [or should] believe that
the _signs_ during the mass - Water, Blessings, Vestments, Altar,
Relics, etc - are real. That is the sprinkling of water bestows real,
almost tangible, holiness, the Vestments are a real indication of real
sacred time. The point of a _symbol_ is that it is understood by all
to be connected to an underlying REAL referent. This kind of thinking
precludes analysis; holy water is not holy because of anything, it
simply IS holy.

But, modern westerners find it extremely difficult, especially if
well- educated, to think of the mass as a symbol. We are more likely
to see it as a _sign_, ie an action that represents grace, but which
could be replaced with other signs. In concrete terms, this means the
mass has become a commercial for God's grace rather than the real
thing. You can mess around with a commercial in a way you wouldn't
dare with the real thing [ask Coca-Cola Co.!]. These attitudes have
been encouraged by Liturgy workshops, etc. which instead of focusing
on _how_ to do do liturgy, have focused on how to create a meaning in
liturgy. You can only create signs, symbols have to come from God [or
the heart, or somewhere deeper than analysis. The most dramatic
example of this shift in understanding has been in the treatment of
the sacred species [the consecrated host and wine]. Now, with pita
bread etc, it is common to come away from the altar with hands covered
in particles. If the Host is a sign of Grace, this isnt and issue; but
Catholics in the past would have been distraught at this real
desacration of the real symbol of Jesus' body.

Modern Catholic liturgy  is caught in this epistemological shift. We
try to perfrom the old rites, but then we have some liturgomaniac
priest get up and 'explain' what we are doing - so we stop doing it and
start pretending to do it. This is not a soul filling experience.
It doesn't help BTW that we have got stuck witha huge amount of two and
three chord ersatz-folk music [again a result of mis-analysis: complicated
tunes are in fact easier to remember than simple ones - this was the
genius of Wesley and the 19C Anglican hymn writers]. Taize' is only
slightly better.

What are we to do? Well I suggest rejecting the parish system if it
doesn't work for you. Search out a Church where the liturgy is well
prepared not well-explained. They exist in every city. This is not BTW
a matter of particular style: the music might be old or new. It is
the attitude of the church that counts. Also, note that a conservative
liturgy - harking back to pre-Vatican II days, does not necessarily mean
the Church will be socially conservative.

In NYC I can recommend:
	Corpus Christi - W 12st St.
	Corpus Christi - W 12st St. - very conservative liturgy, 
	St. Joseph's, Greenwich Village.  - Modern, "clean", largely gay
	Oratorian Church, Brooklyn - Very beautiful

Avoid, anywhere, anytime a church with electric candles.

Happy Easter: Christos Aneste', Christos Voskrezhne, Christ is Risen

Paul Halsall
Halsall@murray.fordham.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20566
From: heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath)
Subject: Re: Pantheism & Environmentalism

In article <Apr.11.01.02.34.1993.17784@athos.rutgers.edu> Steve.Hayes@f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org writes:

	I realize I'm entering this discussion rather late, but I do
have one question. Wasn't it a Reagan appointee, James Watt, a
pentacostal christian (I think) who was the secretary of the interior
who saw no problem with deforestation since we were "living in the
last days" and ours would be the last generation to see the redwoods
anyway?

-- 
Terrance Heath				heath@athena.cs.uga.edu
******************************************************************
YOUR COMFORT IS MY SILENCE!!!!! ACT-UP! FIGHT BACK! TALK BACK!
******************************************************************

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20567
From: dmn@kepler.unh.edu (There's a seeker born every minute.)
Subject: -= Hell =-


 atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez)  wrote:

>  Here's how I talk to non-Christians who are complaining about Hell.

>ME:	"Do you believe you're going to Heaven?"
>HIM:	"I don't believe in Heaven."
>ME:	"So are you going there?"
>HIM:	"If there was a heaven, I would."
>ME:	"But since there isn't a Heaven, you're not going there, are you?"
>HIM:	"No."

>  The point is that Heaven is based on faith--if you don't believe in heaven,
>there's no way you're going to be in it.

    Hmmm... people in the americas before the time of Christ, children who
die young, etc. ?


>  Of course, the next step is, "I don't believe in Hell either, so why will I
>be there?"  It seems to me that Hell is eternal death and seperation from God.


   But of course, the popular conception of hell (correct or incorrect) is
something akin to eternal perpetuation of consciousness, at the very least.


>Most atheists do believe that when they die they will die forever, and never
>see God--so they do, in fact, believe that they're going to Hell.

   I think a good number of atheists believe there is nothing beyond 
bodily death, but it is simply an abuse of language to say they believe
they're going to hell. They believe they're going to _die_. Understand
that you've turned Hell into a verb. Using the same logic, it also follows
that all animals are 'going to Hell.' Are you sure this is what you want
to say? (presumably animals don't have the opportunity to get to heaven,
but this still doesn't change the fact that they're going to Hell (die
a final death))

   I don't claim to know whether or not there is an afterlife of _some_
sort, but if Hell is as you described (final death, and
not eternal perpetuation of consciousness) it will be true that
there will never be a moment when I am aware of my non-existence. 
(assuming I 'go to Hell' and not to Heaven) In other words, I'll
never know I'm dead. Hmmm... 


>  Hell doesn't have to be worse than earth to be Hell--because it's eternal,

    Ever hear people say of a loved one who was ill, and has died:
 "At least she's not suffering any more; She's in Heaven now." ?

    Consider the following statement:
 "At least she's not suffering any more; She's in Hell now."

    The above statement sounds odd, but according to your definition of Hell, 
it would be a true statement. The person in Hell would not be suffering. 
Granted, they wouldn't be *anything* (wouldn't be having any
conscious experience whatsoever). 

    You say Hell (death) is eternal. However, this loses its meaning 
to a dead person. And to me, it seems that the threat of some sort 
of eternal punishment only makes sense/has force if one expects to
be conscious throughout this eternity. 

    Many atheists believe that the thirst for an afterlife is simply the
product of propaganda ("Friend, do you want the FREE gift of e-ternal life?"
It's my understanding that the early jews did not believe in an afterlife.
Can anyone back me up on this?) combined with the survival instinct all
animals share. The difference is we have consciousness, and once we get the
idea of eternal life drilled into our brains, we then desire a sort of
super-survival. 

 
>and it's a lot worse than Heaven.  That's the only comparison that matters.

    That would depend on what Heaven is like. If God is a King, and 
an eternity in heaven consists of giving thanks and praise to the King,
I might opt for Hell. I read a lovely account of a missionary trying to
convert Eskimos to Christianity in the book _The Illusion of Immortality_
by Corliss Lamont. The missionary started to speak about Heaven. 
"Are there seals in heaven? Will we be able to go hunting?" asked an
Eskimo. The missionary said no. The group of Eskimos then said something
to the effect of, "Well what good is your Heaven if there's no hunting?
Scram." I highly recommend the above book (IOI) to anyone who wants an
account of the other side of the immortality coin (that there is no 
immortality). 


>Alan Terlep				    "Incestuous vituperousness"
>Oakland University, Rochester, MI			
>atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu				   --Melissa Eggertsen
>Rushing in where angels fear to tread.		


   Pax,

    Dana

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20568
From: vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article <Apr.10.05.32.29.1993.14388@athos.rutgers.edu> caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin) writes:
>vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.) writes:
>
>No, IMO, Mr. Stowell missed the point.
>
>> 	"We affirm the absolutes of Scripture, not because we are arrogant
>> moralists, but because we believe in God who is truth, who has revealed His
>> truth in His Word, and therefore we hold as precious the strategic importance
>> of those absolutes."
>
>Mr. Stowell seems to have jumped rather strangely from truth to absolutes.
>I don't see how that necessarily follows.  
>
>Are all truths also absolutes?
>Is all of scripture truths (and therefore absolutes)?
>
>If the answer to either of these questions is no, then perhaps you can 
>explain to me how you determine which parts of Scripture are truths, and
>which truths are absolutes.  

The answer to both questions is yes.

All Scripture is true, being inspired by God.  The evidence for this
claim has been discussed ad nauseum in this group.

Similarly, all truth is absolute.  Indeed, a non-absolute truth is a 
contradiction in terms.  When is something absolute?  When it is always
true.  Obviously, if a "truth" is not always "true" then we have a
contradiction in terms.  

Many people claim that there are no absolutes in the world.  Such a
statement is terribly self-contradictory.  Let me put it to you this
way.  If there are no absolutes, shouldn't we conclude that the statement,
"There are no absolutes" is not absolutely true?  Obviously, we have a
contradiction here.

This is just one of the reasons why Christians defy the world by claiming
that there are indeed absolutes in the universe.

>There is hardly consensus, even in evangelical 
>Christianity (not to mention the rest of Christianity) regarding 
>Biblical interpretation.

So?  People sometimes disagree about what is true.  This does not negate
the fact, however, that there are still absolutes in the universe.  Moreover,
evangelical Christianity, at least, still professes to believe in certain
truths.  Man is sinful, man needs salvation, and Jesus is the propitiation
for mankind's sins, to name a few.  Any group that does not profess to
believe these statements cannot be accurately called evangelical.


-- 
Virgilio "Dean" Velasco Jr, Department of Electrical Eng'g and Applied Physics 
	 CWRU graduate student, roboticist-in-training and Q wannabee
    "Bullwinkle, that man's intimidating a referee!"   |    My boss is a 
   "Not very well.  He doesn't look like one at all!"  |  Jewish carpenter.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20569
From: armstrng@cs.dal.ca (Stan Armstrong)
Subject: Re: Prodigal Son

The parable of the Prodigal Son is not about who is and who isn't an
immoral person. It is about grace and the love of God. Most people
would agree with that concerning the younger son. The elder son is
simply a negative example of the some thing. He thinks that he must
earn his father's love, that he has earned it, that he is entitled
to it. His father tells him that he is on the wrong track. He has always
been loved--for the same reason his brother has always been: he is
his father's son.

We are too performance oriented to consistently get the point. We are
willing to be saved by grace, but once we are Christians we want to
go back to earning and deserving.

"Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying
 to attain your goal by human effort?" Gal 3:3 NIV
-- 
Stan Armstrong. Religious Studies Dept, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, N.S.
Armstrong@husky1.stmarys.ca | att!clyde!watmath!water!dalcs!armstrng

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20570
From: reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

In article <Apr.9.01.11.16.1993.16937@athos.rutgers.edu>, emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:
> The one single historic event that has had the biggest impact on the
> world over the centuries is the resurrection of Jesus.  At the same
> time, it is one of the most hotly contested topics....
> 
> Did Jesus Christ really rise from the dead?  Since the eyewitnesses
> are no longer living, we have only their written accounts. ...
> ...  Because of the magnitude of significance
> involved here, either the resurrection is the greatest event in the
> history of man or the greatest deception played on man.
> [massive amounts of data deleted]

John, 

While I will not take the time to rebut you point by point, I will suggest
three current works which I think will be helpful in your quest to answer
this question.  John Dominic Crossan (Professor of Religion at De Paul Univ)-
_The Cross That Spoke_ Harper and Row Pub. 1988, Also his latest work 
_The Historical Jesus - The Life of A Mediterranean Jewish Peasant_ Harper
and Row Pub. 1991,  Also two works of Burton Mack (Professor of New Testament
at the Claremont Graduate School) _A Myth of Innocence_ Fortress Press 1988,
And his latest book _The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins_
Harper and Row, 1992.  You might start with Mack's book on Q and then 
examine the others afterward.  However I think that once you do that you will
see that your "evidence" is not as sturdy as you'd like.  Most of the tired
arguements you stated, assume eyewitness accounts, such is not the case. But
Anyway look at Mack and Crossan and then get back to us.

randy

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20571
From: reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

In article <Apr.10.05.31.46.1993.14368@athos.rutgers.edu>, luomat@alleg.edu (Timothy J. Luoma) writes:
> In article <Apr.9.01.11.16.1993.16937@athos.rutgers.edu>  
> 
> "Suppose you were part of the `Christian consipracy' which was going to  
> tell people that Christ had risen.  Never mind the stoning, the being  
> burned alive, the possible crucifixion ... let's just talk about a  
> scourging.  The whip that would be used would have broken pottery, metal,  
> bone, and anything else that they could find attached to it.  You would be  
> stood facing a wall, with nothing to protect you.   ...
> scream out in agony that your raw back was being torn at again.  You would  
> say to yourself: `All this for a lie?'  And you had 37 more coming.
> 
> "At the third hit you would scream out that it was all a lie, beg for them  
> to stop, and tell them that you would swear on your life that it had all  
> been a lie, if they would only stop...."

No one was ever flogged, beaten, burned, fed to the lions, or killed in any
other way because of a belief in the resurrection - sorry to disappoint you.
The idea of resurrection is one which can be found in a host of different
forms in the religions of antiquity.  The problem was not the resurrection
which was a mediorce issue for a tiny fragment of the Jewish population 
(the Saducees) but was a non issues for everyone else.  The real problem was
that Christians were pacifist and preached there was only one god.  When the
state operates by a system of divinitation of the emperor -  monotheism 
becomes a capital offense.  The Jews were able to get exemption from this,
and were also not evangelistic.  Christians were far more vocal, and gentile,
and hence dangerous and were therefore targets of persecution.  Also since
Christians were a relatively powerless group, they made good scapegoats as is
seen by Nero's blaming them for the burning of Rome.  Let's not cloud the
issues with the resurrection.

randy

[I agree with you that Christians were not persecuted specifically
because they believed in resurrection.  However the beliefs that did
cause trouble were dependent on belief in the resurrection of Jesus.
Of course the problem with it is that there are alternatives other
than a great conspiracy.  The most common theory among non-Christians
scholars seems to be that the resurrection was a subjective event --
in effect, a delusion.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20572
From: vic@mmalt.guild.org (Vic Kulikauskas)
Subject: Eternity of Hell (was Re: Hell)

Our Moderator writes:

> I'm inclined to read descriptions such as the lake of fire as 
> indicating annihilation. However that's a minority view.
...
> It's my personal view, but the only denominations I know of that hold 
> it officially are the JW's and SDA's.

I can't find the reference right now, but didn't C.S.Lewis speculate 
somewhere that hell might be "the state of once having been a human 
soul"?

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20573
From: luom@storm.cs.orst.edu (Luo Martha BaoMing)
Subject: summer program

Does anyone know any good decipleship trainning program during min August 
to end of Sept.  Or any missionary programs.
I currently belong to the Missionary Alliance Church in Oregon.
Please reply by mail.

thanks.
----
luom@storm.cs.orst.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20574
From: jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas)
Subject: Re: Can sin "block" our prayers?

mike@boulder.snsc.unr.edu (Mike McCormick) writes:

> Not honoring our wives can cause our prayers to be hindered:
> 
>         You husbands likewise, live with your wives in
>         an understanding way, as with a weaker vessel,
>         since she is a woman;  and grant her honor as
>         a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your
>         prayers may not be hindered.  I Peter 3:7

One interpretation I've heard of this verse is that it refers to the sin 
of physically abusing one's wife.  The husband is usually physically 
stronger than his wife but is not permitted to use this to dominate her.  
He must honor her as his sister in Christ.  This would therefore be an 
example of a specific sin that blocks prayer.

This verse also makes me think of the kind of husband who decides what 
is God's will for his family without consulting his wife.  God reveals 
His will to both the husband and the wife.  There needs to be some 
degree of mutuality in decision making.  Even those whose understanding 
of the Bible leads to a belief in an authoritarian headship of the 
husband need to incorporate this in order to have a functional family.  
One way to look at it is that God speaks to the wife through the husband 
and to the husband through the wife.


Jayne Kulikauskas/ jayne@mmalt.guild.org

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20575
From: norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak)
Subject: Atheist's views on Christianity (was: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")

Eric ("Damien"?) was presenting his views on Christianity; I'll
respond to a few of his points:

In article <Apr.10.05.32.36.1993.14391@athos.rutgers.edu>, gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric Molas) writes:
|> Firstly, I am an atheist. I am not posting here as an immature flame
|> start, but rather to express an opinion to my intended audience.
|> 
|> <<****Strong opinions start here...****>>
|> 
|> 1) The human being is an _animal_ who has, due to his/her advanced
|> mental facilities, developed religion as a satisfiable solution to
|> explain the unexplainable.  (For example the ancient Greeks believed
|> that Apollo drove his chariot across the sky each day was real.  Due
|> to the advancement of our technology, we know this to be false.)

This is certainly a valid objection to religion-as-explanation-of-
nature.  

Fortunately for the convenience of us believers, there is a class of
questions that can never be reduced away by natural science.  For
example: why does the universe exist at all?  After all, the time-space
world didn't have to exist.  Why does *anything* exist? And: is it
possible for persons (e.g. man) to come into being out of a purely
impersonal cosmos?  These questions which look at the real mysteries of
life -- the creation of the world and of persons -- provide a permanent
indicator that the meaning of life in the material world can only be
found *outside* that world, in its Source.


|> We are _just_ animals.  We need sleep, food, and we reproduce.  And we
|> die.      
|> 
|> Religion (especially Christianity) is nothing more than a DRUG.
|> Some people use drugs as an escape from reality.  Christians inject
|> themselves with jeezus and live with that high. 

When you say that man is *only* an animal, I have to think that you are
presenting an unprovable statement -- a dogma, if you will.  And one
the requires a kind of "faith" too.   By taking such a hard line in
your atheism, you may have stumbled into a religion of your own.

But before you write off all Christianity as phony and shallow, I hope
you'll do a little research into its history and varieties, perhaps by
reading Paul Johnson's "A History of Christianity".  From your remarks,
it seems that you have been exposed to certain types of Christian
religion and not others.  Even an atheist should have enough faith in
Man to know that a movement of 2000 years has to have some depth, and
be animated by some enduring values.

With best wishes,
-- 
Richard Aquinas Chonak, norris@mit.edu, Usenet addict, INTP
I have very exclusive and nuanced opinions.  License info available on request.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20576
From: vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article <Apr.10.05.32.15.1993.14385@athos.rutgers.edu> dleonar@andy.bgsu.edu (Pixie) writes:
>Pardon me, a humble atheist, but exactly what is the difference
>between holding a revealed truth with blind faith as its basis (i.e.
>regardless of any evidence that you may find to the contrary) as an
>absolute truth, fully expecting people to believe you and arrogance?
>
>     They sound like one and the same to me.
>
>     I see no wisdom whatsoever in your words

I'm not surprised that you see no wisdom in them.  That is because your
premises are wrong from the word "Go".  You claim that Christianity is
based on blind faith, but this simply is not so.  Just look at the
current thread on the evidence for Jesus' resurrection for evidence
that Jesus was real and that he triumphed over death.

Furthermore, you say that Christians hold to their beliefs "regardless of
any evidence that you may find to the contrary."  Without any evidence
to support your claim, this statement is little more than an ad hominem 
argument.

Mind you, I don't mean this as a personal attack.  I'm merely pointing out
the intellectual dishonesty behind condemning Christianity in this fashion.
It would make much more sense if you could prove that all Christians do 
base their belief on empty nothings, and that they do ignore all evidence to 
the contrary.  Only then can you expect your attack to make sense.
 
-- 
Virgilio "Dean" Velasco Jr, Department of Electrical Eng'g and Applied Physics 
	 CWRU graduate student, roboticist-in-training and Q wannabee
    "Bullwinkle, that man's intimidating a referee!"   |    My boss is a 
   "Not very well.  He doesn't look like one at all!"  |  Jewish carpenter.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20577
From: lhep_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Leonidas Hepis)
Subject: Re: Prophecy on NYC

marka@travis.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley) writes:

In soc.religion.christian you write:

>Regarding David Wilkerson's prophecies.  While I'm not real sure of
>his credibility, I do remember a book he wrote, called A VISION or
>something like that.  He made a prediction that people who bought gold
>would be hurt financially.  At the time, gold was up to about $800;
>now it is less than half that.  This prediction stuck in my mind
>because a lot of people where I worked were buying gold.

Note that the above type of prediction does not require a God to be made.
An expert in a field can also predict things based on experience.
Beware of predictions like "The volcano will erupt tomorrow!"  Don't
follow the preacher because of such statements that come true.

Note also, that if I'm describing a (hypothetical) death of a friend as
a result of his passion for fast motorcycles, I might say "his mother
predicted he would die."  Of course, his father may have said "he 'll
make good money because of his hobby" and depending upon the final
outcome of the situation I end up mentioning the one that's
relevant.  A reader down the road will get the impression that the
mother or father had predicted accurately the event, when it was just
a casual statement.

Finally, on prophesies, note that there are many prophesies that can be
fulfilled my people, often to fool believers.  If I say, "Beware, the
terminal will unexpectedly be shut off!" and then after 2 secs I turn
it off (or have someone come out from another room and do it) there was
no prediction.  A similar situation arises with the establishment of
the Jewish state.  While pressing for it, prominent Jews argued that it
was predicted that they'd have a state again, and that the time has
come.  (I've read this somewhere, but can't think of the source - if
you can, please let me know.)  In this case, the establishment of the
state does not really fulfill the  prophesy since the prophesy was used
in order to push for the establishment of the state.

Deciding what was truely a fulfillment of prophesy is very tricky.

-leo

-- 
"My mother wanted to save herself until marriage.  Every |Leonidas Hepis
day I thank God that she didn't.  Because without pre-   |
marital sex, I would never have been born.  Premarital   |lhep_ltd@uhura
sex -- what a beautiful choice." - Greg Weeks            |.cc.rochester.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20578
From: Nabeel Ahmad Rana <rana@rintintin.colorado.edu>
Subject: RFD: soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya moderated

Dear Netters:

A new religious newsgroup "soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya" was pro-
posed  on  Oct  16,  1992. The discussion about this new proposed
newsgroup went on in various related groups.  The  proposal,  was
supposed to enter a vote during the last week of November 92. Due
to a false Call For Votes, by some opponent, the voting had to be
canceled.  I  quote  here  a  statement  from  the  moderator  of
new.announce.newgroups:


"The current Call For Votes (CFV) for an Ahmadiyya newsgroup
 is being canceled. A new call for votes will be issued within
 a few weeks, possibly with a new impartial vote  taker.  Discus-
 sion on the proposal is still open until the new vote is called..."
                                -- by Lawrence, Nov 20, 1992.


A lot of confusion arose among the netter as  to  whom  to  vote.
Therefore  it was decided to give a cool down period, so that all
confusions are over. It has been over 4 months  of  that  instant
and now we are again attempting to create this newsgroup. A fresh
RFD is hereby being issued. Please! take part in  the  discussion
under the same  title heading  and in  "news.groups"  or at least
cross-post it to "news.groups".


****************************************************************

                REQUEST  FOR  DISCUSSION

****************************************************************



NAME OF PROPOSED NEWSGROUP: 
==========================

     soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya


CHARTER: 
=======

     A religious newsgroup, which would mainly  discuss  the  be-
liefs,  teachings,  philosophy  and ideologies of all major reli-
gions of the world as  they  exist  to  foster  better  religious
knowledge  and  understanding among followers of all religions as
they share common basis. This newsgroup will be devoted to  build
a  peaceful  mutual  understanding  of  the  Ahmadiyya  branch of
Islam, its peacefull beliefs, ideology and philosophy and how  it
is  different  from  other  branches  of Islam in fostering world
peace and developing better understanding among religious people.
It may also be used to post important religious events within the
World Wide Ahmadiyya Islamic Community in general.


PURPOSE OF THE GROUP: 
====================

     The following are some of the main purposes this group will
     achieve:

     i)   To discuss the common beliefs of all major religions as
          they relate to Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.

     ii)  To discuss the doctrines, origin and teachings  of this
          puissant spiritual force on earth.

     iii) To examine Islamic teachings and beliefs in general  in
          light  of the Quran  and established Islamic traditions
          of 15 centuries from Ahmadiyya perspective.

     iv)  To discuss the similarities  between Ahmadi Muslims and
          people of other Religions  of the world and discuss how
          religious tolerance  and respect to other's  faiths can
          be brought about to  eliminate inter-religion rivalries
          and hatred among people of religions. 

     v)   To discuss the origin and teachings of all religions in
          general and Islamic and Ahmadiyya Muslims in particular
          to foster better understanding among Ahmadi Muslims and
          other religious people.

     vi)  To discuss current world problems and solution to these
          problems as offered by religion.

     vii) To exchange important news and views about the Ahmadiyya
          Muslim Community and other Religions.

     viii)To add diversity in the religious newsgroups present
          on Usenet.

     ix)  To discuss why  religious persecution is on the rise  in
          the world  and find  solutions to remedy the ever deter-
          iorating  situation  in the  world in general and in the 
          Islamic world in particular.

     x)   To discuss the contributions of founders of  all  reli-
          gions and their  people for humanity, society and world 
          peace in general and by the International Ahmadiyya Mus
          -lim Community in particular.


TYPE: 
====

The group will be MODERATED for orderly and free religious dialo-
gue.   The moderation will NOT prevent disagreement or dissent to
beliefs, but will mainly be used  to  prevent  derogatory/squalid
use  of  dialect  and irrelevant issues. The moderators have been
decided through personal e-mail and through a  general  consensus
among  the proponants by discussion in news.groups. The following
moderators have been proposed and agreed upon:

Moderator:     Nabeel A. Rana  (rana@rintintin.colorado.edu)  
Co-Moderator:  Dr. Tahir Ijaz  (ijaz@ccu.umanitoba.ca)



A BRIEF DESCRIPTION ABOUT AHMADIYYA/ISLAM:
=========================================


        The Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam, an international organi-
sation, was founder in 1989 in Qadian, India. The founder of this
sect, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908), proclaimed to be the
Promised Reformer of this age as foretold in almost all the major
religions of the world today (Islam, Christianity, Judiasm,  Hin-
duism).  He  claimed  to  be  the  long awaited second comming of
Jesus Christ (metaphorically), the Muslim Mahdi, and the Promised
Messiah.  He  claimed that the prophecies contained in almost all
the great religions of the world about the advent of a  messenger
from God have been fulfilled.

        The claims Hazrat Ahmad raised storms  of  hostility  and
extreme  oposition from many priestlike people of Muslims, Chris-
tians, Jews and Hindus of that age. Such opposition is often wit-
nessed  in  the history of divine reformers. Even today this sect
is being persecuted specially in  some  of  the  Muslim  regimes.
Dispite  the  opposition  and persecution, this sect has won many
adherents in 130 countries. It has over 10 million followers, who
come from a diverse ethnic and cultural background.

        The sect is devoted to world peace and in bringing  about
a better understanding of religion, and the founders of all reli-
gions. Its mission is to unite mankind into one Universal  broth-
erhood  and  develop  a  better  understanding  of  faith. Ahmadi
Muslims have always been opposed to all kind of violence and spe-
cially religious intollerance and fundamentalism.

        Among its many philanthropic activities, the sect has es-
tablished  a network of hundreds of schools, hospitals, and clin-
ics in many third world countries. These institutions are staffed
by  volunteer  professional  and are fully financed by the sect's
internal resources.

        The Ahmadiyya mission is to bring about a universal moral
reform,  establish  peace and justice, and to unite mankind under
one universal religion.


NEWSGROUP CREATION: 
==================

        When the Call For Votes is called,  the  discussion  will
officially  end.   Voting  will be held for about three weeks. If
the group gets 2/3rd majority AND  100  more  "YES/Create"  votes
than  "NO/don't  create"  votes;  the group shall be created. Any
questions or comments  may  be  included  in  the  discussion  or
directly sent to: rana@rintintin.colorado.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20579
From: aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In a previous article, dleonar@andy.bgsu.edu (Pixie) says:

>     Do the words "Question Authority" mean anything to you?
>
>     I defy any theist to reply.      

Well, despite what my mother told me about accepting dares, here goes.
 
You have to be very careful about what you mean by "question authority".
Taken literally, it is nonsense. That which is authoratative is authoratative,
and to say "I question to word of this authority" is ridiculous. If it is 
open to question, it isn't an authority. On the other hand, it is perfectly
reasonable to question whether something is an authority. The catch phrase
here should be "authenticate authority." Once you have authenticated
your authority, you must believe what it says, or you are not treating it as
an authority. 

The difficulty is that authenticating an authority is not easy. You 
can perhaps discredit a claim to authority by showing logical inconsistency
in what it teaches, or by showing that it does not obey its own rules of
discourse. But the fact that I cannot discredit something does not, in
inself, accredit it. (Nor does the fact that I can convince myself and 
other that I have discredited something necessarilly mean that it is false.)
I cannot accredit an authority by independantly verifying its teachings, 
because if I can independantly verify its teachings, I don't need an 
authority. I need an authority only when there is information I need which
I cannot get for myself. Thus, if I am to authenticate an authority, I must
do it by some means other than by examining its teachings. 

In practical matters we accept all kinds of authorities because we don't
have time to rediscover fundamental knowledge for ourselves. Every scientist
woring today assumes, on the authority of the scintific community, all sorts
of knowledge which is necessary to his work but which he has not time to 
verify for himself.

In spiritual matters, we accept authority because we have no direct source 
ofinformation. We select our authorities based on various criteria. (I am
a Catholic, in part, because the historical claims of the RC church seem
the strongest.) Without authorities there would be no subject matter for
belief, unless we simply made something up for ourselves (as many do).

The atheist position seems to be that there are no authorities. This is a
reasonable assertion in itself, but it leads to a practical difficulty.
If you reject all authority out of hand, you reject all possibility of
every receiving information. Thus the atheist position can never possibly
change. It is non-falsifiable and therefore unscintific. 

To demand scintific or rational proof of God's existence, is to deny
God's existence, since neither science, nor reason, can, in their very
nature, prove anything.



-- 
==============================================================================
Mark Baker                  | "The task ... is not to cut down jungles, but 
aa888@Freenet.carleton.ca   | to irrigate deserts." -- C. S. Lewis
==============================================================================

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20580
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: Pantheism & Environmentalism

In article <Apr.12.03.44.17.1993.18833@athos.rutgers.edu> heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:
>
>	I realize I'm entering this discussion rather late, but I do
>have one question. Wasn't it a Reagan appointee, James Watt, a
>pentacostal christian (I think) who was the secretary of the interior
>who saw no problem with deforestation since we were "living in the
>last days" and ours would be the last generation to see the redwoods
>anyway?

I heard the same thing, but without confirmation that he actually said it.
It was just as alarming to us as to you; the Bible says that nobody knows
when the second coming will take place.

-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20581
From: jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas)
Subject: RE: Does God love you?

davem@bnr.ca (Dave Mielke) writes,

>  However, God's love is qualified.  The Bible says:
> 
>      The way of the wicked is an abomination unto the LORD:  but he
>      loveth him that followeth after righteousness.   Proverbs 15:9
> 
>      For  the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of
>      the ungodly shall perish.                            Psalm 1:6
 
  
I am extremely uncomfortable with this way of phrasing it.  God's love 
is unconditional, unqualified, unfathomable.  We are capable of 
rejecting God's love but He never fails to love us.

These verses do not show that God's love is qualified but rather that He 
is opposed to evil.

I am uncomfortable with the tract in general because there seems to be 
an innappropriate emphasis on Hell.  God deserves our love and worship 
because of who He is.  I do not like the idea of frightening people into 
accepting Christ.  

I see evangelism as combining a way of living that shows God's love with 
putting into words and explaining that love.  Preaching the Gospel 
without living the Gospel is no better than being a noisy gong or a 
clanging cymbal.

Here's a question:  How many of you are Christians because you are 
afraid of going to Hell?  How many are responding to God's love?

Jayne Kulikauskas/jayne@mmalt.guild.org

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20582
From: jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas)
Subject: quality of Catholic liturgy

jemurray@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John E Murray) writes:

> I would like the opinion of netters on a subject that has been bothering my
> wife and me lately: liturgy, in particular, Catholic liturgy.  In the last fe
> years it seems that there are more and more ad hoc events during Mass.  It's
> driving me crazy!  The most grace-filled aspect of a liturgical tradition is
> that what happens is something we _all_ do together, because we all know how 
> do it.  Led by the priest, of course, which makes it a kind of dialogue we 
> present to God.  But the best Masses I've been to were participatory prayers.

On the one hand there are advantages to having the liturgy stay the 
same.  John has described some of these.  On the other hand, some people 
seem to start tuning out `the same old words' and pay attention better 
when things get changed around.  I think innovative priests and liturgy 
committees are trying to get our attention and make things more 
meaningful for us.  It drives me crazy too. 

Different people have differing preferences and needs in liturgy.  My 
local parish is innovative.  I prefer to go to Mass at the next parish 
over.  Sometimes we don't have the option of attending a Mass in the 
style which best suits us.  John put a smiley on it but to "just offer 
it up" probably is the solution.

A related issue, that it sounds like John does not have to deal with, is 
that spouses may have different liturgical tastes.  My husband does like 
innovative litury.  It is a challenge to meet both of our spiritual 
needs without just going our separate ways.  When you include the factor 
of also trying to satisfy our children's needs, things get pretty 
complicated.

One thing to remember is that even the most uncongenial Mass is still 
Mass.

Jayne Kulikauskas/ jayne@mmalt.guild.org

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20583
From: jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas)
Subject: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."

gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric Molas) writes:

> Firstly, I am an atheist. I am not posting here as an immature flame
> start, but rather to express an opinion to my intended audience.
[deleted] 
> 
> We are _just_ animals.  We need sleep, food, and we reproduce.  And we
> die.      

I am glad that I am not an atheist.  It seems tragic that some people 
choose a meaningless existence.  How terrible to go on living only 
because one fears death more than life.  I feel so sorry for Eric and 
yet any attempts to share my joy in life with him would be considered as 
further evidence of the infectious nature of Christianity.    

As a Christian I am free to be a human person.  I think, love, choose, 
and create.  I will live forever with God.

Christ is not a kind of drug.  Drugs are a replacement for Christ.  
Those who have an empty spot in the God-shaped hole in their hearts must 
do something to ease the pain.  This is why the most effective 
substance-abuse recovery programs involve meeting peoples' spiritual 
needs.

Thank you, Eric for your post.  It has helped me to appreciate how much 
God has blessed me.  I hope that you will someday have a more joy-filled 
and abundant life.

Jayne Kulikauskas/jayne@mmalt.guild.org

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20584
From: maridai@comm.mot.com (Marida Ignacio)
Subject: Re: Every Lent He suffers to save us

The story I related is one of the seven apparitions
approved by our Church as worthy of belief.  It happened
in La Salle, France.

The moral lesson of the story is:

The Lamb of God has been sacrificed and His blood has 
been used to cleanse us of our sins every moment as God perceives
worthy of being done in Heaven.  Mary weeps for The Lamb and
for the rest of her offsprings.  This will continue while we 
disobey God or sin against Him.  Mary, as a messenger, 
has been given the task to make us be 'aware' of the evil
serpent (communism, wars, famine, unfaithful, disobedience
to God, etc.) running after the rest of her offsprings.   
The children who went astray by disobedience led by the dragon is 
brought back by her peace and loving messages, reparations for sins, 
to obey God's commandments and be more worthy to be in the presence 
of The Lamb.

As she was conceived without sin to be worthy of bearing the
Son of God in her womb, Mary has been preparing us, the Church,
the Body of Christ, for His second coming (making sure we are 
protected from the dragon).  Also, she has been preparing the new 
Eden, by reversing the deed of the ancient Eve.  The new Eden will be
the sanctuary of the righteous as judged by Christ in His
next coming.
    
I relate the story again:
    I believe this and Mary, in one of her apparitions  
    in 19th or 20th century, she appeared to these      
    two children who tends goats and cows (I forgot     
    the exact place).  She was  weeping and telling the 
    children that she is afraid she's "going to lose her
    Son's arm".  She is mourning too for these          
    townfolks because it was their fault that there     
    would be drought in their harvest; not much good    
    food again this year as it was last year.           
                                                        
    Mary tells the children:                            
*    Most of the townfolks in this place worked whole    *
*    week even on Sundays when they should be in church  *
*    honoring God.  These townfolks swears and           *
*    uses her Son's name in bad words.  That is          *
    why her Son's arm is so heavy in pain.              
    Then she asked them if they pray.  The children     
    said "hardly".  She asked them to pray every        
    morning and night.  When the children went back     
    from work they had to tell somebody about this.     
    When the news was spred and after thorough          
*    investigation of the incident, the townfolks        *
*    were converted and faith and obedience to God       *
*    were restored in their community.                   *


Once again, the Lamb succeeds.

-Marida
  "...spreading God's words through actions..."
    -Mother Teresa

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20585
From: trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre)
Subject: Re: Atheist's views on Christianity (was: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")

norris@athena.mit.edu  writes:

> This is certainly a valid objection to religion-as-explanation-of-
> nature.  

> Fortunately for the convenience of us believers, there is a class of
> questions that can never be reduced away by natural science.  For
> example: why does the universe exist at all?  

Must there be a "why" to this?  I ask because of what you also
     assume about God-- namely, that He just exists, with no "why"
     to His existence.  So the question is reversed, "Why can't
     we assume the universe just exists as you assume God to
     "just exist"?  Why must there be a "why" to the universe?"

> After all, the time-space
> world didn't have to exist.  Why does *anything* exist? And: is it
> possible for persons (e.g. man) to come into being out of a purely
> impersonal cosmos?  These questions which look at the real mysteries of
> life -- the creation of the world and of persons -- provide a permanent
> indicator that the meaning of life in the material world can only be
> found *outside* that world, in its Source.

It may be that one day man not only can create life but can also
     create man.  Now, I don't see this happening in my lifetime,
     nor do I assert it is probable.  But the possibility is there,
     given scientists are working hard at "decoding" out "genetic
     code" to perhaps help cure disease of a genetic variation.
     Again, though, must there be "why" or a "divine prupose" to
     man's existence?

> When you say that man is *only* an animal, I have to think that you are
> presenting an unprovable statement -- a dogma, if you will.  And one
> the requires a kind of "faith" too.   By taking such a hard line in
> your atheism, you may have stumbled into a religion of your own.

As far as we can tell, man falls into the "mammal" catagory.  Now,
     if there were something more to the man (say, a soul), then
     we have yet to find evidence of such.  But as it is now, man
     is a mammal (babies are born live, mother gives milk, we're
     warm-blooded, etc.) as other mammals are and is similar in
     genetic construction to some of them (in particular, primates).
     For more on this check out talk.origins.

> But before you write off all Christianity as phony and shallow, I hope
> you'll do a little research into its history and varieties, perhaps by
> reading Paul Johnson's "A History of Christianity".  From your remarks,
> it seems that you have been exposed to certain types of Christian
> religion and not others.  Even an atheist should have enough faith in
> Man to know that a movement of 2000 years has to have some depth, and
> be animated by some enduring values.

Well, then, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Judaism,
     Zoerasterism, Shintoism, and Islam should fit this bit of logic
     quite nicely... :-)  All have depth, all have enduring values,
     thus all must be true...

Stephen

    _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   _/       _/    * Atheist
   _/        _/    _/   _/ _/ _/ _/     * Libertarian
  _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   _/   _/  _/      * Pro-individuality
       _/  _/     _/  _/       _/       * Pro-responsibility
_/_/_/_/  _/      _/ _/       _/ Jr.    * and all that jazz...

-- 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20586
From: jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas)
Subject: Weirdness of Early Christians

halsall@murray.fordham.edu (Paul Halsall) writes:

> 	But recently I read Peter Brown's _Body and Society_. It is very
> well researched, and well written. But is raises some very upsetting
> questions. The early Christians were weird - even more so than today's
> carzy fundies. They had odd views on sex, odder views on the body, 
> totally ludicrous views about demons, and distinctly uncharitable
> views about other human beings. 

If possible (last I heard, it was out of print but they were considering 
reprinting) read Barbara Hambly's _Search the Seven Hills_.  It is 
historical fiction, set in Rome at the time of the early Church.  She 
captures the weirdness of the early Christians and yet gives glimpses of 
the holiness too.  Some of their odd views make a lot more sense in the 
context of the society they lived in.  I found it a remarkably positive 
view of Christianity considering that the author is not a Christian 
herself.  Another plus is that each chapter begins with an 
original-source quote so that it makes a good starting point for serious 
research.

Jayne Kulikauskas/ jayne@mmalt.guild.org

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20587
From:  (Phil Bowermaster)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article <Apr.10.05.32.15.1993.14385@athos.rutgers.edu>,
dleonar@andy.bgsu.edu (Pixie) wrote:
> 
> In article <Apr.7.01.55.50.1993.22771@athos.rutgers.edu>,
> vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.) wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 	"We affirm the absolutes of Scripture, not because we are arrogant
> > moralists, but because we believe in God who is truth, who has revealed His
> > truth in His Word, and therefore we hold as precious the strategic importance
> > of those absolutes."
> 
> 
> 					Pardon me, a humble atheist, but exactly what is the difference
> between holding a revealed truth with blind faith as its basis (i.e.
> regardless of any evidence that you may find to the contrary) as an
> absolute truth, fully expecting people to believe you and arrogance?

If you would bother to check in any good dictioanry or thesaurus, I think
you will find that "arrogance" has to do with an offensive exhibition of
presumed or real superiority (a paraphrase from my own Webster's).
Arrognace is about pride and haughtiness. A person can believe in absolute
truth, even blindly (whatever that means) without being obnoxious about it.
Just as a person can be a "humble," authority-questioning,
defying-any-theist-to-reply athiest and be quite arrogant. Arrogance is not
about what you believe, it is about how you relate to what you believe and
how you present it to others. If your overwhelming experience of Christians
has been that they are arrogant, I apologozing both for myself and on the
behalf of those who have offfended you. But my own experience, at least in
forums like Usenet where you see a good mix of people, is that arrogant
Christians and athiests seems to occur in about equal numbers.

- Phil -

Hey, we're talking about the PHONE COMPANY, here. The Phone Company doesn't
have opinions on this kind of stuff. This is all me.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20588
From: isc10144@nusunix1.nus.sg (CHAN NICODEMUS)
Subject: Greek Wordprocessor/Database.

Hi there,

	Does anyone know about any greek database/word processor that
can do things like count occurrences of a word, letter et al?

	I'm posting this up for a friend who studies greek.

Thanks,

Nico.

P.S.	Can you email as I seldom look into usenet nowadays.
--
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
|  NICODEMUS CHAN,	               | Raffles Hall, NUS, Kent Ridge Cres. |
|  Department of Information Systems   | Singapore 0511. (Tel : 02-7797751)  |
|              & Computer Science,     | [Hometown Address]:                 |
|  National University of Singapore.   | 134, Nanyang Estate, Jinjang North  |
|  Kent Ridge Crescent,                | 52000, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia       |
|  SINGAPORE 0511                      | E-Mail : isc10144@nusunix.nus.sg    |
|                                      |          channico@iscs.nus.sg       |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
                                                                              
   "Call unto me and I will answer you and show thee great and unsearchable   
                    things you do not know."  Jeremiah 33:3                   

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20589
From: lbutler@hubcap.clemson.edu (L Clator Butler Jr)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:
>(2) Nobody ever displayed the dead body of Jesus, even though both the
>Jewish and the Roman authorities would have gained a lot by doing so
>(it would have discredited the Christians).

It is told in the Gospels that the Pharisees (sp.?) and scribes bribed
the Roman soldiers to say that the Diciples stole his body in the night.
Good enough excuse for the Jewish and Roman objectives (of that day).

--Clator
--lbutler@hubcap.clemson.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20590
From: darndt@nic.gac.edu (David Arndt)
Subject: Johnny Hart's (B.C. comic strip) mailing address?

Subject pretty much says it all - I'm looking for Johnny Hart's (creator
of the B.C. comic stip) mailing address.

For those of you who haven't seen them, take a look at his strips for Good
Friday and Easter Sunday.  Remarkable witness!

If anyone can help me get in touch with him, I'd really appreciate it! 
I've contacted the paper that carries his strip and -- they'll get back to
me with it!

Thanks for your help,

Dave Arndt
St. Peter's Evangelical Lutheran Church
St. Peter, MN 56082

darndt@nic.gac.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20591
From: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article <Apr.11.01.02.46.1993.17799@athos.rutgers.edu> mhsu@lonestar.utsa.edu (Melinda . Hsu   ) writes:

>belief that their faith is total truth.  According to them,
>their beliefs come from the Bible and the bible is the word of
>God and God is truth - thus they know the truth.  This stance
>makes it difficult to discuss other faiths with them and my own
>hesitations about Christianity because they see no other way.
>Their way is the 'truth.'
>
>But I see their faith arising from a willful choice to believe
>a particular way.  That choice is part faith and part reason,
>but it seems to me a choice.
>
>My discussions with some Christians remind me of schoolyard
>discussions when I was in grade school:
>
>A kid would say, "All policemen are jerks!"  I'd ask, "How do
>you know?"  "Because my daddy told me so!"  "How do you know
>you're daddy is right?"  "He says he's always right!"
>
>Well the argument usually stops right there.  In the end,
>aren't we all just kids, groping for the truth?  If so, do we have
>the authority to declare all other beliefs besides our own as
>false?

I find this argument very strange, though not unfamiliar.

An analogy someone used a while back can perhaps illustrate it.

Say, for example, there are people living on a volcanic island, and a group 
of geologists determine that a volcano is imminent. They warn the people on 
the island that they are in danger, and should leave. A group of people on 
the island is given the task of warning others of the danger.

They believe the danger is real, but others may not. 

Does that mean that the first group are NECESSARILY arrogant in warning 
others of the danger? Does it mean that they are saying that their beliefs 
are correct, and all others are false?

Some might indeed react to opposition with arrogance, and behave in an 
arrogant manner, but that is a personal idiocyncracy. It does not 
necessarily mean that they are all arrogant.


============================================================
Steve Hayes, Department of Missiology & Editorial Department
Univ. of South Africa, P.O. Box 392, Pretoria, 0001 South Africa
Internet: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za
          steve.hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
          stephen.hayes@f20.n7101.z5.fidonet.org

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20592
From: bluelobster+@cmu.edu (David O Hunt)
Subject: Conversions

On 12-Apr-93 in Environmentalism and paganism
user Michael Covington@aisun3 writes:
>I would like to see Christians devote a bit less effort to _bashing_
>paganism and more to figuring out how to present the Gospel to pagans.
> 
>Christ is the answer; the pagans have a lot of the right questions.
>Unlike materialists, who deny the need for any spirituality.

And what of those of us who already have answers to their questions without
turning to christianity (or, in my case, any religion)?  Whay RIGHT do you
have to presume to lecture me about what I should believe??

David Hunt

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20593
From: BOCHERC@hartwick.edu
Subject: Does God Love You?

I simply wish to thank Dave Mielke (dave@bnr.ca)  for sharing the
tract concerning God's love.  It was most welcome to me and a great
source of comfort.

Carol Bocher

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20594
From: creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)
Subject: Re: quality of Catholic liturgy

In article <Apr.10.05.30.16.1993.14313@athos.rutgers.edu> jemurray@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John E Murray) writes:
>Example.  Last Sunday (Palm Sunday) we went to the local church.  Usually
>on Palm Sunday, the congregation participates in reading the Passion, taking
>the role of the mob.  The theology behind this seems profound--when we say
>"Crucify him" we mean it.  We did it, and if He came back today we'd do it
>again.  It always gives me chills.  But last week we were "invited" to sit
>during the Gospel (=Passion) and _listen_.  Besides the Orwellian "invitation", 

   On Palm Sunday at our parish, we were "invited" to take the role of
Jesus in the Passion.  I declined to participate.  Last year at the
liturgy meeting I pointed out how we crucify Christ by our sins, so
therefore it is appropriate that we retain the role of the crowd, but
to no avail.

>musicians, readers, and so on.  New things are introduced in the course of the
>liturgy and since no one knows what's happening, the new things have to be
>explained, and pretty soon instead of _doing_ a lot of the Mass we're just
>sitting there listening (or spacing out, in my case) to how the Mass is about
>to be done.  In my mind, I lay the blame on liturgy committees made up of lay
>"experts", but that may not be just.  I do think that a liturgy committee has a
>bias toward doing something rather than nothing--that's just a fact of
>bureaucratic life--even though a simpler liturgy may in fact make it easier for
>people to be aware of the Lord's presence.

   As a member of a liturgy committee, I can tell you that the problem
is certain people dominating, who want to try out all kinds of
innovations.  The priests don't seem even to _want_ to make any
decisions of their own in many cases.  I guess it's easier to "try
something new" than it is to refuse to allow it.

   At our parish on Holy Thursday, instead of the priests washing feet
("Who wants to get around people's feet," according to one of our
priests) the congregation was "invited" to come up and help wash one
another's hands.

   The symbolism of this action distressed me, and again I refused to
participate.  I thought that if we were to have to come up with
rubrics for this liturgical action (i.e. "Body of Christ" -- "Amen"
for receiving Communion), that they could be "I am not responsible for
the blood of this man."

   Also for part of the Eucharistic Prayer ("Blessed are You, God of
all creation...") was substituted some text read by a lay couple.  The
priest certainly should not have given this part of the Mass over to
others, and I was so disturbed that I declined to receive Communion
that night (we aren't required to anyway -- I instead offered up
prayers for our priests and parish).

>So we've been wondering--are we the oddballs, or is the quality of the Mass
>going down?  I don't mean that facetiously.  We go to Mass every Thursday or
>Friday and are reminded of the power of a very simple liturgy to make us aware 
>of God's presence.  But as far as the obligatory Sunday Masses...maybe I should 
>just offer it up :)  Has anyone else noticed declining congregational
>participation in Catholic Masses lately?

   The quality of the Mass has not changed.  Again, if it were to be
celebrated according to the rubrics set down by the Church, it would
still be "liturgically" beautiful.  The problem comes about from
people trying to be "creative" who are not.

   I think the answer to your question on participation could be that
given by Father Peter Stravinskas in answer to the question posed by
the title of Thomas Day's _Why Catholics Can't Sing_.  "They don't
want to" because of all this nonsense.

   By the way, for any non-Catholics reading this, the problem does
not reflect bad liturgy by the Catholic Church, but by those who are
disobedient to the Church in changing it on their own "authority."

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20595
From: kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Certainty and Arrogance

Dean Velasco quoted a letter from James M Stowell, president of
Moody Bible Institute:

>  The other day, I was at the dry cleaner and the radio was playing.
>  It caught my attention because a talk show guest was criticizing
>  evangelical Christians, saying we believe in absolutes and think we
>  are the only ones who know what the absolutes are.

>  We affirm the absolutes of Scripture, not because we are arrogant
>  moralists, but because we believe in God who is truth, who has revealed
>  His truth in His Word, and therefore we hold as precious the strategic
>  importance of those absolutes."

There has been a lot of discussion, but so far nobody seems to have hit on
exactly what the criticism of "arrogance" is aimed at.

The arrogance being attacked is that we "think we are the only ones who know
what the absolutes are".  In short, many evangelicals claim that they are
infallible on the matter of religious texts.

In particular, the problem is one of epistemology.  As a shorthand, you can
think of epistemology as "how do you know?"  That question, it turns out, is
a very troubling one.

The problem with `absolute certainty' is that, at the bottom, at least some of
the thinking goes on inside your own head.  Unless you can be certain that
everything which happens in your head is infallible, the reasoning you did to
discover a source of truth is in question.

And that means you do NOT have absolute justification for your source of
authority -- which means you do NOT have absolute certainty.


Let's take the specific example of Biblical Inerrancy, and a fictional
Inerrantist named Zeke.  (The following arguments applies to the idea of
Papal Infallibility, too.)

Zeke has, we presume, spent some time studying the Bible, and history, and
several other topics.  He has concluded, based on all these studies (and
possibly some religious experiences) that the Bible is a source of Absolute
Truth.

He may be correct; but even if he is, he cannot be certain that he is correct.
His conclusion depends on how well he studied history -- he may have made
mistakes, and the references he used may have contained mistakes.  His
conclusion depends on how well he studied the Bible -- he may have made
mistakes.  His conclusion depends on his own reasoning -- and he may have made
mistakes.  (Noticing a common thread yet?  8-)

Everything about his study of the world that he did -- everything that
happened in his own head -- is limited by his own thinking.  No matter what
he does to try and cover his mistakes, he can never be certain of his own
infallibility.  As long as ANY PART of the belief is based on his own
reasoning, that belief cannot be considered "absolutely certain".

Zeke believes that he has found a source of absolute truth -- but that belief
is only as good as the quality of the search he made for it.  Unless he can
say that his own reasoning is flawless, his conclusions are in doubt.

Any belief that you hold about absolute sources of truth depends in part on
your own thinking -- there is no way out of the loop.  Only an infallible
thinker can have absolute certainty in all his beliefs.


This is easy to demonstrate.  Let's go back to our shorthand method of doing
epistemology: "how do you know?"  Imagine a hypothetical discussion:

 A: The Bible is a source of absolute truth.

 B: How do you know?

 A: I studied history and the Bible and religious writings and church
    teachings and came to this conclusion.

 B: How do you know you studied history correctly?

 A: Well, I double-checked everything.

 B: How do you know you double-checked correctly?

 A: Well, I compared my answers with some smart people and we agreed.

 B: Just because some smart guy believes something that doesn't mean it is
    true.  How do you know THEY studied it correctly?

 A: ...

And, as you see, B will eventually get A to the point where he has to say "I
can't prove that there are no mistakes" -- and as long as you may have made a
mistake, then you cannot be ABSOLUTELY certain.

There is no way out of the loop.


This is where the "arrogance of Christians" arises: many people believe
that their own personal research can give them absolute certainty about the
doctrines of Christianity -- they are implicitly claiming that they are
infallible, and that there is no possibility of mistake.

Claiming that you CANNOT have made a mistake, and that your thinking has led
you to a flawless conclusion, is pretty arrogant.

 *

People who want to see this argument explained in great detail should try to
find _The Infallibility of the Church_, by George Salmon.  He is attacking
the idea that the Pope can be knowably infallible (and he does so very well),
but the general argument applies equally well to the idea that the Bible is
knowably Inerrant.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu
"At the core of all well-founded belief, lies belief that is unfounded."
                                                    -- Ludwig Wittgenstein

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20596
From: caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.) writes:
>In article <Apr.10.05.32.29.1993.14388@athos.rutgers.edu> caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin) writes:
> > ...
> >
> >Are all truths also absolutes?
> >Is all of scripture truths (and therefore absolutes)?
> >
> >If the answer to either of these questions is no, then perhaps you can 
> >explain to me how you determine which parts of Scripture are truths, and
> >which truths are absolutes.  
> 
> The answer to both questions is yes.

Perhaps we have different definitions of absolute then.  To me,
an absolute is something that is constant across time, culture,
situations, etc.  True in every instance possible.  Do you agree
with this definition?  I think you do:

> Similarly, all truth is absolute.  Indeed, a non-absolute truth is a 
> contradiction in terms.  When is something absolute?  When it is always
> true.  Obviously, if a "truth" is not always "true" then we have a
> contradiction in terms.  

A simple example:

In the New Testament (sorry I don't have a Bible at work, and can't
provide a reference), women are instructed to be silent and cover
their heads in church.  Now, this is scripture.  By your definition, 
this is truth and therefore absolute.  

Do women in your church speak?  Do they cover their heads?  If all 
scripture is absolute truth, it seems to me that women speaking in and 
coming to church with bare heads should be intolerable to evangelicals.  
Yet, clearly, women do speak in evangelical churches and come with bare 
heads.  (At least this was the case in the evangelical churches I grew 
up in.)

Evangelicals are clearly not taking this particular part of scripture 
to be absolute truth.  (And there are plenty of other examples.)
Can you reconcile this?

> Many people claim that there are no absolutes in the world.  Such a
> statement is terribly self-contradictory.  Let me put it to you this
> way.  If there are no absolutes, shouldn't we conclude that the statement,
> "There are no absolutes" is not absolutely true?  Obviously, we have a
> contradiction here.

I don't claim that there are *no* absolutes.  I think there are very
few, though, and determining absolutes is difficult.

> This is just one of the reasons why Christians defy the world by claiming
> that there are indeed absolutes in the universe.

> >There is hardly consensus, even in evangelical 
> >Christianity (not to mention the rest of Christianity) regarding 
> >Biblical interpretation.
> 
> So?  People sometimes disagree about what is true. This does not negate 
> the fact, however, that there are still absolutes in the universe.  

But you are claiming that all of Scripture is absolute.  How can you
determine absolutes derived from Scripture when you can't agree how
to interpret the Scripture?  

It's very difficult to see how you can claim something which is based 
on your own *interpretation* is absolute.  Do you deny that your own
background, education, prejudices, etc. come into play when you read the 
Bible, and determine how to interpret a passsage?  Do you deny that 
you in fact interpret?

Carol Alvin
caralv@auto-trol.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20597
From: vek@allegra.att.com (Van Kelly)
Subject: Re: Prayer in Jesus' Name

According to what I have read on Biblical idioms, speaking "in X's
name" is a standard Aramaic/Hebrew legal idiom for what we today
would call Power of Attorney.  A person from Jesus' culture authorized
to conduct business "in John's name" had full authority over John's
financial affairs, but was held under a solemn fiduciary obligation to
work only for John's benefit and consonant with John's wishes.  It was
not required for the steward to preface each business transaction with
"in John's name"; it was sufficient to have valid power of attorney
and be operating in good faith. (Note the overlap here between legal
and religious definitions of "faith".)

With this cultural background, praying "in Jesus' name" does not
mandate a particular verbal formula; rather it requires that the
petitioner be operating faithfully and consciously within an analogous
"fiduciary" relationship with Jesus and for the purposes of His
Kingdom.  The message of "praying in Jesus' name" is thus closely
aligned with the parable of the talents and other passages about God's
delegation of Kingdom business to his stewards, both resources and
responsibilities.  This idea of praying "in Jesus' name" is not only
present but prominent in the Lord's Prayer, although the verbal
forumula is absent.

The act of praying the words "In Jesus' Name" may be beneficial if
they cause us to clarify the relationship of our requests to the
advancement of God's Kingdom.  For that reason, I'm not quite ready
to say that the praying the formula is without meaning.

Prayers to God for other purposes (desperation, anger, thanksgiving,
etc.) don't seem to be in this category at all, whether uttered by
Christian or non-Christian, whether B.C. or A.D. (that's B.C.E. or
C.E. for you P.C. :-).  I don't see anything in Christ's words to
contradict the idea that God deals with all prayers according to His
omniscience and grace.

Van Kelly
vek@research.att.com


The above opinions are my own, and not those of AT&T.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20598
From: heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath)
Subject: Nature of God (Re: Environmentalism and paganism)

In article <Apr.12.03.42.49.1993.18778@athos.rutgers.edu> mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:
>I would like to see Christians devote a bit less effort to _bashing_
>paganism and more to figuring out how to present the Gospel to pagans.
>
>Christ is the answer; the pagans have a lot of the right questions.
>Unlike materialists, who deny the need for any spirituality.
>
>

	One of the things I find intersting about pagan beliefs is
their belief in a feminine deity as well as a masculine deity. Being
brought up in a Christian household, I often wondered if there was God
the Father, where was the mother? Everyone I know who has a father
usually as a mother. It just seemed rather unbalanced to me. 
	Fortunately, my own personal theology, which will probably not
fall into line with a lot others, recognized God as a being both
without gender and posessing qualities of both genders, as being both
a masculine and feminine force. It provides a sense of balance I find
sorely lacking in most theologies, a lack which I think is responsible
for a lot of the unbalanced ways in which we see the world and treat
each other.
-- 
Terrance Heath				heath@athena.cs.uga.edu
******************************************************************
YOUR COMFORT IS MY SILENCE!!!!! ACT-UP! FIGHT BACK! TALK BACK!
******************************************************************

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20599
From: psb@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Jr Phillip S Buckland)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."

[DISCLAIMER: Throughout this post, there are statements and questions which
could easily be interpreted as being sarcastic.  They are not.  I have written
this reply in the most even-handed manner that I can, with no emotions boiling
to the surface as it was written.  Please accept this as a serious attempt to
foster dialog and rest assurred that I make every attempt to make fun of no
one, except myself ;-)]

gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric Molas) writes:

>Firstly, I am an atheist. I am not posting here as an immature flame
>start, but rather to express an opinion to my intended audience.

[...]

>1) The human being is an _animal_ who has, due to his/her advanced
>mental facilities, developed religious as a satisfiable solution to
>explain the unexplainable. [...]

	Hmmm.  There are other animals on this planet with advanced
	mental facilities which have not developed "religion" as a
	satisfactory explaination for the unexplained.  Why is this so?

	Further, it appears that only humans have a "need" to explain the
	unexplained.  Why is this so?  The other animals on this planet,
	including those with advanced mental facilities, seem perfectly
	content in their ignorance.

	I'd like to point out that your presuppositions scream out at me
	from your unsupported statement.  They are: 1) humans are animal
	*only*; 2) religion exists as a crutch so that the unexplained need
	not be researched; 3) religion was "made up" by humans to address a
	perceived need; 4) the biological aspect of humans is deified (that
	is, all aspects of human life can be categorized in a hierarchical
	structure with biology at the apex).

	Needless to say, I disagree with your strong opinion #1 and the
	underlying presuppositions.

>Christianity is an infectious cult.  The reasons it flourishes are 
>because 1) it gives people without hope or driven purpose in life
>a safety blanked to hide behind.  "Oh wow..all i have to do is 
>follow this christian moral standard and I get eternal happiness."
>For all of you "found jeezus" , how many of you were "on the brink?"

	I disagree that Christianity is "an infectious cult".  It has
	certainly shown itself to be persistent as a belief system, in
	spite of various persecutions throughout the past two millenia.
	That it continues to persevere does not demonstrate that it is
	"infectious" in a derrogatory sense; it may be that it provides
	a workable system for its adherents (and I would argue that this
	is the case).

	I disagree that Christianity is "a safety blanket" which supplants
	hope and purpose.  Rather, it points an individual to the one
	Source of hope and purpose.  There is nothing hidden about a
	Christian's source for hope and purpose.  Of what usefulness to
	you is the distinction between internally motivated hope and purpose
	and externally given hope and purpose?  Is the (apparent) loss of
	control over one's own life the problem or is it something else?

	Finally, one does not appropriate "eternal happiness" by following
	Christian moral standards.  Indeed, the sole reason for the existance
	of Christianity is *because* standards are inadequate to save people
	from their imperfections.  Moral standards are merely guides to the
	Christian; the real power to moral living is given to the Christian
	in the Person of God's Spirit.

	Heaven is one of two final states that
	Christian doctrine postulates.  However, Christians are generally
	not motivated to live according to Christian moral standards by this
	promised future reward; rather, they are motivated by the perceived
	benefits to them in the here-and-now.

>but i digress...   The other reason christianity flourishes is its
>infectious nature.  A best friend of mine breifly entered a christian
>group and within months, they set ministry guidelines for him which
>basicaly said this -->Priority #1 Spread the Word.

	Many Christian organizations are concerned with evangelism as a
	priority, and rightly so (for it was Jesus Himself who gave this
	as a priority for His followers).  However, it is not the penultimate
	priority as evangelism is normally understood (i.e. preach the word,
	convert at nearly any cost, repeat with new convert ad infinitum).
	Rather, such evangelism is generally best done through respecting
	the opinions of others while *demonstrating* the very real benefits
	of a Christian lifestyle.  This demonstration should be so powerful
	that it compels the non-Christian to seek out the Christian to ask
	"Why?"  Needless to say, such a demonstration is not easily accom-
	plished (it takes a radical committment to the person of Jesus), it
	does not happen quickly (so perseverance on the part of the Christian
	is required), and it cannot occur where no personal bonds of
	friendship exist (it is ineffective with strangers who cannot
	evaluate the demonstration over time, and it is easy to alienate or
	harm others if the sole purpose of being a "friend" is to gain a
	conversion).

	As a long-time Christian (nearly 20 years), I view with some skep-
	ticism *all* evangelism programs which incorporate a "hurry-up"
	attitude.  Pressured conversions may ultimately be worse than no
	conversion at all (because the pressured convert realizes s/he was
	coerced and disavows Christianity when they would have been open
	to it in the future had they not been taken advantage of now).
	The Bible states that it is the very Spirit of God which brings
	conviction of wrong-doing to people.  I am content to do my part
	(witness) and let the Spirit do the rest.

>We are _just_ animals.  We need sleep, food, and we reproduce.  And we
>die.      

	We are far more than animals.  We sleep, eat, reproduce, and die
	just as other animals do - true.  But, we are also capable of more
	than this.  If your personal vision of humanity (or of yourself) is
	so limited, I can only hope and pray ;-) that you will someday find
	a more expansive view.

	(For reflection, what animals have the wide variety of performing
	arts that humans do?  How is it that humans can learn the language
	of other humans (or animals) but that other animals cannot do so?
	How is it that humans can organize themselves in various social
	structures whereas other animals have only one structure?)

>Religion (especially Christianity) is nothing more than a DRUG.

	Blatant assertion.  Christianity is not physically addictive.
	Christianity is not psychologically addictive.  Christianity is not
	a *thing* which one snorts/ingests/shoots-up; it is a relationship
	with a living being.  You might as validly characterize any close-
	knit relationship with this appelation.

>Some people use drugs as an escape from reality.  Christians inject
>themselves with jeezus and live with that high. 

	There are "Jesus freaks" who let the emotional aspects of worship
	and Christian living gain (and retain) the upper hand.  Even so,
	this does not by itself invalidate the foundation from which these
	things flow.

>It pities me how many millions of lives have been lost in religious
>wars, of which Christianity has had no small part.

	Guilty by association?  That "christianity" which forces itself
	upon another is not Christianity at all.

>When Christians see a "non-believer", they say that person is blind
>to the truth, but they cannot realize that it is _they_ who live
>with this mask of fakeness each day.  Jesus was just prophet #37696 
>who happened to have a large influence because at that time the Romans
>were (circa 69ad) dispersing the Jewish population and communities
>needed some sort of cohesive element to keep them strong in that time
>of dire need.

	You appear to have an amazing certainty about what really happened
	2000 years ago.  How did you come by it?

	I cannot accept your conclusion that Jesus' influence was a sole
	result of the Roman sack of Jerusalem in 70AD.  He was 30+ years
	gone by this time.  It strains the bounds of credulity to assert
	that nothing about Jesus' life was noteworthy _until_ the sack.

>I must go.  These are but a few of my thoughts on Christianity.

	Christianity is having a relationship with Jesus Christ Himself.
	What do you know of Him?


We read the world wrong		| Phil Buckland
and say that it deceives us.	| psb@eece.ksu.edu
Tagore, from Stray Birds	| psb@matt.ksu.ksu.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20600
From: eggertj@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

In article <Apr.12.03.44.39.1993.18842@athos.rutgers.edu> reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu writes:
>   The real problem was
>   that Christians were pacifist and preached there was only one god.  When the
>   state operates by a system of divinitation of the emperor -  monotheism 
>   becomes a capital offense.  The Jews were able to get exemption from this,
>   and were also not evangelistic.

I disagree with your claim that Jews were not evangelistic (except in
the narrow sense of the word).  Jewish proselytism was widespread.
There are numerous accounts of Jewish proselytism, both in the New
Testament and in Roman and Greek documents of the day.
--
=Jim  eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20601
From: jerryb@eskimo.com (Jerry Kaufman)
Subject: Re: Questions from a newbie

The concept of God as a teacher is indeed interesting. Does He grade on
a curve, does He cheat? That is interesting. Not to mention thought
provoking. My own concept is that He is a Father and we are His
children. In that He loves us, with a love that we can never understand
until we are with Him. The Bible says that He looks on the heart as the
final measure. From that perspective, in a grading context, the heart is
the final test.
Specifically, most Christians would agree that there is only one Heaven
and one Hell. From that perspective, it is Heaven or Hell. You either go
to one or the other. The "grading" on a pass/fail basis is done by God
the Father with intervention by Jesus the Son. Not by others. For only
God sees the heart. The Bible says of the heart, "...who can know it." I
would say there has always been, and always be, an unchanging method.
That is what makes a relationship with Christ so secure. In an uncertain
and ever changing landscape He is always the same. Yesterday, today and
tomorrow. Concerning whether or not our childhoods are considerd as part
of the test, my own conviction is no. Were that the case I certainly
wouldn't be going to Heaven. The Bible speaks very plainly about the
love and care Jesus had for and about children. The reality is that we
are all children. Some of us just have bigger bodies and grey hair. But
the Father, our Father is always there. Like most Fathers He wants only
the best for His own. There maybe decipline, but there is more love.
It's sometimes looks like Christianity is a test, to see who makes it
and who doesn't. Those who do pass=Heaven, and those who don't go to the
other place. But it is really much more than that...
There are few experts. Most of us are just travelers looking for the
light and the way Home. Praying that we can bring others with us.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20602
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe)
Subject: Re: Eternity of Hell (was Re: Hell)

vic@mmalt.guild.org (Vic Kulikauskas) writes:
> Our Moderator writes:
> 
> > I'm inclined to read descriptions such as the lake of fire as 
> > indicating annihilation. However that's a minority view.
> ...
> > It's my personal view, but the only denominations I know of that hold 
> > it officially are the JW's and SDA's.
> 
> I can't find the reference right now, but didn't C.S.Lewis speculate 
> somewhere that hell might be "the state of once having been a human 
> soul"?
Why is it that we have this notion that God takes some sort of pleasure
from punishing people?  The purpose of hell is to destroy the devil and
his angels.

To the earlier poster who tried to support the eternal hell theory with
the fact that the fallen angels were not destroyed, remember the Bible
teaches that God has reserved them until the day of judgement.  Their
judgement is soon to come.

Let me suggest this.  Maybe those who believe in the eternal hell theory
should provide all the biblical evidence they can find for it.  Stay away
from human theories, and only take into account references in the bible.

Darius

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20603
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Ancient Books

In article <Apr.11.01.02.37.1993.17787@athos.rutgers.edu>, atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez) writes:

>   I don't think it's possible to convince atheists of the validity of 
> Christianity through argument.  We have to help foster faith and an
> understanding of God.  I could be wrong--are there any former atheists here
> who were led to Christianity by argument?

This is an excellent question and I'll be anxious to see if there are
any such cases.  I doubt it.  In the medieval period (esp. 10th-cent.
when Aquinas flourished) argument was a useful tool because everyone
"knew the rules."  Today, when you can't count on people knowing even
the basics of logic or seeing through rhetoric, a good argument is
often indistinguishable from a poor one.

Sorry; just one of my perennial gripes...<:->

Ken
-- 
miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu | Nobody can explain everything to everybody.
opinions are my own      | G. K. Chesterton

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20604
From: simon@giaeb.cc.monash.edu.au (simon shields)
Subject: SSPX schism ?

Hi All

Hope you all had a Blessed Easter. I have a document which I believe
refutes the notion that the SSPX (Society of Saint Pius X) is in
schism, or that there has been any legitimate excommunication. If
anyone is interested in reading the truth about this matter please
email me and I'll send them the document via email. Its 26 pages long,
so I wont be posting it on the news group.

Its titled


    NEITHER SCHISMATIC NOR EXCOMMUNICATED


    This article  was  originally  an  English	translation,  by  the
    Society  of  Saint	Pius  X  in  Ireland, from the French Journal
    'Courrier de Rome'.  The French  article,  in  its	turn,  was  a
    translation  from  the  Italian of the Roman Newsletter 'Si Si No
    No'.

    This booklet contains the transcription, with some minor editing,
    of	the  Irish  article, and was transcribed and produced by John
    Clay, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.

    (There is no copyright attached. Simon Shields)

                        CONTENTS                             

    NEITHER SCHISMATIC NOR EXCOMMUNICATED.......................1
    CATHOLICS ON THE RACK.......................................1
    THE CHOICE OF THE 'SENSUS FIDEI'............................3
    AMBIGUITY...................................................4
    THE CHURCH IS NOT BICEPHALOUS (TWO-HEADED)..................6
    THE PERSON AND THE FUNCTION OF THE POPE.....................6
    UNITY OF FAITH AND UNITY OF COMMUNION.......................8
    THE CRITERIA OF CHOICE.....................................10
    ECUMENISM - AN ATTACK ON THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH...........10
    THE EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION WITHIN THE CHURCH..............11
    EXTRAORDINARY DUTIES OF LAY PEOPLE.........................12
    DUTIES AND POWERS OF BISHOPS...............................14
    FROM THE FACT OF THEIR GREATER DUTIES......................14
    FROM THE FACT OF THEIR GREATER POWER.......................14
    THE POWER AND THE DUTY OF THE PAPACY.......................15
    THE ELECTION OF BISHOPS....................................15
    STATE AND RIGHT OF NECESSITY...............................16
    1. THERE IS IN THE CHURCH A REAL STATE OF NECESSITY........17
    FOR SOULS..................................................18
    FOR SEMINARIANS............................................18
    2. ALL THE ORDINARY MEANS HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED..............19
    3. THE ACT ITSELF IS NOT INTRINSICALLY EVIL AND THERE RESUL..........21
    4. IN THE LIMITS OF EFFECTIVE REQUIREMENTS.................22
    5. THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE IS NOT PUT INTO QUESTION......23
    THE EXCOMMUNICATION........................................24
    CONCLUSION.................................................25
    BIBLIOGRAPHY...............................................26-31

God Bless ye all,



An Irish Fairwell

may the road rise to meet you
may the wind be always at your back
may the sun shine warm upon your face, 
the rains fall soft upon your fields,
and until we meet again,
may God hold you in the palm of his hand.


--
/----------------------------------------------------------------|-------\
|  Simon P. Shields Programmer           Viva Cristo Rey !!  ----|----   |
|  MONASH UNIVERSITY COLLEGE GIPPSLAND Ph:+61 51 226 357       .JHS.     |
|  Switchback Rd. Churchill.          Fax:+61 51 226 300       |\|/|     |
|  Australia 3842      Internet: simon@giaec.cc.monash.edu.au  |M J|     |
\------------------------------------------------------------------------/

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20605
From: dsegard@nyx.cs.du.edu (Daniel Segard)
Subject: Re: Easter: what's in a name? (was Re: New Testament Double Stan


   seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson) asks:
 > What is the objection to celebration of Easter?
 
       The objection naturally is in the way in which you phrase it. 
Easter (or Eashtar or Ishtar or Ishtarti or other spellings) is the pagan
whore goddess of fertility.  Therefore, your question to me is "what is
the objection to celebration of the pagan whore goddess?"  When phrased
that way I suspect (or at least I would HOPE) that it becomes immeadiately
apparent what my objection to "celebrating" her would be.
 
 > It is celebration of the resurrection of Jesus.
 
      No, you are thinking perhaps of "Ressurection Sunday" I think. 
(Though I'm not too crazy about the word "Sunday", but I certainly like
this phrasing much better than envoking the name of the whore goddess.)
     For that matter, stay Biblical and call it Omar Rasheet (The Feast of
First Fruits).  Torah commands that this be observed on the day following
the Sabbath of Passover week.  (Sunday by any other name in modern
parlance.)  Why is there so much objection to observing the Resurrection
on the 1st day of the week on which it actually occured?  Why jump it all
over the calendar the way Easter does?  Why not just go with the Sunday
following Passover the way the Bible has it?  Why seek after unbiblical
methods?
 
 > I don't recall a command in Scripture for us to celebrate
 > the resurrection, but it is the sole and only reason that
 > we are Christians--how could we not celebrate it?
 
      So what does this question have to do with Easter (the whore
goddess)?  I am all for celebrating the Resurrection.  Just keep that
whore out of the discussion.
 
 > If it is only the name which is a problem, I suggest that if
 > we are too concerned about etymology, there are a lot of
 > words we are going to have to drop.  (As an aside, some
 > terminally PC people here in Ottawa want dictionaries to be
 > altered so that there are no negative definitions associated
 > with the word _black_, so as not to offend people of colour.
 
       Yes, I have heard of your newspapers speaking of the need to repave
streets with "Afro-Canadiantop".  <grin> (I still think "blacktop" sounds
better though.)
 
 > As a short person, I hope they will also remove the definition
 > "curt or surly" associated with my physical description.)
 
       Fine by me.  And while we are at it, the left-handed people are
both "sinister" and "gauche" so we probably will have some objections from
that quarter as well.
 
 > In Quebec French, the word for the celebration of the
 > resurrection is "Pa^ques"--this is etymologically related
 > to Pesach (Passover) and the pascal lamb.  So is the
 > French Canadian (mostly Roman Catholic) celebration better
 > because it uses the right name?
 
      Yes, that sounds much better to me.  Is there anyone out there would
thinks that phrasing sounds worse?
 
 > So from this I infer that there are different rules for
 > Christians of Jewish descent?  What happened to "there is
 > neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for
 > all are one in Christ Jesus"?
 
      Read the letter to Philemon.  Now tell me, was Philemon's "slave"
returned to him?  Were there different rules upon the slave than upon
Philemon?  How about male and female?  Are there different "rules" that
apply to them as well?  Or if there is no more "male and female" can Adam
and Steve get married to each other in your congregation?  Yes, there are
differences in form and function.  But the way we come to Salvation in
Messiah remains the same no matter what our position in life.
 
---------------------------------------

[I am in general not in favor of continuing this discussion, as it
seems repetitive, but this particular point is one that I believe is
new -- the objection is not to having a holiday but to its name.

I'd like to suggest that people think very carefully about this
argument.  Words often change their meaning over time.  The days of
the week are of course originally based on pagan gods.  Some
Christians prefer to refer to "first day", "second day", etc.  However
the majority of Christians have not been persuaded.  The question
seems to be whether it makes any difference what the dictionary shows
as the derivation of a word, if what people mean by it and think when
they use it is different.

Indeed I'd like to suggest that postings like this could themselves be
dangerous.  Suppose people in general use Easter to mean the
celebration of Christ's resurrection.  Postings trying to convince
them that they really mean a celebration in honor of some godess run
the risk of creating exactly the situation that they claim to oppose.
They are doing their best to *create* a linkage in people's minds
between their celebration and the pagan goddess.  It's not clear that
this is a healthy thing.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20606
From: christian@geneva.rutgers.edu
Subject: end of discussion: Easter

I just about closed this once before.  I'm now doing so for real, after
tonight's posting.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20607
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: 'Easter' not derived from 'Ishtar'

Several recent posts have identified the English word 'Easter' with
the Babylonian goddess 'Ishtar'.

'Easter' is a pagan word all right, but it has nothing to do with Ishtar.
If 'Easter' and 'Ishtar' were related, their history would show it.
But in Old English, Easter was 'Eostre', cognate with English 'East'
and German 'Ost'.   The reconstructed Proto-Germanic form is 'Austron'.
Not until after 1400 did 'Easter' have a high front vowel like 'Ishtar'.
Clearly, the two words have quite separate origins.

There may be neo-pagans who worship Ishtar at Easter, but if so, they
are making either a mistake of etymology, or a deliberate play on words.

-- Michael Covington  (Ph.D., linguistics)



-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20608
From: revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille)
Subject: Re: Easter: what's in a name? (was Re: New Testament Double Stan

Daniel Segard (dsegard@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:

[a lot of stuff deleted]

:      For that matter, stay Biblical and call it Omar Rasheet (The Feast of
: First Fruits).  Torah commands that this be observed on the day following
: the Sabbath of Passover week.  (Sunday by any other name in modern
: parlance.)  Why is there so much objection to observing the Resurrection
: on the 1st day of the week on which it actually occured?  Why jump it all
: over the calendar the way Easter does?  Why not just go with the Sunday
: following Passover the way the Bible has it?  Why seek after unbiblical
: methods?
:  
In fact, that is the reason Easter "jumps all over the calendar"- Passsover
itself is a lunar holiday, not a solar one, and thus falls over a wide
possible span of times.  The few times that Easter does not fall during or
after Passover are because Easter is further linked to the Vernal Equinox-
the beginning of spring.

[more deletions]
:  
:       So what does this question have to do with Easter (the whore
: goddess)?  I am all for celebrating the Resurrection.  Just keep that
: whore out of the discussion.
:  
Your obsession with the term "whore" clouds your argument.  "Whore" is
a value judgement, not a descriptive term.

[more deletions]

Overall, this argument is an illustration of the "etymological fallacy"
(see J.P. Louw: _Semantics of NT Greek_).  That is the idea that the true
meaning of a word lies in its origins and linguistic form.  In fact, our
own experience demonstrates that the meaning of a word is bound up with
how it is _used_, not where it came from.  Very few modern people would
make any connection whatsoever between "Easter" and "Ishtar."  If Daniel
Seagard does, then for him it has that meaning.  But that is a highly
idiosyncratic "meaning," and not one that needs much refutation.

revdak@netcom.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20609
From: tcsteven@iaserv.b1.ingr.com (Todd Stevens)
Subject: Rebuilding the Temple (was Re: Anybody out there?)

Chuck Petch writes:

>Now it appears that nothing stands in the way of rebuilding and resuming
>sacrifices, as the Scriptures indicate will happen in the last days.
>Although the Israeli government will give the permission to start, I think
>it is the hand of God holding the project until He is ready to let it
>happen. Brothers and sisters, the time is at hand. Our redemption is
>drawing near. Look up!

How is a scriptural Levitical priesthood resumed?  Are there any Jews who 
can legitimately prove their Levite bloodline?

Todd Stevens
tcsteven@iaserv.b1.ingr.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20610
From: marka@amber.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley)
Subject: Re: Easter: what's in a name? (was Re: New Testament Double Stan

In article <Apr.13.01.04.21.1993.686@athos.rutgers.edu> dsegard@nyx.cs.du.edu (Daniel Segard) writes:
>   seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson) asks:
> > What is the objection to celebration of Easter?
>       The objection naturally is in the way in which you phrase it. 
>Easter (or Eashtar or Ishtar or Ishtarti or other spellings) is the pagan
>whore goddess of fertility.  
> > It is celebration of the resurrection of Jesus.
>      No, you are thinking perhaps of "Ressurection Sunday" I think. 

Tsk.tsk. Too much argument on non-issues !
I'm Roman Catholic and it seems to me that people
celebrate Easter and Christmas for itself rather
than how it relates to Jesus. I don't really
care about some diety. If people have some other
definition of Easter, then that's their business.
Don't let it interfere with my Easter.

"Resurrection Sunday" 8-) Where did that come from ?
If people celebrate Easter for the Cadburry bunny,
that's their business. 

> > So from this I infer that there are different rules for
> > Christians of Jewish descent?  What happened to "there is
> > neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for
> > all are one in Christ Jesus"?

I've always been curious about this. Is Jesus important
to Jews at all ? I thought He was thought of only
as a prophet ? If that's true what do they celebrate
Easter for ?

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20611
From: gifford@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Barbara Gifford)
Subject: The Mystery in the Paradox

I have been looking for a book that specifically addresses
the mystery of God in the paradox.  I have read some that touch
on the subject in a chapter but would like a more detailed read.

Is anyone aware of any books that deal with this subject.

Please e-mail me.  Thanks.

Barbara

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20612
From: randerso@acad1.sahs.uth.tmc.edu (Robert Anderson)
Subject: When are two people married in God's eyes?

I would like to get your opinions on this: when exactly does an engaged
couple become "married" in God's eyes?  Some say that if the two have
publically announced their plans to marry, have made their vows to God, and
are unswervingly committed to one another (I realize this is a subjective
qualifier) they are married/joined in God's sight.

Suppose they are unable to get before the altar right at the current time
because of purely logistical reasons beyond their control.  What do you
think about this?

Post or e-mail me with general responses.  If you need clarification as to
what I am asking, please e-mail.

Thanks and God bless!

============================================
Robert M. Anderson III
randerso@acad1.sahs.uth.tmc.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20613
From: jsledd@ssdc.sas.upenn.edu (James Sledd)
Subject: proof of resurection

I have a few minor problems with the article posted as proof of 
Christ's resurrection.  

First the scriptural quotations:

This sort of reasoning is such that if you beleive you are justified,
if not then your beleif is in vain, so you might as well beleive.  Most
of these quotations are of people who do beleive.  People who would
try to justify their own positions.

Second the logical proof:

>quoted text...
>
>From: xx155@yfn.ysu.edu (Family Magazine Sysops)
>Subject: WITNESS & PROOF OF CHRIST'S RESURRECTION
>Date: 11 Apr 93 05:01:19 GMT
>
>[much deleted]
>
>            4.  In nearly 20 centuries, no body has ever been
>                produced to refute Jesus' assertion that He
>                *would indeed* rise from the dead.
>
>            5.  The probability of being able to perpetrate such
>                a hoax successfully upon the entire world for
>                nearly 20 centuries is astronomically negative!
>                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>...end quoted text

 The period of time that has elapsed from the event growing larger
does not increase the odds that a hoax would be discovered.  In fact
the longer a hoax is perpetuated the stronger it becomes.

Finally:

There is no proof of the resurrection of Christ, except in our spirits
communion with his, and the Father's.  It is a matter of FAITH, belief
without logical proof.  Incedently one of the largest stumbling blocks for
rational western man, myself included.

I hope that this is taken in the spirit it was intended and not as a 
rejection of the resurrection's occurance.  I beleive, but I wanted to point 
out the weakness of logical proofs.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20614
From: maridai@comm.mot.com (Marida Ignacio)
Subject: Re: Every Lent He suffers to save us

Correction:

  |The story I related is one of the seven apparitions
  |approved by our Church as worthy of belief.  It happened
  |in La Salle, France.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That should be La Salette, France, 1846.
I must admit, geography is not my forte.

  |[...]

  |Once again, the Lamb succeeds.

-Marida
  "...spreading God's words through actions..."
    -Mother Teresa

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20615
From: vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article <Apr.13.00.08.35.1993.28412@athos.rutgers.edu> caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin) writes:
>vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.) writes:
>>In article <Apr.10.05.32.29.1993.14388@athos.rutgers.edu> caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin) writes:
>> > ...
>> >
>> >Are all truths also absolutes?
>> >Is all of scripture truths (and therefore absolutes)?
>> >
>> >If the answer to either of these questions is no, then perhaps you can 
>> >explain to me how you determine which parts of Scripture are truths, and
>> >which truths are absolutes.  
>> 
>> The answer to both questions is yes.
>
>Perhaps we have different definitions of absolute then.  To me,
>an absolute is something that is constant across time, culture,
>situations, etc.  True in every instance possible.  Do you agree
>with this definition?  I think you do:
>
>> Similarly, all truth is absolute.  Indeed, a non-absolute truth is a 
>> contradiction in terms.  When is something absolute?  When it is always
>> true.  Obviously, if a "truth" is not always "true" then we have a
>> contradiction in terms.  

Yes, I do agree with your definition.  My use of the term "always" is
rather deceptive, I admit.  
 
>A simple example:
>
>In the New Testament (sorry I don't have a Bible at work, and can't
>provide a reference), women are instructed to be silent and cover
>their heads in church.  Now, this is scripture.  By your definition, 
>this is truth and therefore absolute.  

Hold it.  I said that all of scripture is true.  However, discerning
exactly what Jesus, Paul and company were trying to say is not always so
easy.  I don't believe that Paul was trying to say that all women should
behave that way.  Rather, he was trying to say that under the circumstances
at the time, the women he was speaking to would best avoid volubility and
cover their heads.  This has to do with maintaining a proper witness toward
others.  Remember that any number of relativistic statements can be derived
from absolutes.  For instance, it is absolutely right for Christians to
strive for peace.  However, this does not rule out trying to maintain world
peace by resorting to violence on occasion.  (Yes, my opinion.)
 
>Evangelicals are clearly not taking this particular part of scripture 
>to be absolute truth.  (And there are plenty of other examples.)
>Can you reconcile this?

Sure.  The Bible preaches absolute truths.  However, exactly what those
truths are is sometimes a matter of confusion.  As I said, the Bible does
preach absolute truths.  Sometimes those fundamental principles are crystal
clear (at least to evangelicals).  Sometimes they are not so clear to
everyone (e.g. should baptism be by full immersion or not, etc).  That is
largely because sometimes, it is not explicitly spelled out whether the writers
are speaking to a particular culture or to Christianity as a whole.  This is 
where scholarship and the study of Biblical contexts comes in.  
 
>It's very difficult to see how you can claim something which is based 
>on your own *interpretation* is absolute.  

God revealed his Truths to the world, through His Word.  It is utterly 
unavoidable, however, that some people whill come up with alternate 
interpretations.  Practically anything can be misinterpreted, especially
when it comes to matters of right and wrong.  Care to deny that?


-- 
Virgilio "Dean" Velasco Jr, Department of Electrical Eng'g and Applied Physics 
	 CWRU graduate student, roboticist-in-training and Q wannabee
    "Bullwinkle, that man's intimidating a referee!"   |    My boss is a 
   "Not very well.  He doesn't look like one at all!"  |  Jewish carpenter.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20616
From: king@ctron.com (John E. King)
Subject: Re: Eternity of Hell (was Re: Hell)

db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes:

>And we also know that it is impossible to destroy the Soul.

Hmmm.  Here's food for thought:  " ...but rather be in fear of him
who can destroy both soul and body in gehenna."  Math 10:28

Jack

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20617
From: dhawk@netcom.com (David Hawkins)
Subject: Need Help with "They came for the Jews" quote

Years ago I grabbed the following from the net - maybe from this
newsgroup.  Does anyone know of a source for whether this is an
accurate quote?   Thanks!  Bartletts leaves out the homosexual lines,
but they were one of the groups the Nazis tried to exterminate.
===
In Germany, they first came for the communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the homosexuals, and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a homosexual.
Then they came for the catholics, and I didn't speak up
because I was a protestant.
Then they came for me ---
but by that time there was no one left to speak up.

                                    -- Pastor Martin Neimoller

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20618
From: johnsd2@rpi.edu (Dan Johnson)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."

In article 28388@athos.rutgers.edu, jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas) writes:
>gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric Molas) writes:
>
>> Firstly, I am an atheist. I am not posting here as an immature flame
>> start, but rather to express an opinion to my intended audience.
>[deleted] 
>> 
>> We are _just_ animals.  We need sleep, food, and we reproduce.  And we
>> die.      

I don't meant to defend Eric Molas- I find it somewhat annoying when
someone pops up on alt.atheism to tell us all about his (usually
atheistic) beliefs, so I can certainly see how Christians might be
annoyed- but I'd like to point out a few things.

>I am glad that I am not an atheist.  It seems tragic that some people 
>choose a meaningless existence.

"no meaning from God" is not the same as "no meaning". From my (atheistic)
point of view, if you want meaning in your life, you get to go and
get some or make some.

No free gifts of meaning. (I never quite understood how any
God can just "give" your life meaning, actually. If he
says you exists to do or be X, that gives you a purpose
if you care to accept it, but is that the same thing? But
I digress...) 

>  How terrible to go on living only 
>because one fears death more than life.

This would truely be a miserably existance, which I doubt Eric
endures. Life can be enjoyable, so you can live it because you like
it, or purposefull, so you can live it to get something done. One should
endeavour to make it so, if it is not. Otherwise it would be as you say.
Terrible.

>  I feel so sorry for Eric and 
>yet any attempts to share my joy in life with him would be considered as 
>further evidence of the infectious nature of Christianity.    

Probably true. Remeber he almost certainly sees that particular joy as
an illusion, and does not want it. So maybe it isn't so bad?

>As a Christian I am free to be a human person.  I think, love, choose, 
>and create.

As an atheist, I am free to be a human person. I think, love, choose,
and create.

> I will live forever with God.

Ah, now here we begin to diverge. I will not live forever
with anyone.

(I don't think you will either, but you are welcome to your
opinion on the matter.)

>Christ is not a kind of drug.

I tend to agree with you.

It's my opinion that (unlike drugs) religions are normal
parts of human societies.

I think they have outlived their usefullness, but they
are evidently quite ordinary, normal things that haven't
proved lethal to humanity yet.

> Drugs are a replacement for Christ.
>Those who have an empty spot in the God-shaped hole in their hearts must 
>do something to ease the pain.

I have heard this claim quite a few times. Does anybody here know
who first came up with the "God-shaped hole" business?

>  This is why the most effective 
>substance-abuse recovery programs involve meeting peoples' spiritual 
>needs.

You might want to provide some evidence next time you make a claim
like this.

>Thank you, Eric for your post.  It has helped me to appreciate how much 
>God has blessed me.  I hope that you will someday have a more joy-filled 
>and abundant life.

I don't know Eric, but I do not think it is wise to assume he has a less
joy-filled and abundant life because he holds certain beliefs.

---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions probably show what I know.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20619
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Clarification: Easter

In response to a lot of email I've gotten, I need to clarify my position.

I am not in favor of paganism.

I am not in favor of the Easter Bunny or other non-Christian aspects of
Easter as presently celebrated.  (Incidentally, Easter eggs are not
non-Christian; they are a way of ending the Lenten fast.)

My point was to distinguish between
  (1) intentionally worshipping a pagan deity, and
  (2) doing something which may once have had pagan associations, but
nowadays is not understood or intended as such.

Many people who are doing (2) are being accused of (1).

It would be illogical to claim that one is "really" worshipping a
pagan deity without knowing it.  Worship is a matter of intention.
One cannot worship without knowing that one is doing so.
-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20620
From: halat@panther.bears (Jim Halat)
Subject: Re: Prophetic Warning to New York City

I just started reading the group. I was wondering if someone
could re-post exactly what the Prophetic Warning to NYC was.

Thanks
-jh

[I suggest sending it to him via email with a cc to me.  I'll hold
it in my files in case someone else needs it.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20621
From: JBF101@psuvm.psu.edu
Subject: same-sex marriages

There has been some talk recently of Latin rites from the early Church used to
bless same-sex unions.If anyone has any idea where copies of these rites
exist (in whole or in part), please notify me by e-mail.  (I understand that
similar ceremonies written in Slavonic exist as well.  Let me know where I can
find these.)  It doesn't matter whether the Latin rite is in the original or a
translation.  However, I would prefer to have an English version of the Slavon-
ic rite, if it exists.  Thanks in advance.

Doug Hayes @ PSU

[We've had questions about this in the past.  The only source I know
of is claims by John Boswell in some talks.  He is said to be working
on publication, but as far as I know, nothing is published yet.  I
haven't heard of any other source.  If anyone knows of another source,
please tell us.  But I think we're going to have to wait for Boswell's
publication to appear in order to see what he's really talking about.
--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20622
From: wagner@grace.math.uh.edu (David Wagner)
Subject: Re: Eternity of Hell (was Re: Hell)

"Darius" == Darius Lecointe <dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu> writes:

Darius> vic@mmalt.guild.org (Vic Kulikauskas) writes:

Darius> Let me suggest this.  Maybe those who believe in the eternal
Darius> hell theory should provide all the biblical evidence they can
Darius> find for it.  Stay away from human theories, and only take
Darius> into account references in the bible.

Like most topics, we've been through this one before, but here is
a good start:  Matthew 25:46:

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous
to eternal life."

I may post more on this subject when I have more time.  In any
case, it is clear that the fate of the damned is most unpleasant,
and to be avoided.

David Wagner			"Sola Scriptura!"
a confessional Lutheran

[I'd like to suggest that discussions based on single quotations
are a bad way to proceed.  There are passages consistent with
either theory.  The sensible way to proceed is to look at them
all, and see if we can come up with a view that encompasses all
of them.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20623
From: wquinnan@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Malcusco)
Subject: Re: A question that has bee bothering me.

In article <Apr.11.01.02.39.1993.17790@athos.rutgers.edu> atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez) writes:

>  Religious people are threatened by science because it has been systematically
>removing the physical "proofs" of God's existence.  As time goes on we have to
>rely more and more on faith and the spiritual world to relate to God becuase
>science is removing our props.  I don't think this is a bad thing.
>
	First of all, I resent your assumption that you know why I
am threatened by science, or even that I am threatened at all,
although I admit the latter.  The reason I am threatened by Science
has nothing to do with my need for proof of my Lord's existence--
God reveals Himself in many ways, including, to some degree,
Science.

	My problem with Science is that often it allows us to
assume we know what is best for ourselves.  God endowed us
with the ability to produce life through sexual relations,
for example, but He did not make that availible to everyone.
Does that mean that if Science can over-ride God's decision
through alterations, that God wills for us to have the power
to decide who should and should not be able to have 
children?  Should men be allowed to have babies, if that
is made possible.

	People have always had the ability to end lives
unnaturally, and soon may have the ability to bring lives
into the world unnaturally.  The closest thing to artificially
created life is artificially created death, and as God
has reserved judgement about when people should die to
Himself, I believe we should rely on God's wisdom about how
people should be brought in to the world.

	This is not to say that I reject all forms of
medical treatment, however.  Treatment that alleviates
pain, or prevents pain from occuring, is perfectly
acceptable, I believe, as it was acceptable for Jesus
to cure the sick.  However, treatment that merely 
prolongs life for no reason, or makes unnecessary 
alterations to the body for mere aesthetic purposes,  
go too far.  Are we not happy with the beauty God
gave us?

	I cannot draw a solid line regarding where I
would approve of Scientific study, and where I would not,
but I will say this:  Before one experiments with the
universe to find out all its secrets, one should ask
why they want this knowledge.  Before one alters the body
they have been given, they should ask themseles why their
body is not satisfactory too them as it is.  I cannot
make any general rules that will cover all the cases, but
I will say that each person should pray for guidance
when trying to unravel the mysteries of the universe, and
should cease their unravelling if they have reason to 
believe their search is displeasing to God.

			---Malcusco

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20624
From: mayne@ds3.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne)
Subject: Re: Ancient Books

In article <Apr.13.00.09.02.1993.28445@athos.rutgers.edu> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>[Any former atheists converted by argument?}
>This is an excellent question and I'll be anxious to see if there are
>any such cases.  I doubt it.  In the medieval period (esp. 10th-cent.
>when Aquinas flourished) argument was a useful tool because everyone
>"knew the rules."  Today, when you can't count on people knowing even
>the basics of logic or seeing through rhetoric, a good argument is
>often indistinguishable from a poor one.

The last sentence is ironic, since so many readers of
soc.religion.christian seem to not be embarrassed by apologists such as
Josh McDowell and C.S. Lewis. The above also expresses a rather odd sense
of history. What makes you think the masses in Aquinas' day, who were
mostly illiterate, knew any more about rhetoric and logic than most people
today? If writings from the period seem elevated consider that only the
cream of the crop, so to speak, could read and write. If everyone in
the medieval period "knew the rules" it was a matter of uncritically
accepting what they were told.

Bill Mayne

[This may be unfair to Lewis.  The most prominent fallacy attributed
to him is the "liar, lunatic, and lord".  As quoted by many
Christians, this is a logical fallacy.  In its original context, it
was not.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20625
From: fox@graphics.cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Subject: Re: Pantheism & Environmentalism

In article <Apr.13.00.08.04.1993.28376@athos.rutgers.edu> mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:

   In article <Apr.12.03.44.17.1993.18833@athos.rutgers.edu> heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:

   >	I realize I'm entering this discussion rather late, but I do
   >have one question. Wasn't it a Reagan appointee, James Watt, a
   >pentacostal christian (I think) who was the secretary of the interior
   >who saw no problem with deforestation since we were "living in the
   >last days" and ours would be the last generation to see the redwoods
   >anyway?

   I heard the same thing, but without confirmation that he actually said it.
   It was just as alarming to us as to you; the Bible says that nobody knows
   when the second coming will take place.

Nor does it say that if you *do* find out when it will happen you
should rape everything in sight just before.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20626
From: shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article <Apr.13.00.08.35.1993.28412@athos.rutgers.edu> caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin) writes:
>vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.) writes:
>>In article <Apr.10.05.32.29.1993.14388@athos.rutgers.edu> caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin) writes:
>> > ...
>> >
>> >Are all truths also absolutes?
>> >Is all of scripture truths (and therefore absolutes)?
>> >
>> The answer to both questions is yes.
>
>Perhaps we have different definitions of absolute then.  To me,
>an absolute is something that is constant across time, culture,
>situations, etc.  True in every instance possible.  Do you agree
>with this definition?  I think you do:
>
>> Similarly, all truth is absolute.  Indeed, a non-absolute truth is a 
>> contradiction in terms.  When is something absolute?  When it is always
>> true.  Obviously, if a "truth" is not always "true" then we have a
>> contradiction in terms.  

I agree with Carol here.  Determining absolutes is, practically speaking, a
waste of time.  And we easily forget that relative truth is, in fact relative.

For example, I recently was asking some children the question "What temperature
does water boil at?"  I got the answer 212 degrees consistently.  I asked
if they knew what scale, and was told "It's just 212 degrees.  Any scale.
That's what all thermometers say."  Well, that's sincere, and may be
true in the experience of the speaker, but it is simply wrong.  IT is NOT
an absolute truth.  Similarly, Scripture is full of Truth, which we should
nurture and cherish, but trying to determine which parts are Absolute Truth
and which parts are the manifestations of that in the context of the time
and culture in which the text was penned is missing the point.  Then religion
easily becomes an intellectual head-trip, devoid of the living experience of 
the indwelling Trinity and becomes dead scholasticism, IMO.
 
[example of head-covering in Church deleted]

This was a good example.  There may be an Absolute Truth behind the
writing, but the simplest understanding of the passage is that the
instructions apply to the Corinthians, and not necessarily elsewhere.
The instructions may reflect Absolute Truth in the context of first
century culture and the particular climate at Corinth, which was having
a LOT of trouble with order. Is it Absolute Truth to me?  No.  And I 
see no compelling, or even reasonable, reason that it should be.
 
>Evangelicals are clearly not taking this particular part of scripture 
>to be absolute truth.  (And there are plenty of other examples.)
>Can you reconcile this?

Even the most die-hard literalists do not take all of the Bible literally.
I've yet to meet anyone who takes the verse "blessed is he who takes your
babies and smashes their heads against the rocks" literally.  The Bible
was not printed or handed to us by God with color codings to tell us
what parts should be interpreted which way. 
 
>> Many people claim that there are no absolutes in the world.  Such a
>> statement is terribly self-contradictory.  Let me put it to you this
>> way.  If there are no absolutes, shouldn't we conclude that the statement,
>> "There are no absolutes" is not absolutely true?  Obviously, we have a
>> contradiction here.
>
>I don't claim that there are *no* absolutes.  I think there are very
>few, though, and determining absolutes is difficult.

I agree.  Very few.  And even if we knew them, personally, we may not be 
able to express that in a way that still conveys Absolute Truth to another.
The presence of absence of Absolutes may not make any difference, since I
know I can never fully apprehend an Absolute if it walks up and greets me.
>
>> >There is hardly consensus, even in evangelical 
>> >Christianity (not to mention the rest of Christianity) regarding 
>> >Biblical interpretation.
>> 
>> So?  People sometimes disagree about what is true. This does not negate 
>> the fact, however, that there are still absolutes in the universe.  

I can't prove the existence of absolutes.  I can only rely upon MY experience.
I also trust God's revelation that WE cannot fully comprehend the infinite.
Therefore we can't comprehend the Absolutes.  So I don't need them.  
I can never know the essence of God, only the energies by and through which
God is manifested to God's creation.  So the reality can be that there ARE
absolutes, but it is of no practical importance.  It's like claiming that the
original scriptural autographs were perfect, but copies may not be.  Swell.
Who cares?  It doesn't affect me in any practical useful way.  I might as 
well believe that God has made a lot of electric blue chickens, and that they
live on Mars.  Maybe God did.  So what? Is that going to have ANY effect on 
how I deal with my neighbor, or God?  Whether or not I go to this or that
cafeteria for lunch?  No.  

This attitude leads many non-Christians to believe that ALL Christians
are arrogant idiots incapable of critical reasoning.  Christianity is true,
wonderful and sensible.  It appeals to Reason, since Reason is an inner
reflection of the Logos of God.  Explanations that violate that simply
appear to be insecure authoritarian responses to a complex world.

NOTE:  I'm NOT claiming there is no place for authority. That'd be silly.
       There IS a world of difference between authoritative and authoritarian.
       Authoritative is en expression of authority that respects others.
       Authoritarian is en expression of authority that fails to do that,
       and is generally agressive.  Good parents (like God) are authoritative.
       Many Christians are simply authoritarian, and, not surprisingly, few 
       adults respond to this treatment.

Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com)
-- 
-------
Lawrence Overacker
Shell Oil Company, Information Center    Houston, TX            (713) 245-2965
llo@shell.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20627
From: jasons@atlastele.com (Jason Smith)
Subject: Re: Atheist's views on Christianity (was: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")

In article <Apr.13.00.08.22.1993.28397@athos.rutgers.edu> trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:
= norris@athena.mit.edu  writes:


[ The discussion begins: why does the universe exist at all?  ]

= 
= Must there be a "why" to this?  I ask because of what you also
=      assume about God-- namely, that He just exists, with no "why"
=      to His existence.  So the question is reversed, "Why can't
=      we assume the universe just exists as you assume God to
=      "just exist"?  Why must there be a "why" to the universe?"

One of the Laws of Nature, specifying cause and effect seems to dictate 
(at least to this layman's mind) there must be a causal event.  No
reasonable alternative exists.

As far as I can tell, the very laws of nature demand a "why".  That isn't
true of something outside of nature (i.e., *super*natural).

[ ... ]

= 
= It may be that one day man not only can create life but can also
=      create man.  Now, I don't see this happening in my lifetime,
=      nor do I assert it is probable.  But the possibility is there,
=      given scientists are working hard at "decoding" out "genetic
=      code" to perhaps help cure disease of a genetic variation.
=      Again, though, must there be "why" or a "divine prupose" to
=      man's existence?

I believe the "genetic code" will be entirely deciphered in our lifetimes,
but we will not see man convert entirely inert material into self sustaining, 
reproducing life, *ever*.  (I've never been much of a prophet, though. I
can't even *picture* New York in my mind 8^] ).  I don't believe *any*
technology would be able to produce that necessary *spark* of life, despite
having all of the parts available. Just my opinion.

= 
= > When you say that man is *only* an animal, I have to think that you are
= > presenting an unprovable statement -- a dogma, if you will.  And one
= > the requires a kind of "faith" too.   By taking such a hard line in
= > your atheism, you may have stumbled into a religion of your own.
= 
= As far as we can tell, man falls into the "mammal" catagory.  Now,
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That preposition sort of precludes an absolute, doesn't it?  Without an 
absolute conclusion, what are we left with?  I believe the word "faith"
works nicely.

=      if there were something more to the man (say, a soul), then
=      we have yet to find evidence of such.  But as it is now, man
=      is a mammal (babies are born live, mother gives milk, we're
=      warm-blooded, etc.) as other mammals are and is similar in
=      genetic construction to some of them (in particular, primates).
=      For more on this check out talk.origins.
= 
= > But before you write off all Christianity as phony and shallow, I hope
= > you'll do a little research into its history and varieties, perhaps by
= > reading Paul Johnson's "A History of Christianity".  From your remarks,
= > it seems that you have been exposed to certain types of Christian
= > religion and not others.  Even an atheist should have enough faith in
= > Man to know that a movement of 2000 years has to have some depth, and
= > be animated by some enduring values.
= 
= Well, then, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Judaism,
=      Zoerasterism, Shintoism, and Islam should fit this bit of logic
=      quite nicely... :-)  All have depth, all have enduring values,
=      thus all must be true...

Well then, with an *equal* scale, and under an *equal* standard, investigate
them all, and discover where God is ( or *whether* he is, for the denial of
God is ultimately a statement of faith, non-falsifiable as His existence 
may be). 

For isn't this the purpose of religion - to discover, and in discovery, to
*know* God?

You don't mind if a few of us send up a prayer on your behalf during your
research, do you?  After all, if we of Christ are deluding ourselves, you
really have nothing to worry about, eh?

Until the King returns,

Jason


-- 
Jason D. Smith  	|
jasons@atlastele.com	|    I'm not young enough to know everything.
     1x1        	| 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20628
From: mhsu@lonestar.utsa.edu (Melinda . Hsu   )
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

>They believe the danger is real, but others may not.
>
>Does that mean that the first group are NECESSARILY arrogant in warning
>others of the danger? Does it mean that they are saying that their beliefs
>are correct, and all others are false?
>
>Some might indeed react to opposition with arrogance, and behave in an
>arrogant manner, but that is a personal idiocyncracy. It does not
>necessarily mean that they are all arrogant.

No the members of the first group are not necessarily
arrogant.  But when I ask them if they are absolutely certain
that the volcano will erupt, I expect them to say so "No,
but I've chosen to believe some knowledgable people who have
determined that the volcano will erupt," rather than, "Yes, I am
absolutely certain."  When it comes to religious discussions,
arrogance or at best naivete is reflected in the latter type of
statement.

| Louis J. Kim                      ---  _ O                PH:512-522-5556 |
| Southwest Research Institute    ---  ,/  |\/'            FAX:512-522-3042 |
| Post Office Drawer 28510      ----      |__                 lkim@swri.edu |
| San Antonio, TX 78228-0510   ----    __/   \    76450.2231@compuserve.com |


-- 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20629
From: shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker)
Subject: Re: SSPX schism ?

In article <Apr.13.00.09.07.1993.28452@athos.rutgers.edu> simon@giaeb.cc.monash.edu.au (simon shields) writes:
>Hi All
>
>Hope you all had a Blessed Easter. I have a document which I believe
>refutes the notion that the SSPX (Society of Saint Pius X) is in
>schism, or that there has been any legitimate excommunication. If
>anyone is interested in reading the truth about this matter please
>email me and I'll send them the document via email. Its 26 pages long,
>so I wont be posting it on the news group.

I may be interesting to see some brief selections posted to the net.
My understanding is that SSPX does not consider ITSELF in schism
or legitimately excommunicated.  But that's really beside the point.
What does the Roman Catholic church say?  Excommunication can be
real apart from formal excommunication, as provided for in canon law.

After all we Orthodox don't cinsider ourselves schismatic or
excommunicated.  But the Catholic Church considers us dissident.

If this is inappropriate for this group or beyond the charter,
I'm sure OFM will let us know.

Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com)
-- 
-------
Lawrence Overacker
Shell Oil Company, Information Center    Houston, TX            (713) 245-2965
llo@shell.com

[I think it's within the charter.  Whether this is actually the best
group in which to discuss it is up to the people concerned.  I am not
interested in having this reinvoke the general Catholic/Protestant
polemics, but I don't see why it should -- the issue is primarily one
specific to Catholics.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20630
From: bassili@cs.arizona.edu (Amgad Z. Bassili)
Subject: Need a book

I appreciate if anyone can point out some good books about the dead sea
scrolls of Qumran. Thanks in advance.

Please reply by e-mail at <bassili@cs.arizona.edu>

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20631
From: HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com
Subject: Re: What did Lazarus smell like?

In article <Apr.10.05.31.34.1993.14365@athos.rutgers.edu>
rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe) writes:
 
>
>My guess is that the "Lazarus, come out!" was also for the sake of the
>crowd.
 
I read somewhere, I think in Morton Smith's _Jesus the Magician_, that
old Lazarus wasn't dead, but going in the tomb was part of an initiation
rite for a magi-cult, of which Jesus was also a part.   It appears that
a 3-day stay was normal.   I wonder .... ?

[I haven't read that book, but another one by Smith in which similar
claims were made about Jesus.  While I'm sure Smith knows more about
early Chrisitanity than I do, I found his arguments similar to those
of books like "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" -- building conjectures on top
of other conjectures.  There was no direct evidence.  If you'd like
to summarize the argument for us, I'd be happy to see it.  But in
doing so, I'd like you to pay careful attention to the nature of
the evidence.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20632
From: aaronc@athena.mit.edu (Aaron Bryce Cardenas)
Subject: Re: Questions from a newbie

Jerry Kaufman writes:

>The Bible says that He looks on the heart as the
>final measure. From that perspective, in a grading context, the heart is
>the final test.

Very true.  One might also say that life is an Open Book Test.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20633
From: rgolder@hoh.mbl.edu (Robert Golder)
Subject: Re: Pantheism & Environmentalism

In article <Apr.13.00.08.04.1993.28376@athos.rutgers.edu>, 
mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:
> 
> In article <Apr.12.03.44.17.1993.18833@athos.rutgers.edu> 
heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:
> >
> >	I realize I'm entering this discussion rather late, but I do
> >have one question. Wasn't it a Reagan appointee, James Watt, a
> >pentacostal christian (I think) who was the secretary of the interior
> >who saw no problem with deforestation since we were "living in the
> >last days" and ours would be the last generation to see the redwoods
> >anyway?
> 
> I heard the same thing, but without confirmation that he actually said it.
> It was just as alarming to us as to you; the Bible says that nobody knows
> when the second coming will take place.
> 
> -- 
> :-  Michael A. Covington

I do recall Watt making a comment to this effect, though it was quite a few
years back and I can't cite the specifics.  I also recall that Cecil Andrus, who
was Secretary of the Interior during the Carter Administration, responded
to Watt's comments by pointing out the stewardship role that God gave
to man, as recorded in Genesis.  Which makes me wonder: who are the
true conservatives?  It seems to me that a *conservative* should want to
*conserve* things of value for long-term societal benefit.  This form of
*conservation* should logically extend to the physical environment in 
which people live, as well as the moral environment in which they relate
to one another and to God.

IMHO, Watt's stewardship status is not enhanced by the fact that he served 
on the board of directors for Jim Bakker's organization, during a time in 
which Bakker committed criminal acts which eventually landed Bakker 
in federal prison.

Bob
rgolder@hoh.mbl.edu
Just another Baptist...

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20634
From: kwyatt@ccscola.columbiasc.ncr.com (Kershner Wyatt)
Subject: Re: quality of Catholic liturgy

In article <Apr.13.00.08.27.1993.28403@athos.rutgers.edu> creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps) writes:
>In article <Apr.10.05.30.16.1993.14313@athos.rutgers.edu> jemurray@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John E Murray) writes:
>
>   On Palm Sunday at our parish, we were "invited" to take the role of
>Jesus in the Passion.  I declined to participate.  Last year at the
>liturgy meeting I pointed out how we crucify Christ by our sins, so
>therefore it is appropriate that we retain the role of the crowd, but
>to no avail.
>
>>musicians, readers, and so on.  New things are introduced in the course of the
>>liturgy and since no one knows what's happening, the new things have to be
>>explained, and pretty soon instead of _doing_ a lot of the Mass we're just
>>sitting there listening (or spacing out, in my case) to how the Mass is about
>>to be done.  In my mind, I lay the blame on liturgy committees made up of lay
>>people to be aware of the Lord's presence.

As a former Catholic and now as a very active Lutheran - it is some of the
"innovations" of the Mass which made me leave the Catholic Church and return
to the more traditional Catholic Chuch - the Lutherans.

I spent many years as a Lector reading the Passion parts as appropriate in
the Catholic Church and I found it very meaningful.  Our Lutheran parish just
instituted the "Tenebrae" service for Good Friday and I was the lector for 
a paraphrased Passion which was exceptional.  I heard and learned things
that I have previously overlooked in the Gospels - yet those "facts" were
always there.  As a matter of interest, the pastor and I were talking about
the differences between the RC and Lutheran Church during Holy Week over
breakfast Easter Sunday.
>
>   As a member of a liturgy committee, I can tell you that the problem
>is certain people dominating, who want to try out all kinds of
>innovations.  The priests don't seem even to _want_ to make any
>decisions of their own in many cases.  I guess it's easier to "try
>something new" than it is to refuse to allow it.

My wife is the member of the liturgy committee in the family (called music
and worship at our church).  Our pastor does have control of this committee
but listens very carefully to the committee's suggestions.  It needs a strong
hand to lead and guide, to keep the intent and the message clear and strong
as it should be through Lent and the rest of the liturgical year.  Additional
reason for my leaving the Catholic faith - lack of any selfless spiritual
guidance by priests in my parishes.  AKA "wishy-washy".
 
As you may gather from my comments, I feel that it is very important, ir-
regardless of denominational guidelines, to have a service/Mass which promotes
the true reason that we are gathered there.  I am quite comfortable in a
traditional Mass, with receiving Holy Communion on the tongue, the Sacrament
of PENANCE (not Reconciliation), Stations of the Cross, so on and so forth.
The reason other types of Masses and parishes exist is because these feelings
are not shared by everyone.

I want more people to attend church and to find the Lord, but I don't want 
them attending a show.  It's not.  My church works hard to have a meaningful
service during Lent on Wednesdays, but follow traditional Lutheran Book of
Worship guidelines.  Where things are changed or omitted during Lent (such
as the Hymn of Praise) it is noted so that we are aware of the reasons that it
is Not there.

Quite frankly, it is very hard for a non-Catholic to go to a Mass and "fit in".
My dear wife never could (former Methodist).  And Holy Week Masses and Vigils
would intimidate the daylights out of a non-Catholic.  Those Catholics who
have beared with me this far understand what I mean.

Please keep in mind why we are there - to gather together in worship.  Not
to worry about how something is done or not done.  If there is something
wrong that you feel needs addressing, by all means talk to your priest or
pastor.  I have only ever met one who wouldn't listen.  They are there to 
provide spiritual guidance and to help.  Use them.  My differences with
the Catholic Church are much more fundamental - but my decision to change
faiths was done with prayer, intervention, and sessions with priests and
ministers.

In Christ,
Kershner
-- 
Kershner Wyatt
kwyatt@ccscola.ColumbiaSC.ncr.com

My opinions are my own and aren't necessarily my employer's.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20635
From: sciysg@nusunix1.nus.sg (Yung Shing Gene)
Subject: Mission Aviation Fellowship

Hi,
	Does anyone know anything about this group and what they
do? Any info would be appreciated. Thanks!

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20636
From: healta@saturn.wwc.edu (TAMMY R HEALY)
Subject: Re: SDA Doctrinal Distinctives

In article <Mar.17.02.04.45.1993.23612@athos.rutgers.edu> jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher) writes:

|There is a book provided by the SDA which is entitled "The Seventh Day
|Adventist Church believes", or something like that.  It is a basic
|coverage of the 30 ideas that SDA's hold to.  For further info about it,
|please write me later (once I get the actual title and/or copyright
|date) or Celia Chan, cmchan@amber.ucs.indiana.edu, because she first
|"introduced" me to the book (I must also add that she is NOT a member of
|the SDA anymore).

The book is called "27 basic fundamental beliefs" or something very close to 
that.  the number *IS* 27, not 30.  I have a copy at home (i'm away at 
school.)

Tammy

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20637
From: xx155@yfn.ysu.edu (Family Magazine Sysops)
Subject: NATIONAL DAY Of PRAYER


                      The  N A T I O N A L  D A Y
                                  o f
                            P  R  A  Y  E  R

                           6  M A Y  1 9 9 3

           IMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM;
           :                                                :
           :           JOIN AMERICA IN PRAYER TO:           :
           :                                                :
           :     * Acknowledge our dependence upon God;     :
           :                                                :
           :     * Give thanks for His many blessings;      :
           :                                                :
           :     * Ask God to guide our leaders and to      :
           :       bring healing, reconciliation and whole- :
           :       ness to our nation and all its people.   :
           :                                                :
           HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM<

                      OUR FOUNDING FATHERS SAID...

     George Washington:  "I now make it my earnest prayer that God...
         (A.D. 1783)     would be pleased to dispose us all to do
                         justice, to love mercy, and to demean
     ourselves with charity and humility, and a pacific temper of mind,
     which were characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed
     Religion, and without an humble imitation of Whose example in
     these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation."


     John Adams:  "It must be felt that there is no national security
     (A.D. 1853)  but in the nation's humble, acknowledged dependence
                  upon God and His overruling providence."


     Abraham Lincoln:   "It is the duty of nations, as well as of men,
       (A.D. 1863)      to own their dependence upon the overruling
                        power of God, to confess their sins and
     transgressions...and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in
     the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations
     only are blessed whose God is the Lord..."


     NOTE:  You can join with people in your area in observing the
            NATIONAL DAY Of PRAYER.  To learn who is affiliated with
            the Concerts Of Prayer group in your area, contact:

                     Mr. Barry Garred, Coordinator
                     P.O. Box 6637
                     Springdale, ARkansas 72766
                     VOICE:  (501) 756-8421
                     FAX:  (501) 756-0131

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20638
From: shd2001@andy.bgsu.edu (Sherlette Dixon)
Subject: Christianity & Atheism:  an update

First, I would like to thank all who sent me their opinions on the matter
at hand.  All advice was taken to heart, if not directly used.  My friend
found out about the matter quite accidently.  After reading some of my
mail, I quit from the mail reader & went about my business.  I must have
trashed my mail improperly, because he got on the same terminal the next
day & saw my old messages.  He thought they were responses to a post he
placed in alt.atheism earlier that week, so he read some of them before
realizing that they were for me.  I got a message from him the next day; he
apologized for reading my mail & said that he did not want to appear to be
a snoop.  He said that he would be willing to talk to me about his views &
didn't mind doing so, especially with a friend.  So we did.  I neither
changed his mind nor did he change mine, as that was not the point.  Now he
knows where I'm coming from & now I know where he's coming from.  And all
that I can do is pray for him, as I've always done.

I believe the reason that he & I "click" instead of "bash" heads is because
I see Christianity as a tool for revolution, & not a tool for maintaining
the status quo.  To be quite blunt, I have more of a reason to reject God
than he does just by the fact that I am an African-American female. 
Christianity & religion have been used as tools to separate my people from
the true knowledge of our history & the wealth of our contributions to the
world society.  The "kitchen of heaven" was all we had to look forward to
during the slave days, & this mentality & second-class status still exists
today.  I, too, have rejected
an aspect of Christianity----that of the estabished church.  Too much
hypocricy exists behind the walls of "God's house" beginning with the
images of a white Jesus to that of the members:  praise God on Sunday &
raise hell beginning Monday.  God-willing, I will find a church home where
I can feel comfortable & at-home, but I don't see it happening anytime
soon.

Sherlette 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20639
From: mike@nx39.mik.uky.edu (Mike Mattone)
Subject: Re: sex education

Regarding the moral question Jen (jenk@microsoft.com) asked: "Is it
okay to create a child if you aren't able to be a good parent?", I
am reminded of a "speech" by one of the characters (I can't remember
which) in the movie "Parenthood". [I am WAY to liberal with my
quotation marks tonight...]

In this so-called (by me) speech, the character is expressing what 
a lousy father he had and he made an interesting point.  He said
something to the effect of:
"You have to have a license to drive a car.  You have to have a
license to own a dog.  You even have to have a license to fish.
But, they'll anyone have a kid." [Keep in mind that I am, in NO
way, trying to pass this off as a quote.  It is probably GROSSLY
distorted but I think you get the point...]

-Mike Mattone
 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20640
From: mcovingt@aisun2.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: Nature of God (Re: Environmentalism and paganism)

In article <Apr.13.00.08.44.1993.28424@athos.rutgers.edu> heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:
>
>	Fortunately, my own personal theology, which will probably not
>fall into line with a lot others, recognized God as a being both
>without gender and posessing qualities of both genders, as being both
>a masculine and feminine force.

That is not necessarily unorthodox.  When Christians call God 'Father', 
we are using a metaphor.  The Bible in one place refers to God as being
like a mother.  God is neither a father nor a mother in the literal
sense; God has some of the attributes of both; the father metaphor is
usually used because (for most people at most times) it is the less
misleading of the two possibilities.
-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20641
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Subject: Daily Verse

He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will
be my son. 

Revelation 21:7

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20642
From: alvin@spot.Colorado.EDU (Kenneth Alvin)
Subject: Re: Certainty and Arrogance

In article <Apr.13.00.08.33.1993.28409@athos.rutgers.edu> kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
>Dean Velasco quoted a letter from James M Stowell, president of
>Moody Bible Institute:
>
>>  We affirm the absolutes of Scripture, not because we are arrogant
>>  moralists, but because we believe in God who is truth, who has revealed
>>  His truth in His Word, and therefore we hold as precious the strategic
>>  importance of those absolutes."
>
>There has been a lot of discussion, but so far nobody seems to have hit on
>exactly what the criticism of "arrogance" is aimed at.
>
> <lots of stuff deleted>
>
>This is where the "arrogance of Christians" arises: many people believe
>that their own personal research can give them absolute certainty about the
>doctrines of Christianity -- they are implicitly claiming that they are
>infallible, and that there is no possibility of mistake.
>
>Claiming that you CANNOT have made a mistake, and that your thinking has led
>you to a flawless conclusion, is pretty arrogant.

I agree with what Darren has to say here, but would like to add a 
personal observation.  What I see as arrogance and the problem I have 
with it is not a sense of personal certainty, but a lack of respect for
others who come to differing conclusions.  Clearly, this is not just 
Christian vs. Non-Christian; there is a whole spectrum of belief systems
within Christianity.  I do not tend to argue with others about matters
of personal faith because, like aesthetics, it is not demonstable by
objective means.  

Choosing what to believe and rely on are important areas of personal 
sovereignty.  What bothers me is when others suggest that, in these 
matters of faith, their specific beliefs are not only true to them 
but are absolute and should be binding on others.  It follows from this
that God must give everyone the same revelation of truth, and thus 
anyone who comes to a different conclusion is intentionally choosing
the wrong path.  This is the arrogance I see; a lack of respect for the
honest conclusions of others on matters which are between them and God.
Even a personal certainty leaves room for the beliefs of others.  It is
universalizing those matters of personal faith, coupled by a proud
notion that one's relationship with God is superior to other's, that
leads to arrogance.  In my honest (and nonuniversal) opinion. :-)


>Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu
>"At the core of all well-founded belief, lies belief that is unfounded."
>                                                    -- Ludwig Wittgenstein

comments, criticism welcome...
-Ken
alvin@ucsu.colorado.edu

[It is certainly reasonable to ask for some humility about our own
ability to know the truth.  There are also different paths in some
areas of practice.  But I'd like to see more clarification about what
you mean when you reject the idea of saying "their specific beliefs
are not only true to them but are absolute and should be binding on
others."  If something is true, it is true for everyone, assuming that
the belief is something about God, history, etc.  Of course something
of the form "I believe that it's best for me not to xxx" could be true
for some people and not others.  I have suggested in the past that God
may be less concerned about doctrinal agreement than many people are.
But that doesn't mean I doubt that there is a difference between
true and false, nor that I think there is no benefit in finding out
what is true.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20643
From: dsegard@nyx.cs.du.edu (Daniel Segard)
Subject: Re: Easter: what's in a name? (was Re: New Testament Double Stan


  mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:
 > And the same goes for other cultural practices.  The festival
 > of Easter may possibly have some historical association with
 > some pagan festival, but *today* there are, as far as I know,
 > no Christians who *intend* to honor any kind of "pagan
 > goddess" by celebrating Easter.
 
       That argument would be more compelling if it were not for the
Ishtar eggs and Ishtar bunnies.  Why mix pagan fertility symbols from the
worship of the pagan goddess of fertility with Biblical belief?  What
would really be lost if all of you were to just drop the word "Easter" and
replace all such occurances with "Resurrection Sunday"?  Would you not
show up for services if they were called "Resurrection Sunday Services"
rather than "Easter Services"?  

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20644
From: emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery)
Subject: Re: Can sin "block" our prayers?

In article <Apr.12.03.45.11.1993.18872@athos.rutgers.edu> jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas) writes:
>
>This verse also makes me think of the kind of husband who decides what 
>is God's will for his family without consulting his wife.  God reveals 
>His will to both the husband and the wife.  There needs to be some 
>degree of mutuality in decision making.  Even those whose understanding 
>of the Bible leads to a belief in an authoritarian headship of the 
>husband need to incorporate this in order to have a functional family.  
>One way to look at it is that God speaks to the wife through the husband 
>and to the husband through the wife.
>
>
>Jayne Kulikauskas/ jayne@mmalt.guild.org

I agree.  God makes the husband the head of the house.  But he surely
can't do it alone.  He needs the help of his beloved wife whom the
Lord gave him.

At least that's how it is in my house.  I thank God for the beautiful
woman He has brought into my life.  I couldn't lead without the help
of my wonderful wife.


-- 
John Emery		"I will praise you, O Lord my God, with all my heart;
emery@tc.fluke.COM       I will glorify your name forever.  For great is your
			 love toward me; you have delivered me from the
			 depths of the grave."  (Psalm 86:12-13)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20645
From: reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

In article <Apr.13.00.08.56.1993.28439@athos.rutgers.edu>, eggertj@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:

> I disagree with your claim that Jews were not evangelistic (except in
> the narrow sense of the word).  Jewish proselytism was widespread.
> There are numerous accounts of Jewish proselytism, both in the New
> Testament and in Roman and Greek documents of the day.

Jim,

Please feel free to correct me and give me some texts.  As far as I can see the
only text which vaugely relates to jewish evangelism is found in Mt. 23:15.
However since this is found only in Mt. it cannot be dated before 90CE which
makes it unusefull for understanding Second Temple Judaism. 

randy

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20646
From: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jesus in your heart..."

stuff deleted ...

> Religion (especially Christianity) is nothing more than a DRUG.
> Some people use drugs as an escape from reality.  Christians inject
> themselves with jeezus and live with that high. 
 
Your logic is falty.  If Christianity is a DRUG, and once we die we
die, then why would you be reluctant to embrase this drug so that
while you are alive you enjoy yourself.

I also question your overall motives for posting this article.  Why
would you waste your presious fews seconds on this earth posting your
opinon to a group that will generally reject it.

If you die, never having acepting Christ as your savior, I hope you
have a fantastic life that it is all you evver dreamed because it is
al of heaven you will ever know.

In Christ's Love,
Bryan

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20647
From: atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

mhsu@lonestar.utsa.edu (Melinda . Hsu   ) writes:

>I'd like to share my thoughts on this topic of "arrogance of
>Christians" and look forward to any responses.  In my
>encounters with Christians, I find myself dismayed by their
>belief that their faith is total truth.  According to them,
>their beliefs come from the Bible and the bible is the word of
>God and God is truth - thus they know the truth.  This stance
>makes it difficult to discuss other faiths with them and my own
>hesitations about Christianity because they see no other way.
>Their way is the 'truth.'

>But I see their faith arising from a willful choice to believe
>a particular way.  That choice is part faith and part reason,
>but it seems to me a choice.

  >[I'm sort of mystified about how a Christian might respond to this.]

  I'll start with a parable.
 
  A Christian woman hires a carpenter to build her a birdhouse.  When he comes
over, they begin talking about religion.  "So you believe that you understand
God?" he asks.  "Yes, I do," she replies.  "Then have him build you the 
birdhouse."

  I don't think that Melinda is complaining about the basis of Christian 
belief.  However, there is a tendency among Christians to say, "I have all the 
answers because God gave them to me."  This is simply not the case.
  I believe that the Bible is inerrant.  However, our HUMAN interpretations of
the Bible are necessarily in error, because we are human and imperfect.  We
have to remember that we ALL make mistakes in faith, and that because we are
human we have an imperfect understanding of the mind and will of God.  To
claim, as so many people do, that the existence of the Bible allows us to
determine the answers to all questions is to claim that we humans can fully
understand God's will.  This is hubris.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20648
From: mussack@austin.ibm.com (Chris Mussack)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article <Apr.10.05.32.15.1993.14385@athos.rutgers.edu>, dleonar@andy.bgsu.edu
 (Pixie) writes:
> 
>      Do the words "Question Authority" mean anything to you?
> 
>      I defy any theist to reply.      

For all those people who insist I question authority: Why?

Chris Mussack

(This is another example of my biting, raw-edged humor that is
neither appreciated nor understood by everyone.)
#8;-)>  {Messy hair, glasses, winking, smiling, big chin}

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20649
From: sschaff@roc.slac.stanford.edu (Stephen F. Schaffner)
Subject: Re: Ancient Books

In article <Apr.10.05.32.47.1993.14396@athos.rutgers.edu>, 
whheydt@pbhya.pacbell.com (Wilson Heydt) writes:

|> As for the dating of the oldest extant texts of the NT....  How would
|> you feel about the US Civil War in a couple of thousand years if the
|> only extant text was written about *now*?  Now adjust for a largely
|> illiterate population, and one in which every copy of a manuscript is
|> done by hand....

Considerably better than I feel about, say, the Punic Wars, or the 
Peloponnesian War (spelling optional), or almost any other event in 
classical history.  How close to the events do you think the oldest 
extent manuscripts are in those cases?

-- 
Steve Schaffner        sschaff@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
	The opinions expressed may be mine, and may not be those of SLAC, 
Stanford University, or the DOE.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20650
From: eng10205@nusunix1.nus.sg (LING SIEW WEE)
Subject: ONLINE BIBLE as bible study

Hello, I am about to embark on a bible study on ACTS. I have online
bible software with me. I would like to know the the background of the
authors of its various topics articles and about the author of the
People's New Testament. I need to know how realible is the articles in
the Online Bible software. Specifically (for your convenience) I want to
know about the :


		1. Darby Translation ( I have never heard of this one)
		2. Young's Literal Translation (I have also never heard
of)
		3. The realiability of the Hebrew/Greek Lexicon
		4. The authors (from which denomination etc) of the
articles in the TOPICS modules.
		5. The realiability of the Treasury of Scripture
Knowlege ( as I have never heard of too) 
		6. Who are the commentators, Scofield and B.W. Johnson
who wrote the Scofield Reference Bible and the People's New Testament respectively 
		7. The realiability of the Strong numbers.

I will be most happy to receive a reply of any of you who knows about
the above. Also, please 'qualify' yourself so that I may know that I am
not receiving a 'rubbish' letter. I just want to make sure.            

Wilfred Ling

	
--
***********************************************************************
*Name	    : Wilfred Ling Siew Wee   | National University of S'pore *
*Internet   : eng10205@nusunix.nus.sg | Electrical Engineering        *
*Bitnet	    : eng10205@nusvm.bitnet   |                               *
*********************************************************************** 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20651
From: sbuckley@sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

dleonar@andy.bgsu.edu (Pixie) writes:


>                                       Unfaithfully yours,

>                                       Pixie


>     p.s.  If you do sincerely believe that a god exists, why do you follow
>it blindly?  

>     Do the words "Question Authority" mean anything to you?

>     I defy any theist to reply.      

  o.k.  i don't follow god "blindly".  once, long ago, i questioned authority
to such a rabid point that i found question_authority=reject_authority_
_unquestioningly.  i question authority all the time.  but to forever
question is fruitless...eventually we have to consider whether there are
answers to the questions, whether the "authority" {say, the bible in this
case} has validity.  basically to question authority does not necessarily
mean reject authority.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20652
From: cctr114@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Rea)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

Carol Alvin (caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com) wrote:

> In the New Testament (sorry I don't have a Bible at work, and can't
> provide a reference), women are instructed to be silent and cover
> their heads in church.  Now, this is scripture.  By your definition, 
> this is truth and therefore absolute.  
>
>Do women in your church speak?  Do they cover their heads?  If all 
>scripture is absolute truth, it seems to me that women speaking in and 
>coming to church with bare heads should be intolerable to evangelicals.  
>Yet, clearly, women do speak in evangelical churches and come with bare 
>heads.  (At least this was the case in the evangelical churches I grew 
>up in.)
>
>Evangelicals are clearly not taking this particular part of scripture 
>to be absolute truth.  (And there are plenty of other examples.)
>Can you reconcile this?

The problem you see here is that some Christians claim things about
the Bible which they don't actually believe or practice. I've known
all sorts of Christians, ranging from the trendiest of liberals to
the fire-breathing fundamentalists, and although many on the 
conservative side of the Christian faith do claim that the Bible is
a (perhaps *the*) source of absolute truth, I don't know of anyone
who treats it as anything other than a valuable part of a living tradition.
While I am not a Roman Catholic, I believe this is close to the official
position of the RC church (perhaps an RC would like to comment).

The particular practice you refer to will usually be explained in
terms of the social context of the time. You would think the fact 
that the conservatives seem to have to break out the tophat-and-cane 
and give you some big song-and-dance routine about why this 
(other passages as well) aren't directly applicable today would 
show them that what they claim about the Bible and what they 
actually practice are two different things, but mostly it doens't.

While this thread is supposed to be about the arrogance of Christians,
I would suggest that some of the problem is really hypocrasy, in this
case, making claims about the Bible which the claimants don't actually
put into practice. But if we step back from the name-calling and
look at what people are attempting to say, we see that they are trying
to express very concisely the unique place the Bible holds within the
Christian faith. So when people use such words or phrases as "Word of
God", "inerrant", "infallibale", "The Manufacturer's Handbook", "The
only rule of faith and practice in the church today" to describe the
Bible, we should try to hear what they are saying and not just look at
the mere words they use. Some of the above descriptions are demostratably
false and others are self-contradictory, but in my experience people are
generally pretty good at picking out the intention of the speaker even
when the speaker's words are at variance with their intentions. A Biblical
example is from the garden of Eden where God asks "Where are you?" and Adam
explains that he was naked and afraid and hid himself. If Adam had
answered God's words he would have said something like "I'm here in this
tree." The problem seems to arise when Christians insist that these
words are indeed accurate reflections of their beleif. Most people
have not made a determined effort to work out their own understanding of
the place of the Bible within their own faith and so rely on the phrases
and explanations that others use.

I hope this helps.
--
                                                                     ___
Bill Rea                                                            (o o)
-------------------------------------------------------------------w--U--w---
| Bill Rea, Computer Services Centre, | E-Mail   b.rea@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| University of Canterbury,           | or     cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| Christchurch, New Zealand           | Phone (03)-642-331 Fax (03)-642-999 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20653
From: oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

In article <Apr.10.05.33.59.1993.14428@athos.rutgers.edu> mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:
>The two historic facts that I think the most important are these:
>
>(1) If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then he must have done something
>else equally impressive, in order to create the observed amount of impact.
>
>(2) Nobody ever displayed the dead body of Jesus, even though both the
>Jewish and the Roman authorities would have gained a lot by doing so
>(it would have discredited the Christians).
>
>-- 
>:-  Michael A. Covington         internet mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :    *****
>:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs       phone 706 542-0358 :  *********
>:-  The University of Georgia                fax 706 542-0349 :   *  *  *
>:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

And the two simplest refutations are these:

(1)  What impact?  The only record of impact comes from the New Testament.
I have no guarantee that its books are in the least accurate, and that
the recorded "impact" actually happened.  I find it interesting that no other
contemporary source records an eclipse, an earthquake, a temple curtain
being torn, etc.  The earliest written claim we have of Jesus' resurrection
is from the Pauline epistles, none of which were written sooner than 20 years
after the supposed event.

(2)  It seems probable that no one displayed the body of Jesus because no
one knew where it was.  I personally believe that the most likely
explanation was that the body was stolen (by disciples, or by graverobbers).
Don't bother with the point about the guards ... it only appears in one
gospel, and seems like exactly the sort of thing early Christians might make
up in order to counter the grave-robbing charge.  The New Testament does
record that Jews believed the body had been stolen.  If there were really
guards, they could not have effectively made this claim, as they did.

-Scott O.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20654
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Eternity of Hell (was Re: Hell)

In article <Apr.13.00.09.04.1993.28448@athos.rutgers.edu> dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:
[insert deletion of unnecessary quote]

>Why is it that we have this notion that God takes some sort of pleasure
>from punishing people?  The purpose of hell is to destroy the devil and
>his angels.

First of all, God does not take any sort of pleasure from punishing
people.  He will have mercy on whom he will have mercy and compassion on
whom he will have compassion (Ex 33:19).  However, if he enjoyed
punishing people and sending them to hell, then why would he send Jesus
to "seek and save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10)?

>
>To the earlier poster who tried to support the eternal hell theory with
>the fact that the fallen angels were not destroyed, remember the Bible
>teaches that God has reserved them until the day of judgement.  Their
>judgement is soon to come.
>
>Let me suggest this.  Maybe those who believe in the eternal hell theory
>should provide all the biblical evidence they can find for it.  Stay away
>from human theories, and only take into account references in the bible.
>
You asked for it.

2 Peter 2:4-ff talks about how those who are ungodly are punished.
Matthew 25:31-46 is also very clear that those who do not righteous in
God's eyes will be sent to hell for eternity.
2 Thessalonians 1:6-10 states that those who cause trouble for the
disciples "will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out
from the presence of the Lord".
2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 talks about those who refuse to love the truth
being condemned.
Revelation 21:6-8 talks about the difference between those who overcomes
and those who do not.  Those who do not, listed in verse 8, will be in
the "fiery lake of burning sulfur".
Revelation 14:9-12 gives the indication that those who follow the beast
"will be tormented with burning sulfur" and there being "no rest day or
night" for them because of it.
Psalm 9:17:  "The wicked return to the grave, all the nations that
forget God."

I think those should be sufficient to prove the point.

>Darius

Joe Fisher

[In the following I'm mostly playing "devil's advocate".  I'm not
advocating either position.  My concern is that people understand that
it's possible to see these passages in different ways.  It's possible
to see eternal destruction as just that -- destruction.  Rev often
uses the term "second death".  The most obvious understanding of that
would seem to be final extinction.  The problem is that the NT speaks
both of eternal punishment and of second death.  I.e. it uses terms
that can be understood either way.  My concern here is not to convince
you of one view or the other, but to help people understand that
there's a wide enough variety of images that it's possible to
understand them either way.  As Tom Albrecht commented, the primary
point is to do our best to keep people out of the eternal fire,
whatever the details.  (To make things more interesting, Luke 20:35
implies that the damned don't get resurrected at all.  Presumably
they just stay dead. -- yes I'm aware that it's possible to 
understand this passage in a non-literal way.)

2 Peter 2:4-ff is talking about angels, and talks about holding them
in hell until the final judgement.  This isn't eternal punishement.

Matthew 25:31-46 talks about sending the cursed into eternal fire
prepared for the devil and his angels.  The fact that the fire is
eternal doesn't mean that people will last in its flames forever.
Particularly interesting is the comment about the fire having been
prepared for the devil and his angels.  Rev 20 and 21 talk about the
eternal fire as well.  They say that the beast and the false prophet
will be tormented forever in it.  When talking about people being
thrown into it (20:13-14), it is referred to as "the second death".
This sounds more like extinction than eternal torment.  Is is possible
that the fire has different effects on supernatural entities such as
the devil, and humans?

2 Thessalonians 1:6-10 similarly, what is "everlasting destruction"?
This is not necessarily eternal torment.  This one can clearly be
understood either way, but I think it's at least possible to think
that everlasting is being used to contrast the kind of destruction
that can occur in this life with the final destruction that occurs in
eternity.

2 Thessalonians 2:8 again talks about destruction.
Revelation 21:6-8: see comment above
Revelation 14:9-12 is probably the best of the quotes.  Even there,
it doesn't explicitly say that the people suffer forever.  It says
that the smoke (and presumably the fire) is eternal, and that 
there is no respite from it.  But it doesn't say that the people
are tormented forever.

Psalm 9:17:  I don't see that it says anything relevant to this issue.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20655
From: morgan@socs.uts.edu.au
Subject: Re: Prophetic Warning to New York City

In article <Apr.9.01.10.38.1993.16892@athos.rutgers.edu> evensont@spot.Colorado.EDU (EVENSON THOMAS RANDALL) writes:
>In article <Apr.7.01.56.20.1993.22789@athos.rutgers.edu> reid@cs.uiuc.edu (Jon Reid) writes:
>>Deon.Strydom@f7.n7104.z5.fidonet.org (Deon Strydom) writes:
>>
>Which brings me around to asking an open question.  Is the Bible a closed
>book of Scripture?  Is it okay for us to go around saying "God told
>me this" and "Jesus told me that"?  Wouldn't that imply that God is STILL
>pouring out new revelation to us?  I know that some people will feel
>that is okay, and some will not.  The concept of a closed canon would
>certainly cast a shadow on contemporary prophets.  On the other hand,
>an open canon seems to be indicated sometimes.
>

Let's get back to basics.  Canon (from the latin) means a rule.  If
we say that a rule is open then its a rule made to be broken.  
There is an issue also of measurement against a rule.  Thus the words
that are spoken need to be compared against the rule/canon but not
added to the canon.

Is new revelation necessary?  Topical, current, personal revelation
I'd say is necessary.  New revelation for all people for all times
is not necessary as we have that in Scripture.

You also seem to confuse canon with scripture.  Scripture may speak of
itself being open - ie God speaking today.  It would speak that it is
closed in the sense that the canon is unchangeable.  (Though the concept
of canon is later historically.)

>Also interesting to note is that some so called prophecies are nothing new
>but rather an inspired translation of scripture.  Is it right to call
>that prophecy?  Misleading?  Wouldn't that be more having to do with
>knowledge?  I know, the gift of knowledge may not be as exciting to
>talk about, but shouldn't we call a horse a horse?
>

I agree with the problem of confusion.  If prophecy is meant to encourage,
exhort or correct then is an overlap with scripture.  If prophecy is
meant to bring a `word' of the form "the man you live with is not your
husband" then that is knowledge.  Yet the exact words their are scripture.
I would expect the difference to be the motive and means for delivery.
The reading of scripture itself can be a powerful force.

Regards
 David
--
David Morgan| University of Technology Sydney | morgan@socs.uts.edu.au _--_|\
            | Po Box 123 Broadway NSW 2007    | Ph: + 61 2 330 1864   /      \
            | 15-73 Broadway Sydney           | Fax: +61 2 330 1807   \_.--._/
"I paid good money to get my opinions; you get them for free"                v

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20656
From: ruthless@panix.com (Ruth Ditucci)
Subject: Losing your temper is not a Christian trait

Coming from a long line of "hot tempered" people, I know temper when I see
it.  One of the tell tale signs/fruits that give non-christians away - is
when their net replies are acrid, angry and sarcastic.  

We in the net village do have a laugh or two when professed, born again
christians verbally attack people who might otherwise have been won to
christianity and had originally joined the discussions because they were
"spiritually hungry."  Instead of answering questions with sweetness and
sincerity, these chrisitan net-warriors, "flame" the queries. 

You don't need any enemies.  You already do yourselves the greatest harm.

Again I say, foolish, foolish, foolish.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20657
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Certainty and Arrogance

In article <Apr.13.00.08.33.1993.28409@athos.rutgers.edu>
kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
>
>There is no way out of the loop.

Oh contrer mon captitan!  There is a way.  Certainly it is not by human reason.
 Certainly it is not by human experience. (and yet it is both!)  To paraphrase
Sartre, the particular is absurd unless it has an infinite reference point.  It
is only because of God's own revelation that we can be absolute about a thing. 
Your logic comes to fruition in relativism.  
>
>"At the core of all well-founded belief, lies belief that is unfounded."
>                                                    -- Ludwig Wittgenstein

Ah, now it is clear.  Ludwig was a desciple of Russell. Ludwig's fame is often
explained by the fact that he spawned not one but two significant movements in
contemporary philosophy. Both revolve around Tractatus Logico-Philosphicus
('21) and Philosophical Investigation ('53).  Many of Witt's comments and
implicit conclusions suggest ways of going beyond the explicit critique of
language he offers.  According to some of the implicit suggestions of Witt's
thought, ordinary language is an invaluable resource, offering a necessary
framework for the conduct of daily life.  However, though its formal features
remain the same, its content does not and it is always capable of being
transcended as our experience changes and our understanding is deepened, giving
us a clearer picture of what we are and what we wish to say.  On Witt's own
account, there is a dynamic fluidity of language.   It is for this reason that
any critique of language must move from talking about the limits of language to
talking about its boundaries, where a boundary is understood not as a wall but
a threshold.
  vonWrights's comment that Witt's "sentences have a content that often lies
deep beneath the surface of language."  On the surface, Witt talks of the
insuperable position of ordinary language and the necessity of bringing
ourselves to accept it without question.  At the same time, we are faced with
Witt's own creative uses of language and his concern for bringing about changes
in our traditional modes of understanding.  Philosophy, then, through more
perspicacious speech, seeks to effect this unity rather than assuming that it
is already functioning. Yes?  The most brilliant of scientists are unable to
offer a foundation for human speech so long as they reject Christianity! In his
Tractatus we have the well nigh perfect exhibition of the nature of the impasse
of the scientific ideal of exhaustive logical analysis of Reality by man. 
Perfect language does not exist for fallen man, therefore we must get on about
our buisness of relating Truth via ordinary language.

  This is why John's Gospel is so dear to most Christians.  It is so simple in
it conveyance of the revealation of God, yet so full of unlieing depth of
understanding.  He viewed Christ from the OT concept of "as a man thinketh, so
he is."  John looked at the outward as only an indicator of what was inside,
that is the consciousness of Christ.  And so must we.  Words are only vehicals
of truth.  He is truth.  The scriptures are plain in their expounding that
there is a Truth and that it is knowable.  THere are absolutes, and they too
are knowable.  However, they are only knowable when He reveals them to the
individual.  There is, and we shouldn't shy from this, a mysticism to
Christianity.  Paul in ROm 8 says there are 3 men in the world.  There is the
one who does not have the Spirit and therefore can not know the things of the
Spirit (the Spirit of Truth) and there is the one who has the Spirit and has
the capacity to know of the Truth, but there  is the third.  THe one who not
only has the Spirit, but that the Spirit has him! Who can know the deep things
of God and reveal them to us other than the Spirit.  And it is only the deep
things of GOd that are absolute and true.
   There is such a thing as true truth and it is real, it can be experienced
and it is verifiable.  I disagree with Dr Nancy's Sweetie's conclusion because
if it is taken to fruition it leads to relativism which leads to dispair.  

"I would know the words which He would answer me, and understand what He would
say unto me."  Job 23ff

--Rex

suggested, easy reading about epistimology:  "He is there and He is not Silent"
 by Francis Schaeffer.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20658
From: gerhard@vmars.tuwien.ac.at (Gerhard Fohler)
Subject: phone number of wycliffe translators UK

Sorry for bothering with a request almost irrelevant to anyone except for me:
Could some kind soul provide me with the phone number of
wycliffe center
horsley green high wycomb
bucks hp 14 3 xl
I want to surprise a friend of mine staying there, but I don't have the number.

thanks a lot in advance

Gerhard

[Obviously email response is best.  What do people think of requests
like this?  Unless things are very different in the UK and US, it should
be possible to find this out by calling what we call "information".
The netwide cost of a posting is fairly significant.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20659
From: 18669@bach.udel.edu (Steven R Hoskins)
Subject: Some questions from a new Christian

Hi,

I am new to this newsgroup, and also fairly new to christianity. I was
raised as a Unitarian and have spent the better part of my life as an
agnostic, but recently I have developed the firm conviction that the
Christian message is correct and I have accepted Jesus into my life. I am
happy, but I realize I am very ignorant about much of the Bible and
quite possibly about what Christians should hold as true. This I am trying
to rectify (by reading the Bible of course), but it would be helpful
to also read a good interpretation/commentary on the Bible or other
relevant aspects of the Christian faith. One of my questions I would
like to ask is - Can anyone recommend a good reading list of theological
works intended for a lay person?

I have another question I would like to ask. I am not yet affiliated
with any one congregation. Aside from matters of taste, what criteria
should one use in choosing a church? I don't really know the difference
between the various Protestant denominations.

Thanks for reading my post. 

Sincerely,

Steve Hoskins

[Aside from a commentary, you might also want to consider an
introduction.  These are books intended for use in undergraduate Bible
courses.  They give historical background, discussion of literary
styles, etc.  And generally they have good bibligraphies for further
reading.  I typically recommend Kee, Froehlich and Young's NT
introduction.  There are also some good one-volume commentaries.  They
often have background articles that are helpful.  Probably the best
recommendation these days would be Harper's Bible Commentary.  (I
think there may be a couple of books with this title.  This is a
fairly recent one, like about 1990, done in cooperation with the
Society for Biblical Criticism.)  If you are committed to inerrancy,
you will probably prefer something more conservative.  I don't read a
lot of conservative books, but a commentary I looked at by Donald
Guthrie looked rather good.  He has a NT Introduction, and he's also
editor of Eerdman's Bible Commentary.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20660
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5

Someone sent me this FAQ by E-mail and I post my response here.

[I'm not enforcing the inclusion limits on this FAQ because most
of our readers probably haven't seen it.  --clh]

Christ warns that anyone who "breaks one of the least of these
commandments *and* teaches otheres to do the same will be called least in
the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:19.  This FAQ is so full of error that I
must respond to it.  I hope that whoever maintains will remove from it the
partisan theology.

| > Brothers and Sisters,
| > 
| >   Being new to the faith and examining the Decalogue closely, I've noticed the
| > fourth commandment is pretty specific about "keeping the Sabbath day."  It
| > states the 7th day( Saturday ) is the Sabbath while most Christian religions
| > keep( or atleast go to church ) on Sunday.  What's up?
| 
| This is a frequently asked question.  Every time it arises, it causes
| months of debate.  So let me see if I can answer you directly.
| Basically it's because the Law was given to Moses as part of a
| specific covenanent with the Jews.  Most of us aren't Jews, so we
| aren't part of that covenant.  There was an argument early in
| Christian history about whether the Mosaic laws should apply to
| Gentiles who became Christians.  You can see the account of this
| debate in Acts 15.  The main question there was circumcision, but
| keeping the Sabbath would be part of it as well.  The apostles
| concluded that we need not become Jews in order to become Christians,
| and therefore that rules such as circumcision did not apply to us.

1.  The law was known to man before it was revealed on Mount Sinai.  Rom
4:15 notes that "where no law is, there is no transgression."  Not only
did sin exist before Sinai (Eden), but the Sabbath was kept before it
was revealed on Sinai (Ex 16).

2.  The problem with the first covenant was not the law, but the promise
which undergirded it.  God wanted to perform his will in the lives of the
people, but in their ignorance after 400 years of slavery, they promised
"what ever He says to do we will do."  That is why the new covenant is
based on "better promises" (Heb. 8:6).  Rather than do away with the law
God promised to "put my laws in their minds and write them on their
hearts" (Heb. 8:10).

3.  Including the Sabbath in the Acts 15 is selective inclusion.  The
Sabbath was more important to the Jews than circumcision.  If any attempt
had been made to do away with the Sabbath the reaction would have been
even more strident than is recorded in Acts 15.  Do not confuse the weekly
Sabbath of the Decalogue with the ceremonial sabbaths which could occur at
any time of the week and were part of the law (ceremonial) which was
*added* because of transgression (of the moral law) (Gal 3:19).

4.  Israel stands for God's people of all time.  That is why God *grafted*
the Gentiles in.  Roma 9:4 says that the adoption, the glory, the
covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God and the promises
belong to Israelites.   In explanation Paul makes it clear that being born
into Israel is not enough "For they are not all Israel, which are of
Israel" v 6.  Then in Gal 3:19 he says "if ye be Christ's, then are ye
Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."  All Christians are
Abraham's seed, Jews, Israelites.  Not physically, for that is not the
criterion, but spiritually.  We are joint heirs with Jesus based on the
promise God made to all his people the Israelites.

| 
| While Christians agree that the OT Laws do not all apply to us,
| because some of them are part of a specific covenanent with the Jews,
| we also expect to see some similarity between the things God expected
| from the Jews and the things he expects from us.  After all, it's the
| same God.  However there are several ways of dealing with this.
| 
| These days the most common approach is to separate the OT commandments
| into "moral" and "ceremonial".  Ceremonial commandments apply only to
| the Jews.  They are part of the specific Mosaic covenant.  These are
| thinsg like the kosher laws and circumcision.  Moral laws apply to
| everyone.  Most of the 10 commands are part of the moral law, except
| for the commandment about the Sabbath.  I believe most people who take
| this approach would say that the specific requirement to worship on
| the Sabbath is part of the ceremonial law, but a general obligation to
| worship regularly is part of the general moral law.  Thus Christians
| are free to choose the specific time we worship.

People would probably agree but they are wrong.  How can the Sabbath
commandment be ceremonial when it is part of a law which predates the
ceremonial laws?  You are not free to choose your time of worship.  Even
if you were why do you follow a day of worship which has its origins in pagan
sun worship.  Would you rather give up a day which God blessed,
sanctified, and hallowed in exchange for one which all church leaders
agree has not biblical foundation (see Sabbath Admissions in
soc.religion.christian.bible-study).
| 
| A more radical approach (which is generally connected with John Calvin
| and the Reformed tradition) says that the Law as a whole is no longer
| binding.  Instead, we are entirely under grace, and our behavior
| should be guided solely by love.  Portions of the OT Law are still
| useful as guidance.  But they are not properly speaking legally
| binding on us.  In practice most people who take this position do not
| believe it is safe to leave Christians without moral guidannce.  While
| we may no longer be under Law, as sinners, it's not safe for us to go
| into situations with no principles to guide us.  We're too good at
| self-justification for that to be safe.  Thus Christians do have moral
| guidance, from things like Jesus' teachings, Paul's advice, etc.
| These may not be precisely a Law, but they serve much the same
| function as, and have largely the same content as, the "moral law" in
| the previous analysis.  While Calvin would deny that we have a fixed
| legal responsibility to worship on any specific day, he would say that
| given human weakness, the discipline of regular worship is important.
| 
I do not care what Calvin or any theologian says.  My guide is what God
says.  If being not under the law means we do not have to keep the law,
why is it that the only section of the law we have trouble with is the
Sabbath commandment, which is the only one God thought was important
enough to say *REMEMBER*?  If you study the word deeply you will note that
the message is that we are no longer under the condemnation of the law but
freed by the grace of God.  If a cop pulls me over for speeding, then in
court I ask for mercy and the judge does not throw the book at me but gives me
grace, do I walk out of the court saying "I can now go on speeding, for I
am now under grace?"  Being under grace I now drive within the speed
limit.  Paul adds to it in Rom. 3:31 "Di we then make void the law through
faith?  God forbid: yea, we establish the law."  "Wherefore the law is
holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good" (Rom. 7:12).

| In both analyses, the specific day is not an issue.  As a matter of
| tradition, we worship on Sunday as a memorial of Christ's
| resurrection.  There's some debate about what Acts shows about early
| Christian worship.  The most common analysis is that is shows Jewish
| Christians continuing to go to Jewish services on the Sabbath, but
| that specifically Christian service were not necessarily held then.
| Act 20:7 shows worship on the first day (Sunday), and I Cor 16:2 also
| implies gatherings on that day.
| 
| There are a few groups that continue to believe Christians have to
| worship on the Sabbath (Saturday).  The best-known are the Seventh-Day
| Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses.  They argue that Act 20:7 is not a
| regular worship service, but a special meeting to see Paul off, and
| that I Cor 16:2 doesn't explicitly say it's a regular worship service.

Do you prefer implication to fact?  A careful study of the Acts 20 shows
that the meeting was on Saturday night and that on Sunday morning Paul did
not go to a worship service, but set off on a long journey by foot to
Assos.  In ICor 16 there is no way you can equate "lay by him in store"
with "go to a worship service."
| 
| It's clear that this issue was a contested one in Paul's time.  See
| Rom 14:5.  Paul's advice is that we should be very careful about
| judging each other on issues like this.  One person sees a specific
| day as mandated by God, while another does not.  He who observes that
| specific day does it in honor of the Lord.  He who believes his
| worship is free of such restrictions also does it in honor of the
| Lord.  (Those who believe that the Sabbath is still mandated argue
| that Paul is not referring to Sabbath worship here.  Note however Col
| 2:16, which says something similar but briefer.  It explicitly
| mentions Sabbath.)

Wrong.  These are the sabbath days of the ceremonial law, not the Sabbath
day of the moral law.
| 
| There are some differences among Christians about use of the word
| "Sabbath".  Originally the term referred to the 7th Day, the Jewish
| day of worship.  Many Christians now use it to refer to Sunday, the
| day of Christian worship.  They do this largely so that they can apply
| the 4th (or whatever -- there are a couple of different numbering
| schemes) commandment to it.  Reformed tradition does not do this.  It
| distinguishes between the Sabbath -- which is the observance mandated
| for Jews, and the Lord's Day -- which is the free Christian worship.
| (The only reference I can find to this in the NT is Rev 1:10.)  There
| are also differences about laws regarding this day.  Many Christians
| support "blue laws", both in secular law and church law, setting aside
| that day and causing people to spend it in worship.  The more radical
| anti-legal approach sees such regulations as a return to the Jewish
| Sabbath, which is not appropriate to the free Christian worship of the
| Lord's Day.
| 
Why would you prefer to twist and turn, relying on different arguments
which conflict with each other, rather than obey a simple request from a
God who loved you enough to die for you.  Jesus died because the law could
not be changed.  Why bother to die in order to meet the demands of a
broken law if all you need to do is change the law.  Penalties for law
breaking means the law is immutable.  That is why it is no sin not to
follow the demands of the ceremonial laws.  It will always be a sin to
make false gods, to violate God's name, to break the Sabbath, to steal, to
kill, etc.  Except it you disagree.  But then your opinion has no weight
when placed next to the word of God.

Darius

[It's not clear how much more needs to be said other than the FAQ.  I
think Paul's comments on esteeming one day over another (Rom 14) is
probably all that needs to be said.  I accept that Darius is doing
what he does in honor of the Lord.  I just wish he might equally
accept that those who "esteem all days alike" are similarly doing
their best to honor the Lord.

However I'd like to be clear that I do not think there's unambiguous
proof that regular Christian worship was on the first day.  As I
indicated, there are responses on both of the passages cited.

The difficulty with both of these passages is that they are actually
about something else.  They both look like they are talking about
nnregular Christian meetings, but neither explicitly says "and they
gathered every Sunday for worship".  We get various pieces of
information, but nothing aimed at answering this question.  

Act 2:26 describes Christians as participating both in Jewish temple
worship and in Christian communion services in homes.  Obviously the
temple worship is on the Sabbath.  Acts 13:44 is an example of
Christians participating in them.  Unfortunately it doesn't tell us
what day Christians met in their houses.  Acts 20:7, despite Darius'
confusion, is described by Acts as occuring on Sunday.  (I see no
reason to impose modern definitions of when days start, when the
Biblical text is clear about what was meant.)  The wording implies to
me that this was a normal meeting.  It doesn't say they gathered to
see Paul off, but that when they were gathered for breaking bread,
Paul talked about his upcoming travel.  But that's just not explicit
enough to be really convincing.  Similarly with 1 Cor 16:2.  It says
that on the first day they should set aside money for Paul's
collection.  Now if you want to believe that they gathered specially
to do this, or that they did it in their homes, I can't disprove it,
but the obvious time for a congregation to take an offering would be
when they normally gather for worship, and if they were expected to do
it in their homes there would be no reason to mention a specific day.
So I think the most obvious reading of this is that "on the first day
of every week" simply means every time they gather for worship.  

I think the reason we have only implications and not clear statements
is that the NT authors assumed that their readers knew when Christian
worship was.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20661
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Subject: Daily Verse

How much better to get wisdom than gold, to choose understanding rather
than silver! 

Proverbs 16:16

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20662
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (boundary)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

In article <Apr.15.00.57.56.1993.28857@athos.rutgers.edu> reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu writes:
>
>> I disagree with your claim that Jews were not evangelistic (except in
>> the narrow sense of the word).  Jewish proselytism was widespread.
>> There are numerous accounts of Jewish proselytism, both in the New
>> Testament and in Roman and Greek documents of the day.

I am not so sure of Jewish proselytism then, but I would like to relate
an account of a recent dinner I had with Jews a few months ago.

The dinner was instigated by the aunt of the hostess, whom I had met while
visiting my wife in Galveston last October.  The dear old aunt (now 
deceased) was very proud of her Jewish heritage, although not especially
devout.  Her parents were both murdered in Nazi concentration camps in
Austria during WWII because they were Jewish.  While conversing with her
about politics, world affairs and religion, she remarked that it would 
be a good idea for me to visit her niece on my return to Atlanta.

Within two days of returning to Atlanta, her niece called to invite
me over for dinner with her husband.  I went, not knowing really what to
expect, other than stimulating conversation and fellowship.  What I got,
however, was rather unexpected.  The thrust of the evening's discussion
was to condemn the Reagan-Bush policies prohibiting abortion counseling 
in federally funded family planning clinics, prohibiting the sterilization
of minorities on welfare here and in Puerto Rico, on
the ban on fetal tissue research, and against the Mexico City policy,
"which denies U.S. foreign aid to programs overseas that promote abortion."

The crux of their position was to place the blame for the problems of
"overpopulation," rampant domestic crime, African starvation, unwed
mothers, etc., on Christianity, rather on the fall of Adam.  Now, this
is not what I had to come to talk about.  But every time I tried to 
bring up the subject of Judaism, they would condemn Jews for Jesus
and admonish me against converting to Judaism, "because it involves
too much study and effort."  And I did not even raise the prospect, nor
try to convert them to the truth of Christ!  There was certainly no
Jewish proselytism going on there.

And again, last November I toured a "traditional" Jewish synagogue and was
subjected to a 30-minute harangue against Jesus and Christianity in
general.  I realize that these are two isolated incidents, and that the
best supervisor I ever had at work is Jewish, but from my experience,
the modern Jew is not known for his proselytism.

 
-- 
boundary

no teneis que pensar que yo haya venido a traer la paz a la tierra; no he
venido a traer la paz, sino la guerra (Mateo 10:34, Vulgata Latina) 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20663
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: hearing sinners

On the question, "Does God hear the prayers of sinners?" we need to
distinguish.

If we say that He never hears the prayers of any who have sinned, we
make pointless all prayers by anyone born less than 19 centuries
ago.

But if we consider the prayers of the impenitent sinner, of someone
who says, "Lord, I want you to do this for me, but don't expect me
to change my way of life," that is a different matter. Even here, I
would not venture to say that God never grants such petitions (just
as He sends sun and rain on the evil and on the good). However, if
someone we know well is praying to God in that spirit, we might have
the responsibility to say, "Remember, if God's help is real, then so
are His commands."

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20664
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: John 3:16 paraphrased

At the end of a recent (Mon 19 Apr 1993) post, Alastair Thomson
offers the following "paraphrase" of John 3:16:

   "God loved the world so much, that he gave us His Son,
   to die in our place, so that we may have eternal life."

The "to die in our place" bothers me, since it inserts into the
verse a doctrine not found in the original. Moreover, I suspect that
the poster intends to affirm, not merely substitution, but forensic
(or penal) substitution.  I maintain that the Scriptures in speaking
of the Atonement teach a doctrine of Substitution, but not one of
Forensic Substitution.

Those interested in pursuing the matter are invited to send for my
essays on Genesis, either 4 thru 7 (on this question) or 1 through 7
(with lead-in).  The n'th essay can be obtained by sending to
LISTSERV@ASUACAD.BITNET or to LISTSERV@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU the
message
   GET GEN0n RUFF

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

 "Any theologian worth his salt can put anything he wants to say in
the form of a commentary on the Book of Genesis" -- Walter Kaufman.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20665
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (boundary)
Subject: Re: Certainty and Arrogance

A reply to a post by kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (aka Nancy's Sweetheart): 

?Human brains are infested with sin, and they can only be trusted
?in very limited circumstances.

I would beg to differ with you here.  The properly-formed conscience can
be trusted virtually ALL the time.  I am not so sure, though, about something
so materialistic as the human brain.  Does that mass of tissue possess
anything trustworthy?  Your observation would probably be valid if we were
discussing the "mind" of an animal, but the human being is only half animal,
as it were; and half spiritual. 

?At the moment he stops speaking, and people start interpreting, the
?possibility of error appears.  Did he mean that literally or not?  We do
?not have any record that he elaborated on the words.  Was he thinking of
?Tran- or Con- substatiation?   He didn't say.  We interpret this passage
?using our brains; we think and reason and draw conclusions.  But we know
?that our brains are not perfect: our thinking often leads us wrong.  (This
?is something that most of us have direct experience of.  8-)

Now you have hit on the purpose of the Church.  It is by necessity the
infallible interpreter of divine revelation.  Without the Church,          
Christianity would be nothing more than a bunch of little divisive sects.
 
?Unless you are infallible, there are very few things you can be certain
?of.  To the extent that doctrines rely on fallible human thinking, they
?cannot be certain.

This argument of yours regarding the certainty of an observation or a
conclusion is not necessarily substantiated by experience.  It reminds me
of the theoretical physicist who said that you can never be certain of
a measurment because the sensor interferes with the field you are trying
to measure.  Now, the experimental physicist will reply that although the
measurement can never be made with absolute certainty, he is able to
determine the certainty with which the measurement can be made, and this
knowledge is often sufficient to render the measurement useful enough
to allow evidence of the true condition of the field under observation.
Therefore, although our minds are finite and susceptible to error, our
competence in arriving at inductive insights gives confidence in our
ability to distinguish what is true from what is not true, even in areas
not subject to the experimental method. 

?Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu
?"If any substantial number of  [ talk.religion.misc ]  readers read some
? Wittgenstein, 60% of the postings would disappear.  (If they *understood*
? some Wittgenstein, 98% would disappear. :-))" -- Michael L Siemon

This quote seems a little arrogant, don't you think?
 
-- 
boundary

no teneis que pensar que yo haya venido a traer la paz a la tierra; no he
venido a traer la paz, sino la guerra (Mateo 10:34, Vulgata Latina) 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20666
From: poram%mlsma@att.att.com
Subject: WBT (WAS: Re: phone number of wycliffe translators UK)

In article <Apr.17.01.11.19.1993.2268@geneva.rutgers.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>
>  I'm concerned about a recent posting about WBT/SIL.  I thought they'd
>pretty much been denounced as a right-wing organization involved in
>ideological manipulation and cultural interference, including Vietnam
>and South America. A commission from Mexican Academia denounced them in
>1979 as " a covert political and ideological institution used by the
>U.S. govt as an instrument of control, regulation, penetration, espionage and
>repression."

Having met Peter Kingston (of WBT) some years back, he struck me 
as an exemplery and dedicated Christian whose main concern was with
translation of the Word of God and the welfare of the people
group he was serving.
WBT literature is concerned mainly with providing Scripture
in minority languages.

The sort of criticism leveled at an organisation such as this
along the lines of "ideological manipulation and cultural
interference" is probably no more than Christianising and
education - in this WBT will stand alongside the early Christian
missionaries to parts of Africa, or those groups who worked
among native Americans a couple hundred years ago.

>  My concern is that this group may be seen as acceptable and even
>praiseworthy by readers of soc.religion.christian. It's important that
>Christians don't immediately accept every "Christian" organization as
>automatically above reproach.
>
>                                                                  mp
I think you need to substantiate these attacks as being a
legitimate criticism of priorities other than spreading the
gospel among underdeveloped people.

Barney Resson
"Many shall run to and fro, & knowledge shall increase" (Daniel)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20667
From: sliew@ee.mu.OZ.AU (Selbyn Liew)
Subject: Re: An agnostic's question

In article <Apr.17.01.11.16.1993.2265@geneva.rutgers.edu> jdt@voodoo.ca.boeing.com (Jim Tomlinson (jimt II)) writes:

[..]

>goodness that is within the power of each of us.  Now, the
>complication is that one of my best friends has become very
>fundamentalist. That would normally be a non-issue with me, but he

Hello.  Firstly, what do you exactly mean by "fundamentalist"?  I will
for the time being assume that what you mean is that your friend believes
that the bible is God's word to mankind?  I suspect that what happened
to him is what he'll call being "born again"?  Anyway, was that recent?
If the answer is "yes" to all the questions above, it is quite
understandable.  However, IMO, I'ld rather give advice to your friend!
I think I've been through something similar to him, and one thing I can
say is that the basic problem is that each of you are now trying to
communicate from different worldviews.  Why he talks about those things
is because they are now "obvious" to him.  What is "obvious" to him is
not obvious to you.  Secondly, why he may be very persuasive is because
from his point of view, he has been on "both sides of the fence".  This
I mean that before he turned "fundamentalist", you two are agreeable
because both of you see things from the same side.  If suddenly, as if
a new world of reality has suddenly opened up to him, it is like the
discovery of let's say a new continent, or a new planet.  To him, he's
got to tell you because he has seen something much more wonderful than
where he was, and what he thinks is much better than where you are now.
You have got to realise that from his point of view, he means well to
you, eventhough he may end up offending you.  To him, it is worth that
risk.  Nevertheless, it is really up to him to respect where you stand
and listen to you as well.  At this moment, it may be difficult because
he is either very excited or feel it is too urgent to keep quiet about,
however, he may not realise that he's really putting you off.

[...]

>the Bible that it is so.'  So my question is, how can I convince him
>that this is a subject better left undiscussed, so we can preserve
>what is (in all areas other than religious beliefs) a great
>friendship?  How do I convince him that I am 'beyond saving' so he
>won't try?  Thanks for any advice.

So far, I've only been trying to explain things from his side.  However,
I do understand how you feel too, because I wasn't a Christian for a good
part of my life as well.  I was quite turned off by Christians or
"fundamentalists" who were really all out and enthusiastic about their
faith.  They really scared me, to tell you the truth.  Unfortunately,
"religious belief" is a very personal thing, just as your agnosticism
is also a very personal thing to you.  Since the Christian belief is
inevitably at odds with anything non-Christian (religious or otherwise),
it will be a touchy matter.  Like all friendships, it will take both
sides to do their part to make it work.  In this matter, maybe you can
do your part by telling him nicely that you are not able to dig what he's
trying to convince you about, that it's beyond you or not your concern
"for now".  Don't tell him it's nonsense, because to him it is reality -
and that would be a real insult.  He'll also have to be careful not to
insult where you stand too.

Like I said before, I wish I could give your friend some advice too.
I'll admit that I did similarly to some of my friends when I became a
Christian.  In some ways, I wish I could have done things a little
differently.  However, it was difficult then because I was so excited
and just blabbered away about what I've found!  To me, it was too good
not to know.  To some, I was crazy, and I didn't really care most of
the time what they thought.  You will probably think he's crazy too -
but God is very real to him, as real as you are to him.  Keep that in
mind.  And he thinks he can convince you because since God is so real
to him, he doesn't see why God can't be real to you too.

I don't know how helpful this is to you.  But all the best anyhow -
this is quite a challenge for you to face.  By the way, personal
conviction: nobody is "beyond saving" except the one we call the 
devil and his hosts.

Regards,
Selbyn Liew
==========================================================================
Dept. of EE Engineering, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3052, Australia
EMAIL: sliew@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au    PH: +61-3-3447976   FAX: +61-3-3446678
==========================================================================

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20668
From: fraseraj@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Andrew J Fraser)
Subject: Religious wars

I don't know if this is the sort of thing you guys like
to discuss.  I guess it falls into the area of apologetics.

This is a question that seems to pop up now and again in
conversations with non-christians.  It usually appears in
the following sort of unqualified statement:
"Well you know that religion has caused more wars than
anything else"
It bothers me that I cannot seem to find a satisfactory
response to this. After all if our religion is all about
peace and love why have there been so many religious wars?
  Personally I am of the view that religion has often been
used as an excuse to instigate wars often to disguise
national ambitions but I would love to hear what anyone
else has to say about this subject.
  Thanks in advance
  Andrew J Fraser

(If we're thinking in terms of history, the Crusades,
Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia(?) come immediately to mind)

northern Ireland, Yugoslavia (? 
  
-- 
=========================================================================
||     Name: Andrew James Fraser  E-mail: fraseraj@dcs.gla.ac.uk       ||
||     ESE-3H student, University of Glasgow.			       ||
||     Standard disclaimers...                                         ||

[I'm beginning to suspect that the natural condition of humans is
conflict.  Perhaps we should not ask whether a religion or philosophy
has been involved in any wars -- since they all have -- but whether
it has stopped any.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20669
From: salaris@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrabbits)
Subject: Re: Hell_2:  Black Sabbath

In article <Apr.20.03.02.07.1993.3791@geneva.rutgers.edu>, REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov writes:
> [In looking through my files this weekend, I ran across some lyrics from
> various rock groups that have content.  Here are two from Black Sabbath's
> "Master of Reality".  I'll say this much for the music of the '60's and early
> '70's, at least they asked questions of significance.  Jethro Tull is another
> to asked and wrote about things that caused one to wonder. --Rex] 
> 

It is interesting that you posted those lyrics, because just the
other day I was thinking of doing the same.  I like those lyrics,
since whenever I am approached by judgemental, pharisitical,
evangelical fundamentalists who throw the Bible at me because
I have long hair, wear a black leather jacket, and listen to Black
Sabbath, I have something to throw back.  Usually their chins drop
and they come up speechless over those not very satanic lyrics.

It just goes to show that there are more important evils in the
world to battle than rock lyrics...........


--
Steven C. Salaris                We're...a lot more dangerous than 2 Live Crew
salaris@carcs1.wustl.edu         and their stupid use of foul language because
				 we have ideas.  We have a philosophy.
					      Geoff Tate -- Queensryche

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20670
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Subject: Re: phone number of wycliffe translators UK

In <Apr.20.03.02.03.1993.3788@geneva.rutgers.edu> mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server) writes:
[">"= Mark, ">>"= mp]

>>  I'm concerned about a recent posting about WBT/SIL.  I thought they'd
>>pretty much been denounced as a right-wing organization involved in
>>ideological manipulation and cultural interference

>Good heavens, you mean my good friend Wes Collins, who took his wife and two 
>small children into the jungles of Guatemala, despite dangers from primitive 
>conditions and armed guerillas, so that the indigenous people groups their 
>could have the Bible in their native languages--the young man who led Bible 
>studies in our church, who daily demonstrated and declared his deep abiding 
>faith in the Lord of Love--you mean he really was a sneaky imperialistic *SPY*

    I am sorry you find these charges amusing, Mark. I understand your
frustration though--it can be kind of scary to find your assumptions
challenged. Some of the specific cultural interference to which I refer
includes linguistic manipulation, for instance, their Tzotzil-Spanish
dictionary removed both Spanish and Tzotzil words for concepts which are
threatening to the ruling ideology, e.g., class, conquer, exploitation,
repression, revolution, and described words which can express
ideological concepts in examples like "Boss--the boss is good. He treats
us well and pays us a good wage." As some of my students would say,
"NOT!"  
     Your tone implies that you are unlikely to believe me--indeed, why
should you? If you are interested enough to do some further research
though, and you sound as if you are, here are some references for you.
 
Stoll, David. _Fishers of Men or Founders of Empire? The Wycliffe Bible
Translators in Latin America_.
_Sectas y Religiosidad en America Latina_.
_Los Angeles Times_, Dec. 11. 1977.
_Latin America Press_, May 19, 1983.
_Washington Times_, June 22, 1984.

     Happy hunting.

                                                                   mp

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20671
From: sfp@lemur.cit.cornell.edu (Sheila Patterson)
Subject: Re: Losing your temper is not a Christian trait


         
Hooray ! I always suspected that I was human too :-)  It is the desire to be like
Christ that often causes christians to be very critical of themselves and other
christians. We are supposed to grow, mature, endeavour to be Christ-like but we
are far far far from perfect. Build up the body of Christ, don't tear it down,
and that includes yourself. Jesus loves me just the way I am today, tomorrow and
always (thank God ! :-).

-Sheila Patterson

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20672
From: belville@athena.mit.edu (Sharon Belville)
Subject: Re: God-shaped hole (was Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")

In article <Apr.14.03.07.38.1993.5420@athos.rutgers.edu>, johnsd2@rpi.edu (Dan Johnson) writes:

|> >Those who have an empty spot in the God-shaped hole in their hearts must 
|> >do something to ease the pain.
|> 
|> I have heard this claim quite a few times. Does anybody here know
|> who first came up with the "God-shaped hole" business?

I've seen this verse used to back up this idea:

"...He has also set eternity in the hearts of men..."  (Ecclesiastes 3:11)
--
Sharon Belville

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20673
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Subject: Daily Verse

For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister
and mother." 

Matthew 12:50

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20674
From: maridai@comm.mot.com (Marida Ignacio)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jesus in your heart..."


    |whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell) writes:           
    |                                                                     
    |> Religion (especially Christianity) is nothing more than a DRUG.    
    |> Some people use drugs as an escape from reality.  Christians inject
    |> themselves with jeezus and live with that high.                    
    |                                                                     
    |Your logic is falty.  If Christianity is a DRUG, and once we die we  
    |die, then why would you be reluctant to embrase this drug so that    
    |while you are alive you enjoy yourself.                              
    |                                                                     

Pardon the harshness that follows...

Once, I told a cradle christian: Please do not take advantage of Jesus
or anybody for the sake of your own (selfish) realization or search
for true faith/religion/belonging/'being in'/fear of hell/vanity/etc.  
Instead of serving yourself, _we must be serving Him_.  
*Until you have comprehended this truth, you are only doing things for your 
own egoism.*

Let us not use Jesus, our religion, the Bible, anything or
anybody as a means of escape or getting ecstatic or high.
We are God's children and we must have a true and authentic
relationship with our Father with obedience, faith, hope and 
love and works (the last as the most important).

Beware of our 'materialistic', 'worldly' and 'selfish' motives.  
Atheists have this ground against us and I believe they are right about
*some* who call themselves 'christians'.

-Marida
 "...spreading Gods words through actions..."
  -Mother Teresa

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20675
From: david-s@hsr.no (David A. Sjoen)
Subject: 'Moody Monthly' and 'Moody' the same?

Are 'Moody Monthly' and 'Moody' the same magazine (name change in recent
years)?

If not: Could someone post the address to 'Moody Monthly'?

:)avid

-- 
 __________________ ___________________________________________________
| David A. Sjoen   |"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they |
| Gulaksveien 4    | follow me; and I give them life eternal; and they |
| N-4017 STAVANGER | shall never perish, and no one shall seize them   |
| Norway           | out of my hand." John 10:27-29                    |
`------------------'---------------------------------------------------'
      E-MAIL: david-s@hsr.no  (Rogaland University Centre, Norway)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20676
From: tom_milligan@rainbow.mentorg.com
Subject: Anyone with L'Abri Experiences

I am curious if anyone in net-land has spent any time at any of the L'Abri
houses throughout the world and what the experience was like, how it affected
you, etc.  Especially interesting would be experiences at the original L'Abri
in Switzerland and personal interactions with Francis and/or Edith Schaeffer.

Tom Milligan

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20677
From: caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.) writes:
> In article <Apr.13.00.08.35.1993.28412@athos.rutgers.edu> caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin) writes:
> > (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.) writes:
> >> (Carol Alvin) writes:
> >> > ...
> >> >Are all truths also absolutes?
> >> >Is all of scripture truths (and therefore absolutes)?
> >> >
> >> The answer to both questions is yes.
> >
> > ...
> >an absolute is something that is constant across time, culture,
> >situations, etc.  True in every instance possible.  Do you agree
> >with this definition? ...
> >
> Yes, I do agree with your definition.  ...
>  
> > [example of women covering their heads and not speaking]
> 
> Hold it.  I said that all of scripture is true.  However, discerning
> exactly what Jesus, Paul and company were trying to say is not always so
> easy.  I don't believe that Paul was trying to say that all women should
> behave that way.  Rather, he was trying to say that under the circumstances
> at the time, the women he was speaking to would best avoid volubility and
> cover their heads.  This has to do with maintaining a proper witness toward
> others.  Remember that any number of relativistic statements can be derived
> from absolutes.  For instance, it is absolutely right for Christians to
> strive for peace.  However, this does not rule out trying to maintain world
> peace by resorting to violence on occasion.  (Yes, my opinion.)

I agree that there is truth in scripture.  There are principles to be 
learned from it.  Claiming that that truth is absolute, though, seems 
to imply a literal reading of the Bible.  If it were absolute truth 
(constant across time, culture, etc.) then no interpretation would be 
necessary.

It may be that the lessons gleaned from various passages are different 
from person to person.  To me, that doesn't mean that one person is 
right and the other is wrong.  I believe that God transcends our simple 
minds, and that scripture may very well have been crafted with exactly 
this intent.  God knows me, and knows that my needs are different 
from yours or anyone else's.  By claiming that scripture is absolute,
then at least one person in every disputed interpretation must be wrong.
I just don't believe that God is that rigid.

> >Evangelicals are clearly not taking this particular part of scripture 
> >to be absolute truth.  (And there are plenty of other examples.)
> >Can you reconcile this?
>
> Sure.  The Bible preaches absolute truths.  However, exactly what those
> truths are is sometimes a matter of confusion.  As I said, the Bible does
> preach absolute truths.  Sometimes those fundamental principles are crystal
> clear (at least to evangelicals).  

This is where the arrogance comes in to play.  Since these principles 
are crystal clear to evangelicals, maybe the rest of us should just take
their word for it?  Maybe it isn't at all crystal clear to *me* that 
their fundamental principles are either fundamental *or* principles.

I think we've established that figuring out Biblical truth is a matter 
of human interpretation and therefore error-prone.  Yet you can still 
claim that some of them may be crystal clear?  Maybe to a certain 
segment of Christianity, but to all.

> >It's very difficult to see how you can claim something which is based 
> >on your own *interpretation* is absolute.  
> 
> God revealed his Truths to the world, through His Word.  It is utterly 
> unavoidable, however, that some people whill come up with alternate 
> interpretations.  Practically anything can be misinterpreted, especially
> when it comes to matters of right and wrong.  Care to deny that?

Not at all.  I think it supports my position much more effectively 
than yours.  :-)

So, I think that your position is:
The Bible is absolute truth, but as we are prone to error in our 
interpretation, we cannot reliably determine if we have figured out 
what that truth is.
Did I get that right?

What's the point of spending all this time claiming and defending 
absolute truth, when we can never know what those truths are, and we 
can never (or at least shouldn't) act upon them?  What practical 
difference can this make?

Carol Alvin
caralv@auto-trol.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20678
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (boundary)
Subject: Re: Atheist's views on Christianity (was: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")

In article <Apr.20.03.03.35.1993.3863@geneva.rutgers.edu> jasons@atlastele.com (Jason Smith) writes:
>In article <Apr.19.05.13.48.1993.29266@athos.rutgers.edu> kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko) writes:

>= This is not true. Science is a collection of models telling us "how",
>= not why, something happens. I cannot see any good reason why the "why"
>= questions would be bound only to natural things, assuming that the
>= supernatural domain exists. If supernatural beings exist, it is
>= as appropriate to ask why they do so as it is to ask why we exist.

I beg to disagree with the assertion that science is a collection of models.
Scientific models are a game to play, and are only as good as the
assumptions and measurements (if any) that go into them.

As an example, I remember when nuclear winter was the big hype in
atmospheric science.  It wasn't long after Sagan's admonitions that
one of our boys was adding another level of reality into his model of
the nuclear winter scenario at ERL in Boulder.  He decided to assume
that the atmosphere is more like a two-dimensional thing, than a one-
dimensional thing.  He also assumed that it rained and that the winds
blow in the real atmosphere.  On returning to Georgia Tech, he showed
a transparency of atmospheric cooling rates according to the year they
were generated by the models.  There was an unmistakable correlation
between the age (meaning simplicity of assumptions; i.e., remoteness
from reality) of each model and the degree of cooling.  Whereas Sagan's
model showed an approximate 40-degree cooling episode, the next model 
in sophistication showed about half that, and so on until we got to
our boy's model, which showed a 1-2 degree drop if the war happened in
the winter and less than a 10 degree drop if it happened in the summer.
He predicted that when we would include the presence of oceans, chemistry,
the biosphere, and other indicators of reality in the models, we would
probably see even less cooling.  Thus nuclear winter was reduced to even
less than a nuclear autumn, one might say, to a nuclear fizzle.

To quote from H.S. Yoder,

	The postulated models have become accepted as the reality
	instead of the lattice of assumptions they are.
	Authoritarianism dominates the field, and a very critical
	analysis of each argument is to be encouraged.... Skepticism
	of the model approach to earth problems is warranted because
	many key parameters have not been included.

This statement surely applies equally well to cosmogony.  Only when
convincing observational evidence substantiates the modeled results
may one suggest that the model may describe the reality.  Just thought
I'd clear that up before things really got out of hand. 
 
-- 
boundary

no teneis que pensar que yo haya venido a traer la paz a la tierra; no he
venido a traer la paz, sino la guerra (Mateo 10:34, Vulgata Latina) 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20679
From: JBUDDENBERG@vax.cns.muskingum.edu (Jimmy Buddenberg)
Subject: Revelations - BABYLON?


Hello all.  We are doing a bible study (at my college) on Revelations.  We
have been doing pretty good as far as getting some sort of reasonable
interpretation.  We are now on chapters 17 and 18 which talk about the
woman on the beast and the fall of Babylon.  I believe the beast is the
Antichrist (some may differ but it seems obvious) and the woman represents
Babylon which stands for Rome or the Roman Catholic Church.  What are some
views on this interpretation?  Is the falling Babylon in chapter 18 the same
Babylon in as in chapter 17?  The Catholic church?
Hate to step on toes.
thanks

-------- 
Jimmy Buddenberg       INTERNET:  jbuddenberg@vax.cns.muskingum.edu
Muskingum College 

[Reading this imagery as the Roman Catholic Church was certainly
common in earlier Protestant writers.  A lot of us find that frankly
embarassing now, though some of our readers will certainly advocate
such a position.  The problem is that the description makes it look a
lot like a political entity.  It's associated with kings, controls
world commerce, is seated on seven mountains (17:9 -- recall that Rome
is traditionally regarded as built on seven hills).  If it's a church,
then it's not the current Roman Catholic church, but a church that has
been taken over by the anti-Christ and merged with the state, turning
into something rather different than it is now.  Presumably in such a
scenario the true Catholics are among those who are persecuted.  Given
the overall impression that Satan is pretending to be an angel of
light, and the true church is a persecuted remnant, I think the most
consistent playing out of the image would be that the anti-Christ
would be presiding over a church that claims to be the heir of both
the Protestant and Catholic traditions, but that the true spiritual
descendants of both Peter and the Reformers are equally being
persecuted.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20680
From: Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca (Desiree Bradley)
Subject: Doing the work of God??!!)

As our local.religion.christian BBS group seems moribund, I'm posting here.

On one of the Sundays just before Easter I went to church.  The sermon was
based on a story in the Book of Joshua.  (The one about Joshua sending out
spies to the land he was planning to take)  What I particularly remember,
because of having heard part of a CBC radio documentary on Bosnia, was that
the Rahab (the woman who sheltered the spies) said that the people were
"melting in fear."  What with having heard that CBC radio documentary and
knowing that the Muslims in Bosnia were losing the war, I felt
uncomfortable.  After all, the Serbs are driving non-Christians out.  On
the other hand, ministers do say that the Bible is opposed to the values
held by our secular society.  Anyhow members of that church are involved in
out-of-country missionary work.  Also, the pastor has talked of spiritual
warfare and of bringing Christ to the nonreligious people of our area.

The next Sunday, the sermon was about Joshua 6 (where the Israelites
take Jericho and then proceed to massacre everybody there --- except
for Rahab, who had sheltered the spies).  With those reports about
Bosnia in my mind, I felt uncomfortable about the minister saying that
the massacre (the one in Joshua) was right.  But what really bothered
me was that, if I was going to try taking Christianity seriously, I
shouldn't be so troubled about the reports of "ethnic cleansing" in
Bosnia.  Certainly, my sympathies shouldn't be with the Moslims.
Considering that the Bosnian Muslims are descendants of Christians
who, under Turkish rule, converted to Islam could the Serbs be doing
God's work?

[The example of God's people setting out on bloody wars of conquest
has always been troubling in discussions here.  I personally question
whether they were right even at the time.  But those who believe they
were consider that the wars were justified only because they were
specifically commanded by God.  Somehow I don't see the Serbs behaving
like a group that is led by God in this matter.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20681
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (boundary)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

dleonar@andy.bgsu.edu (Pixie) writes:
>                                       Unfaithfully yours,
>                                       Pixie
>     p.s.  If you do sincerely believe that a god exists, why do you follow
>it blindly?  
>     Do the words "Question Authority" mean anything to you?
>     I defy any theist to reply.      

Dear Defiant (or Unfaithful or Pixie):

I will take up the challenge to reply, as I am a theist.

The foundation for faith in God is reason, without which the existence
of God could not be proven.  That His existence can be proven by reason
is indisputable (cf. my short treatise, "Traditional Proofs for the 
Existence of God," and Summa Theologica).

Now, given that God exists, and that His existence can be proven by reason,
I assert that His commands must be followed blindly, although in our fallen
condition we must always have some measure of doubt about our faith.  Why?

Because God is the First Cause of all things, the First Mover of matter,
the Independent Thing that requires nothing else for its existence, the
Measure of all that is perfect, and the essential Being who gives order
to the universe (logos).

I next assert that God is all good.  If this is so, then that which is
contrary to the will of God is evil; i.e., the absence of the good.  And,
since God can never contradict Himself, then by His promise of a Savior
as early as the Protoevangelium of Genesis 3:5, God instructs that because
a human (Adam) was first responsible for man's alienation from the Source
of all good, a man would be required to act to restore the friendship.
Thus God became incarnate in the person of the Messiah.

Now this Messiah claimed that He is the Truth (John 14:6).  If this claim
is true, then we are bound by reason to follow Him, who is truth incarnate.

You next seem to have a problem with authority.  Have you tried the United
States Marine Corps yet?  I can tell you first-hand that it is an excellent
instructor in authority.  If you have not yet had the privilege, I will
reply that the authority which is Truth Incarnate may never be questioned,
and thus must be followed blindly.  One may NOT deny the truth.  For
example, when the proverbial apple fell on Isaac Newton's head, he could
have denied that it happened, but he did not.  The laws of physics must
be obeyed whether a human likes them or not.  They are true. 

Therefore, the Authority which is Truth may not be denied.

QED
 
-- 
boundary

no teneis que pensar que yo haya venido a traer la paz a la tierra; no he
venido a traer la paz, sino la guerra (Mateo 10:34, Vulgata Latina) 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20682
From: jcj@tellabs.com (jcj)
Subject: Re: When are two people married

JEK@cu.nih.gov writes:

>...
>The essential ingredient of a marriage is mutual commitment. Two
>persons are considered to be married if and only if they have bound
>themselves by mutual promises to live together as husband and wife,
>forsaking all others, till death do them part.
>

Does that imply that people who take marriage vows but aren't sincere
are not married?

Jeff Johnson
jcj@tellabs.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20683
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Subject: Re: Atheist's views on Christianity (was: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")

In article <Apr.19.05.13.48.1993.29266@athos.rutgers.edu>,
kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko) wrote:
> 
> Jason Smith (jasons@atlastele.com) wrote: 
 
> Another answer is that God is the _source_ of all existence.
> This sounds much better, but I am tempted to ask: Does God
> Himself exist, then? If God is the source of His own existence,
> it can only mean that He has, in terms of human time, always
> existed. But this is not the same as the source of all existence.
> This argument sounds like God does not exist, but meta-exists,
> and from His meta-existent perspective, He created existence.
> I think this is actually a nonsolution, a mere twist of words.

Always existing and being the source of the existence of all other beings
is not problematic.

But, as you put, Being the source of "all" existence, including one's own,
would mean that God came from nothing, a concept alien to Christianity and
Theism.  It is better to understand the classical concepts of Necessary and
Contingent existence.  God exists necessarily, always.  God created
contingent beings.  This is a coherent solution to existence, so long as
the concept of God is coherent.
 
> The best answer I have heard is that human reasoning is incapable
> of understanding such questions. Being an atheist myself, I do not
> accept such answers, since I do not have any other methods.

Not a very good answer.  If reason cannot by any means understand something
then it is likely that "it" is a null concept, something not in reality.

Ted Kalivoda

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20684
From: reid@cs.uiuc.edu (Jon Reid)
Subject: Cell Church discussion group

I am beginning an e-mail discussion group about cell churches.  If you are
a follower of Jesus Christ and are

  - in a cell church, or
  - in a church that is transitioning to a cell church, or
  - just interested in learning more about cell churches,

send me e-mail.  (I reserve the right to remove anybody from the group who
does not demonstrate a spirit of humility and Christlikeness.)

-- 
******************************************************************
*     Jon Reid     * He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep *
* reid@cs.uiuc.edu * to gain what he cannot lose.   - Jim Elliot *
******************************************************************

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20685
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell

Mark Schnitzius writes:

>>  Literal interpreters of the Bible will have a problem with this view, since
>>the Bible talks about the fires of Hell and such.  
> 
>This is something I've always found confusing.  If all your nerve endings
>die with your physical body, why would flame hurt you?  How can one "wail
>and gnash teeth" with no lungs and no teeth?

One can feel physical pain by having a body, which, if you know the
doctrine of the resurrection of the body, is what people will have after
the great judgement.  "We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the
life of the world to come."  - Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.  You
will have both body and soul in hell - eventually.

Andy Byler

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20686
From: JJMARVIN@pucc.princeton.edu
Subject: prayers and advice requested on family problem

My brother has been alienated from my parents and me since shortly after
his marriage to a domineering and insecure woman, about twelve years ago.
We've kept things on a painfully polite, Christmas-card sort of level
for most of this time. Attempts to see each other end disastrously, with
his wife throwing a screaming fit and storming out over either our imagined
slights to her, or his inattention or insensitivity to her (I mean, this'll
happen by the end of a single restaurant meal). He seems, from what I've
seen, to live in a state of quivering anxiety, hoping futilely to keep
the next storm from breaking. He has sacrificed not only meaningful contact
with us but also other friends and outside interests. Now, this is his
choice, and I need to accept it even if I deplore it. But it's hard.
   From time to time I've wanted to drop the pretense that we have a
relationship--by cutting off contact--or trying to have a real if painful
relationship, by talking honestly with him, but I've always thought, "Why
be dramatic? And you know he'll only get evasive and then find some excuse
to get off the phone. Just leave the door open, in case he ever decides to
come back." It's been an unsatisfying choice, to allow us to go on
with the superficial trappings of a relationship, but it was the best I
could think of.
   Now, this weekend, my mother finally decided that she wasn't going
to pretend any more and has cut off relations with them. This was the
outcome of a phone conversation in which my sister-in-law screamed and
raved at my mother, blaming her for everything wrong in their lives, and
in which my brother evaded, temporized, claimed the situation was
beyond his control, and as always expected my mother to make all the
allowances and concessions. Mom said she would not, that she would not
quietly take abuse any more, and that if these were the terms of their
relationship, she didn't want to talk to or see them any more. And she hung
up. (I have never seem my mother lose her temper, and I think that this is
the first time she's ever hung up on someone.) Mom says she feels as if
she's divorced my brother, and that it's a relief in some ways to have the
break out in the open and done with.
 
    I have mixed feelings. I'm proud of Mom for sticking up for herself;
angry at my brother and sister-in-law for hurting her, for being jerks, for
persisting in such a wretched life, which hurts us all and is warping their
children; angry at my sister-in-law for being so hateful, and angry at my
brother for being a coward and having so little respect for himself or us
that he's willing to throw us aside and use up all his energy trying to
appease an unappeasable,
emotionally disturbed woman; pained for their children, who are a mess;
scared for the future, since this marks the time when either things will
change and improve or the break will become irrevocable; nastily self-
righteous over this bit of proof that they can't "get away" with treating
us or each other this way, and then disgusted with myself for even
beginning to gloat over others' misery; and finally, mostly, sad, sad,
sad, to see my parents hurt and my brother and sister-in-law trapped in
a horrible, destructive situation that they can't see a way out of--or
they can't bear to take whatever paths they do see. And I'm frustrated
because I don't know what if anything to do, and doing nothing drives me
up the wall. I try to pray, about my own feelings of rage, impotence,
and vindictiveness, and about their situation, but I am not
free of the desire to *DO* something concrete. (The desire to *DO*
something, to define a problem and fix it, is one of my besetting
vices; I'm having a terrible time quieting down my internal
mental chatter enough to listen for God.)
  Do you thoughtful and kind people on the net have advice for me? Is
this a time to reach out to my brother? To let things be? How can I
conquer my rage AT him enough to be there FOR him?
 
Here's the big question I've been evading throughout this long, long
post: Is it ok, as a Christian and a proponent of faith, hope, and
charity, to accept the destruction of a relationship? To give up on
my own brother, or at least to accept that I am powerless to help him
and can only wait and see what happens? Do please answer--by e-mail or
post.
 
Thank you.
 
Julie (jjmarvin@pucc.princeton.edu)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20687
From: mussack@austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Subject: Re: Christian's need for Christianity

In article <Apr.19.05.12.31.1993.29175@athos.rutgers.edu>, lmh@juliet.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.) writes:
> In article <Apr.16.23.17.40.1993.1861@geneva.rutgers.edu<, mussack@austin.ibm.com writes...
> << < For example: why does the universe exist at all?  
> 
> <Whether there is a "why" or not we have to find it. This is Pascal's(?) wager.
> <If there is no why and we spend our lives searching, then we have merely
> <wasted our lives, which were meaningless anyway. If there is a why and we
> ..
>  I find this view of Christianity to be quite disheartening and sad.
> The idea that life only has meaning or importance if there is a Creator
> does not seem like much of a basis for belief.

Please forgive all the inclusions. I suppose they are neccessary to follow
the argument.

My point is that "if life has meaning or importance then we should try
to find that meaning or importance" which is almost a tautology. (I hope
I'm not being too patronizing.) One term for that meaning is "Creator",
though that is not obvious from my above argument.

>  And the logic is also appalling: "God must exist because I want Him to."

(It's more like "I think, therefore I am, therefore God is.")

>  I have heard this line of "reasoning" before and wonder how prevalent
> it is. Certainly in modern society many people are convinced life is
> hopeless (or so the pollsters and newscasts state), but I don't see
> where this is a good reason to become religious. If you want 'meaning'
> why not just join a cult, such as in Waco? The leaders will give you
> the security blanket you desire.

Unfortunately the term "religious" is ambiguous to me in this context.
I could say that searching for meaning in life is by definition being
religious. I could say cult followers by definition have given up on 
the search.

If you want "meaning" why not search for the truth?

So far, my understanding of Christianity is congruent with my understanding
of truth. There have been many before me who have come to conclusions 
that are worded in ways that make sense to me. By no means does that imply
that I understand everything. 

Chris Mussack

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20688
From: reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

In article <Apr.19.05.11.36.1993.29109@athos.rutgers.edu>, ata@hfsi.hfsi.com ( John Ata) writes:

> I think you are vastly oversimplifying things. We know that early Christians
> suffered totures because of their witness to Christ.  For example:

[ ACT 5:40 - 41 ]

> It appears that the Jewish rulers of that time had a particular aversion
> to even hearing Jesus's name.
...
> Finally, the first apostle's death, James of Zebedee was certainly
> not by Rome's hand any more than the first martyr Stephen. 
...
> The problem was that if one believed in the Resurrection, then one
> must believe in Jesus as truly being the Son of God and what He
> stood for and preached during His ministry on Earth.  That would
> have been extremely difficult for some people, especially those
> that had plotted to kill Him. 

The basic problem with your argument is your total and complete reliance on
the biblical text.  Luke's account is highly suspect (I would refer you to
the hermeneia commentary on Acts).  Moreover Luke's account is written at
least 90 years after the fact.  In the meantime everyone he mentions has died
and attempts to find actual written sources behind the text have come up
with only the we section of the later portion of acts as firmly established.
Moreover, Pauls account of some of the events in Acts (as recorded in 
Galatians) fail to establish the acts accounts. 

What we need, therefore, is a reliable text, critically appreciated, which
documents the death of Christians for belief in the Resurrection.  I would
suggest you look at some greek and roman historians.  I think you will be
disapointed.

randy

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20689
From: reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: proof of resurection

In article <Apr.20.03.01.50.1993.3776@geneva.rutgers.edu>, jcj@tellabs.com (jcj) writes:
> In article <Apr.16.23.15.09.1993.1823@geneva.rutgers.edu> smayo@world.std.com (Scott A Mayo) writes:
>>...
>>I think Christianity goes down in flames if the resurrection is
>>ever disproved. ...
> 
> Didn't Paul write that if the Resurrection is not true, we are the
> biggest fools of all?  However, whether you believe in Christ or not,
> His teachings (e.g. love your brotherman as yourself), even if only 
> followed at a secular level, could do a great deal to alleviate some of 
> the problems we see today in the world.  Even when I was a rabid atheist 
> I couldn't deny that.
> 
> Jeff Johnson
> jcj@tellabs.com

We also cannot fail to note the intense suffering a devastation which has been
wrecked on our world because of Christians -- who were certain they were
following Christ.  From Captialist who have polluted the enviorment in strict
obedience to the Gensis command to subdue the earth, to Nazi's who have
"justly"
punished the Jews for the killing Christ (as well as the other progroms), the
innocent women who were burned alive in accordance with "you shall not allow a
witch to live", the Moslems who were killed in the Crusades, the god-fearing
men destroyed by the inquistion.  The religious wars in Spain, France, England,
etc.  Christianity has undoubtedly caused the most suffering and needless loss
of life by individuals whose certainity that they were following the
instructions therein, was unquestionable.  There is much to grieve.

randy

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20690
From: Bjorn.B.Larsen@delab.sintef.no (A 369)
Subject: Question: Jesus alone, Oneness

Dear fellow netters,

From time to time a term like 'Oneness Pentecostals' (or something
similar) has occurred in posts to this group. I also know that there
is a movement called something like 'Jesus alone.' 

I believe in the Trinity and have no plans to change that, but reently
I was made aware that there is at least one person within our church
who holds the view that there is no trinity. In the near future we
will discuss this item, and I feel that I shall ask you, my friends on
this group, for background information.

Can anybody tell me the basic reasons for holding a belief that there
is only Jesus? And vice versa: The foundations for the Trinity?

I shall appreciate both quotes from the Bible and historical
development.

Thank you all.

In Him,

Bjorn
--
______________________________________________________________________
               s-mail:                 e-mail:
|   |   |      Bjorn B. Larsen         bjorn.b.larsen@delab.sintef.no
|__ |__ |      SINTEF DELAB
|  \|  \|      N-7034 TRONDHEIM        tel: +47-7-592682 / 592600
|__/|__/|_     NORWAY                  fax: +47-7-591039 / 594302
______________________________________________________________________

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20691
From: mussack@austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Subject: Re: sex education

In article <Apr.19.05.13.02.1993.29198@athos.rutgers.edu>, jkellett@netcom.com (Joe Kellett) writes:
> ...
> Question for further discussion (as they say in the textbooks):  Why don't
> we teach "safe drug use" to kids, instead of drug abstinence?  ...

And how come we don't pass out bullet-proof vests in school
to promote safe gun usage? 

Chris Mussack

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20692
From: reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

In article <Apr.19.05.10.33.1993.29070@athos.rutgers.edu>, Gene.Gross@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Gene Gross) writes:
> 
> Of course they knew where it was. Don't forget that Jesus was seen by both
> the Jews and the Romans as a troublemaker. Pilate was no fool and didn't 
> need the additional headaches of some fishermen stealing Jesus' body to 
> make it appear He had arisen. Since Jesus was buried in the grave of a 
> man well know to the Sanhedrin, to say that they didn't know where He was
> buried begs the question.

Here again, the problem with most of the individuals posting here, you take the
biblical account as though it were some sort of historical recounting in the
modern sense.  I would refer you to John Dominic Crossans Book _The Cross That
Spoke_ (Pub. Harper and Row, 1988).  The earliest texts which we have make no
reference to an empty tomb.  Nor is an empty tomb necessary for a claim of
resurrection. Modern Evangelicals/Fundamentalists have completely missed what
the point of resurrection is -- Here the work of George Nickelsburg's work 
_Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism_ (Publ
Cambridge, Havard Univ. Press, 1972) is most helpful.  Look At Rom 1:1-3.  Paul
here has no need of an empty tomb.  Additionally in 1 Cor 15, Here again there
is no mention of an empty tomb. He was raised (note the passive), he appeared,
no ascension either.

Resurrection could be accomplished without ever disturbing the bones in the
grave.  The whole idea of an empty tomb isn't broached in any of our texts
until well after the fall of Jerusalem.  By that time, the idea of coming up
with a body would have been ludicrious.  Moreover Mack has argued (convicingly,
I think) that the empty tomb story first appears in Mark (we have no texts
before this which mention the tomb). 
    

> 
> Now, you say that you think that the disciples stole the body. But think on
> this a moment. Would you die to maintain something you KNEW to be a 
> deliberate lie!? If not, then why do you think the disciples would!? Now, I'm
> not talking about dying for something you firmly believe to be the truth, 
> but unbeknown to you, it is a lie. Many have done this. No, I'm talking about
> dying, by beheading, stoning, crucifixion, etc., for something you know to
> be a lie! Thus, you position with regards to the disciples stealing the 
> body seems rather lightweight to me.
> 
> As for graverobbers, why risk the severe penalties for grave robbing over 
> the body of Jesus? He wasn't buried with great riches. So, again, this is
> an argument that can be discounted.
> 
> That leaves you back on square one. What happened to the body!?
> 
> 
> [Again, let me comment that the most plausible non-Christian scenario,
> and the one typically suggested by sceptics who are knowledgeable
> about the NT, is that the resurrection was a subjective event, and the
> empty tomb stories are a result of accounts growing in the telling.
> --clh]

You are quite right here.  Even the Idea of a subjective mystical event as the
foundation of the resurrection narratives is currently becoming more untenable.
See B. Mack _A Myth of Innocence_.

randy

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20693
From: jono@mac-ak-24.rtsg.mot.com (Jon Ogden)
Subject: Re: Latest on Branch Davidians

In article <Apr.20.03.02.42.1993.3815@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt) wrote:


> I think it's really sad that so many people put their faith in a mere
> man, even if he did claim to be the son of God, and/or a prophet.

It is just as Christ said about his return:

"Some will say, 'He is in the desert.' or some will say, 'He is in the
wilderness.'  But do not believe them.  For as lightning flashes east to
west so shall the coming of the Son of Man be."  
                                         { My paraphrase - I think the
verse is
                                           somewhere in John }

Jon

----------------
sig file broken....

please try later...
----------------

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20694
From: sun075!Gerry.Palo@uunet.uu.net (Gerry Palo)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."

gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric Molas) writes:

> Religion (especially Christianity) is nothing more than a DRUG.

There is a certain truth to this statement. Only I would use the word
"medicine" instead of drug.  With regard to the condition of the human
soul, Christianity is first and foremost a healing medicine.  It also
strengthens and enables one, as healing takes hold, to grow in new
strength and health to live and be and to do that for which God created 
us.

> Some people use drugs as an escape from reality.  

Christ's medicine, rightly allowed to work, brings one nearer to
reality and offers the clarity of understanding and the strength
of spirit with which to meet it in a healthy human way.

> Christians inject themselves with Jesus and live with that high. 

(small spelling correction added)

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20695
From: lfoard@hopper.virginia.edu (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Assurance of Hell

In article <Apr.20.03.01.19.1993.3755@geneva.rutgers.edu> REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov writes:
>
>I dreamed that the great judgment morning had dawned,
>     and the trumpet had blown.
>I dreamed that the sinners had gathered for judgment
>     before the white throne.
>Oh what weeping and wailing as the lost were told of their fate.
>They cried for the rock and the mountains.
>They prayed, but their prayers were too late.
>The soul that had put off salvation, 
>"Not tonight I'll get saved by and by.
> No time now to think of ....... religion," 
>Alas, he had found time to die.
>And I saw a Great White Throne.

If I believed in the God of the bible I would be very fearful of making
this statement. Doesn't it say those who judge will be judged by the
same measure? 

>Now, some have protest by saying that the fear of hell is not good for
>motivation, yet Jesus thought it was.  Paul thought it was.  Paul said, 
>"Knowing therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men."

A God who must motivate through fear is not a God worthy of worship.
If the God Jesus spoke of did indeed exist he would not need hell to
convince people to worship him.

>Today, too much of our evangelism is nothing but soft soap and some of
>it is nothing but evangelical salesmanship.  We don't tell people anymore, that
>there's such a thing as sin or that there's such a place as hell.  

It was the myth of hell that made me finally realize that the whole thing
was untrue. If it hadn't been for hell I would still be a believer today.
The myth of hell made me realize that if there was a God that he was not
the all knowing and all good God he claimed to be. Why should I take such
a being at his word, even if there was evidence for his existance?

-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20696
From: parkin@Eng.Sun.COM (Michael Parkin)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

Another issue of importance.  Was the crucification the will of God or
a tragic mistake.  I believe it was a tragic mistake.  God's will can
never be accomplished through the disbelief of man.  Jesus came to
this world to build the kingdom of heaven on the earth.  He
desperately wanted the Jewish people to accept him as the Messiah.  If
the crucification was the will of God how could Jesus pray that this
cup pass from him.  Was this out of weakness.  NEVER.  Many men and
women have given their lives for their country or other noble causes.
Is Jesus less than these.  No he is not.  He knew the crucification
was NOT the will of GOD.  God's will was that the Jewish people accept
Jesus as the Messiah and that the kingdom of Heaven be established on
the earth with Jesus as it's head. (Just like the Jewish people
expected). If this had happened 2000 years ago can you imagine what
kind of world we would live in today.  It would be a very different
world.  And that is eactly what GOD wanted.  Men and women of that age
could have been saved by following the living Messiah while he was on
the earth.  Jesus could have established a sinless lineage that would
have continued his reign after his ascension to the spiritual world to
live with GOD.  Now the kingdom of heaven on the earth will have to
wait for Christ's return.  But when he returns will he be recognized
and will he find faith on this earth.  Isn't it about time for his
return.  It's been almost 2000 years.

Mike


In article 28885@athos.rutgers.edu, oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser) writes:
In article <Apr.10.05.33.59.1993.14428@athos.rutgers.edu> mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:
>The two historic facts that I think the most important are these:
>
>(1) If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then he must have done something
>else equally impressive, in order to create the observed amount of impact.
>
>(2) Nobody ever displayed the dead body of Jesus, even though both the
>Jewish and the Roman authorities would have gained a lot by doing so
>(it would have discredited the Christians).

And the two simplest refutations are these:

(1)  What impact?  The only record of impact comes from the New Testament.
I have no guarantee that its books are in the least accurate, and that
the recorded "impact" actually happened.  I find it interesting that no other
contemporary source records an eclipse, an earthquake, a temple curtain
being torn, etc.  The earliest written claim we have of Jesus' resurrection
is from the Pauline epistles, none of which were written sooner than 20 years
after the supposed event.

(2)  It seems probable that no one displayed the body of Jesus because no
one knew where it was.  I personally believe that the most likely
explanation was that the body was stolen (by disciples, or by graverobbers).
Don't bother with the point about the guards ... it only appears in one
gospel, and seems like exactly the sort of thing early Christians might make
up in order to counter the grave-robbing charge.  The New Testament does
record that Jews believed the body had been stolen.  If there were really
guards, they could not have effectively made this claim, as they did.

-Scott O.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20697
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: etymology of "Easter"

for SRC

In most languages, the Feast of the Resurrection of Our Lord is
known as the PASCH, or PASQUE, or some variation thereof, a word
which comes from the Hebrew PESACH, meaning "Passover." In English,
German, and a few related languages, however, it is known as EASTER,
or some variation thereof, and questions have been asked about the
origin of this term.

One explanation is that given by the Venerable Bede in his DE
RATIONE TEMPORUM 1:5, where he derives the word from the name of an
Anglo-Saxon goddess of Spring called EASTRE. Bede is a great
scholar, and it is natural to take his word for it. But he lived
673-735, and Augustine began preaching in Kent in 597. The use of
the word EASTER to describe the Feast would have been well
established before the birth of Bede and probably before the birth
of anyone he might have discussed the subject with. It seems likely
that his derivation is just a guess, based on his awareness that
there had been an Anglo-Saxon goddess of Spring bearing that name,
and the resemblance of the words. Thus, if the said resemblance
(surely it is not surprising that a personification of Spring should
have a name similar to the word for Dawn) is not in istelf
convincing, the testimony (or rather the conjecture) by Bede does
not make it more so.

Assuming that Bede was right, that would not justify saying that the
Christian celebration (which, after all, had been going on for some
centuries before the name EASTER was applied to it) has pagan roots.
It would simply mean that the Anglo-Saxons, upon becoming Christians
and beginning to celebrate the Resurrection by a festival every
spring, called it by the name that to them meant simply "Spring
Festival."

However, Bede's is not the only theory that has been proposed.  J
Knoblech, in "Die Sprach," ZEITSCHRIFT FUER SPRACHWISSENSCHAFT 5
(Vienna, 1959) 27-45, offers the following derivation:

Among Latin-speaking Christians, the week beginning with the Feast
of the Resurrection was known as "hebdomada alba" (white week),
since the newly-baptized Christians were accustomed to wear their
white baptismal robes throughout that week. Sometimes the week was
referred to simply as "albae." Translaters rendering this into
German mistook it for the plural of "alba," meaning "dawn." They
accordingly rendered it as EOSTARUM, which is Old High German for
"dawn." This gave rise to the form EASTER in English.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer


[No, I'm not interested in restarting discussions of the propriety
of celebrating Easter.  However this seems like it contains enough
interesting information that people might like to see it.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20698
From: lmvec@westminster.ac.uk (William Hargreaves)
Subject: Help

Hi everyone, 
	   I'm a commited Christian that is battling with a problem.  I know
that romans talks about how we are saved by our faith not our deeds, yet
hebrews and james say that faith without deeds is useless, saying' You fools,
do you still think that just believing is enough?'

Now if someone is fully believing but there life is totally lead by themselves
and not by God, according to Romans that person is still saved by there faith.
But then there is the bit which says that God preferes someone who is cold to
him (i.e. doesn't know him - condemned) so a lukewarm Christian someone who
knows and believes in God but doesn't make any attempt to live by the bible.

Now I am of the opinion that you a saved through faith alone (not what you do)
as taught in Romans, but how can I square up in my mind the teachings of James
in conjunction with the lukewarm Christian being 'spat-out'

Can anyone help me, this really bothers me.

In Christ,
Will

-- 
============================================
| Dallas Cowboys - World Champions 1992-93 |
============================================

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20699
From: norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak)
Subject: Re: Interfaith weddings

Bill Burns was looking for a description of the differnces  between the
Catholic and Lutheran churches.

I'd recommend Prof. William Whalen's book "Separated Brethren".  It's
an overview of common US denominations, intended for a Catholic
audience.

-- 
Richard Aquinas Chonak, norris@mit.edu
Seeking job change: sys-mgr: VAX, SIS, COBOL; programmer; UNIX, C, C++, X

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20700
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: Paul on weekly collections

Mark Gregory Foster writes (concerning 1 Corinthians 16:2):

 > The idea was introduced to me once that the reason Paul wanted
 > the Corinthians to lay aside money for the collection on the
 > first day of the week was that this was when they received their
 > weekly wages.

But the ancient Romans did not observe a seven-day week.  Unless a
man was working for a Jewish employer, he is unlikely to have been
paid on the first day of a seven-day week. Nor would a Jewish
employer have kept his wages over the week-end (see Lev 19:13; Dt
24:15).

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20701
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: about Eliz C Prophet

Rob Butera asks about a book called THE LOST YEARS OF JESUS, by
Elizabeth Clare Prophet.

I do not know the book. However, Miss Prophet is the leader of a
group (The Church Universal and Triumphant) derived from the I AM
group founded by a Mr. Ballard who began his mission in the 1930's
(I am writing this from memory and may not have all the details
straight -- for an old account, check your library for a bnook by
Marcus Bach) after an eighteenth-century Frenchman appeared, tapped
him on the shoulder, and offered him a cup of "cosmic essence." A
major tenet of the movement is that there is a monastery in the
mountains of Tibet from which a monk descends to the lower altitudes
every few centuries to preach, and that all major religions have
been founded by monks from this monastery. Typically, the Ballard
family and their successors, the Prophet family (related by
marriage, if I remember aright), base almost all their teachings on
messages they have allegedly received by telepathy from Tibet. I
should be surprised if the book you mention has any scholarly basis.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20702
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: Chanting of the Passion

Mike Rolfe writes:

 > If you know the Latin, one really beautiful way to hear the
 > Passion is its being chanted by three deacons: the Narrator
 > chants in the middle baritone range, Jesus chants in the bass,
 > and others directly quoted are handled by a high tenor.

This is done in English (same music as the traditional Latin) in
many Anglican parishes. I should expect that many RCC parishes would
do likewise.  The ST MATTHEW PASSION and ST JOHN PASSION of J S Bach
are direct offshoots of this tradition

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20703
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: muslim tithe; sexism in Genesis 2

According to mdbs@ms.uky.edu, muslims tithe 1/6 of their income.

Perhaps there are some offshoots of Islam that impose this on their
followers.  But the standard tithe is 1/40 of one's net worth, once
a year.

The same writer also objects to the Bible for teaching that

 > "woman was created after man, to be his helper" etc.

This is presumably a reference to Genesis 2. Suppose that that
chapter had been written with the sexes reversed. We have God
creating woman, and then saying, "It is not good that woman should
be alone. I will make a help meet for her." Feminists would be
outraged. The clear implication would be that God had started at the
bottom and worked up, making first the plants, then the fish and
birds, then the beasts, then woman, and finally His masterpiece, the
Male Chauvinist Pig. The statement that woman is not capable of
functioning by herself, that she needs a man to open doors for her,
would have been seen as a particularly gratuitous insult. The fact
that the creation of woman from the dust of the ground was given
only briefly and in general, while the creation of the Man was given
in six times the number of words, would have been cited as evidence
of the author's estimate of the relative importance of the sexes.
The verdict would have been unequivocal. "No self-respecting woman
can accept this book as a moral guide, or as anything but sexist
trash!" I suggest that Moses, fearing this reaction, altered his
original draft and described the creation with Adam first and then
Eve, so as to appease Miriam and other radical feminists of the day.
For some reason, however, it did not work.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20704
From: jcj@tellabs.com (jcj)
Subject: Re: proof of resurection

In article <Apr.21.03.26.18.1993.1352@geneva.rutgers.edu> reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu writes:

>We also cannot fail to note the intense suffering a devastation which has been
>wrecked on our world because of Christians -- who were certain they were
>following Christ.  From Captialist ... in strict obedience to the Gensis 
>innocent women who were burned alive in accordance with "you shall not allow a
>witch to live", the Moslems who were killed in the Crusades, the god-fearing
>men destroyed by the inquistion.  The religious wars in Spain, France, England,
>etc.  Christianity has undoubtedly caused the most suffering and needless loss
>of life by individuals whose certainity that they were following the
>instructions therein, was unquestionable.  There is much to grieve.

I agree.  Where in the Gospels does Jesus advocate any of the actions
you mention?  

I couldn't find "witch" or "sorceress" in my concordance.  Is there
something in the Epistles about witches?  (I'm still working my way
through the Gospels.)

JJ

[The reference is Ex 22:18.  It's witch in KJ, sorceress in RSV.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20705
From: cs89mcd@brunel.ac.uk (Michael C Davis)
Subject: Re: Help

Jon Ogden (jono@mac-ak-24.rtsg.mot.com) wrote:
: It is a dead and useless faith which has no action behind it.  Actions
: prove our faith and show the genuineness of it.

A good example of this is Abraham (referred to in the James passage). Hebrews
says that Abraham was justified by faith -- but his faith was demonstrated
through his works (i.e., he obeyed what God told him to do).

Reading Abraham's ``biography'' in Genesis is very instructive. He was a man
beset by *lack* of faith a lot of the time (e.g. lying about Sarah being his
wife on 2 occasions; trying to fulfil God's promise on God's behalf by
copulating with Hagar). . . yet it seems that God didn't evaluate him on the
basis of individual incidents. Abraham is listed as one of the ``heroes of 
faith'' in Hebrews 11. i.e., when it really came to the crunch, God declared
Abraham as a man of faith. He believed God's promises.

This gives us confidence. Although real faith demonstrates itself through
works, God is not going to judge us according to our success/failure in
performing works.

``Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy
he saved us, through the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy
Spirit.'' (Titus 3.5)

Amazing Grace! Hallelujah!
-- 
Michael Davis (cs89mcd@brunel.ac.uk)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20706
From: jkjec@westminster.ac.uk (Shazad Barlas)
Subject: iterations of the bible

Hi... I'm not a religious guy so dont take this as some kinda flame (thanx
in advance)

I want to know why there are so many different versions of the bible? There
is this version of the bible I have read about and on the front page it says:
"....contains inaccurate data and inconsistencies."   

					Thanx in advance... Shaz....

[I'm not sure quite what you mean by many different versions.
The primary distinction in versions you see today is in the style
of the translation.  It's pretty unusual to see significant
differences in meaning.  There are a few differences in the underlying
text.  That's because before printing, manuscripts were copied by
hand.  Slight differences resulted.  There are enough manuscripts
around that scholars can do a pretty good job of recreating the
original, but there are some uncertainties.  Fortunately, they are
generally at the level of minor differences in wording.  There are
something like 3 or 4 places where whole sentences are involved,
but with recent discoveries of older manuscripts, I don't think there's
much uncertainly about those cases.  As far as I know, no Christians
believe that the process of copying manuscripts or the process of
translating is free of error.  But I also don't think there's
enough uncertainty in establishing the text or translating it that
it has much practical effect.

Whether the Bible contains inaccurate data and inconsistences is a hot
topic of debate here.  Many Christians deny it.  Some accept it
(though most would say that the inaccuracies involved are on details
that don't affect the faith).  But this has nothing to do with there
being multiple versions.  The supposed inconsistences can be found in
all the versions.  I'm surprised to find a reference to this on the
title page though.  What version are you talking about?  I've been
referring to major scholarly translations.  These are what get
referenced in postings here and elsewhere.  There have certainly been
editions that are (to be kind) less widely accepted.  This includes
everything from reconstructions that combine parallel accounts into
single narrations, to editions that omit material that the editor
objects to for some reason or the other.  The copyright on the Bible
has long since expired, so there nothing to stop people from making
editions that do whatever wierd thing they want.  However the editions
that are widely used are carefully prepared by groups of scholars from
a variety of backgrounds, with lots of crosschecks.  I could imagine
one of the lesser-known editions claiming to have fixed up all
inaccurate data and inconsistencies.  But if so, it's not any edition
that's widely used.  The widely used ones leave the text as is.
(Weeeeelllllll, almost as is.  It's been alleged that a few
translations have fudged a word or two here and there to minimize
inconsistencies.  Because translation is not an exact science, there
are always going to be differences in opinion over which word is best,
I'm afraid.)

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20707
From: hall@vice (Hal F Lillywhite;627-3877;59-360;LP=A;YApG)
Subject: Re: Help

In article <Apr.21.03.26.51.1993.1379@geneva.rutgers.edu> lmvec@westminster.ac.uk (William Hargreaves) writes:

>	   I'm a commited Christian that is battling with a problem.  I know
>that romans talks about how we are saved by our faith not our deeds, yet
>hebrews and james say that faith without deeds is useless, saying' You fools,
>do you still think that just believing is enough?'

Actually I don't think there is any conflict if we really understand
what these passages say.  First, what is faith?  If you study the 
meaning of the Greek and Hebrew words so translated I think you will
come to the conclusion that the word means a *lot* more than mere 
belief.  Faith means both trust and action.  If you do not put your 
belief into action it simply cannot qualify as faith.  I think this 
is what James means when he says that "faith without works is dead" 
and, "I will show you my faith by my works."  Remember James was 
writing to "the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad."  This 
probably means he was writing to those who would hear the gospel much 
later and wouldn't understand the meaning of the original Greek.
(Indeed I suspect James was writing to us, today, among others he
intended to reach.)  Paul, on the other hand wrote mostly to the
people of the Roman empire who generally understood the meaning of
the Greek.

Another key to why there is no conflict is to look at Paul's
statements in their context.  I think you will find that when Paul
contrasts faith and works it is in the context of comparing the
gospel with the Law, meaning the Law of Moses.  This was the great
burden of Paul's life.  As the apostle to the Gentiles he would go
convert a bunch of people, then the "Judizers" would come along and
try to convince them that they also had to obey the Law of Moses (cf
Acts chapter 15).  In this context Paul condemns the idea of being
saved by the works of the Law, saying that we are saved by the blood
of Jesus and our faith in him.  I believe that a better translation
for today would be that we are saved by *faithfulness*.  I think
"faithfulness" today has a meaning closer to what the original
writers intended.

>Now if someone is fully believing but there life is totally lead by themselves
>and not by God, according to Romans that person is still saved by there faith.

I think you misunderstand Romans.  What Paul is really saying is
that God prefers a faithful Gentile who does not "keep kosher" to a
kosher Jew who fails to stay faithful in the more important matters
of following the Lord and having charity toward his fellows.

>But then there is the bit which says that God preferes someone who is cold to
>him (i.e. doesn't know him - condemned) so a lukewarm Christian someone who
>knows and believes in God but doesn't make any attempt to live by the bible.

In the sense of faith described above, you cannot have real faith and 
be lukewarm.  If you know God but are lukewarm (unfaithful), you are 
worse off than the person who never heard of Him.  Remember, Jesus in
the parable of the pearl of great price (Mat 13:45-46) and again in
the one on the treasure hidden in the field (Mat 13:44) indicates that
the price of the Kingdom of God is *all* we have.

[I agree with you in general, including the fact that "pistis" has
some of the force of "faithful".  However if you take that too far,
you can end up with something that Paul definitely would not have
intended.  Being faithful means following God in all things.  To say
that we are saved by being faithful is very close to saying that we
are saved by commiting no sins.  I assume that's not what you meant.

I have almost given up on finding a specific verbal formula that
completely captures this.  However I think Paul is describing what I'd
call a basic orientation, including aspects such as trust and
commitment.  Jesus speaks of it as rebirth, which implies a basic
change.  We may still do things that are sinful, and may fail to show
the new life in Christ in many situations where we should.  But in any
Christian there had better be the basic change in orientation that
Jesus calls being born again.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20708
From: alvin@spot.Colorado.EDU (Kenneth Alvin)
Subject: Re: Assurance of Hell

In article <Apr.20.03.01.19.1993.3755@geneva.rutgers.edu> REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov writes:
>
>2)  If you haven't accepted Jesus are your Savior, you're taking an awful
>chance.  As I say to the Jehovah Witnesses (who no longer frequent my door), if
>you are right and I am wrong, then I will have lived a good life and will die
>and cease to exist, but if I am right and you are wrong, then you will die and
>suffer eternal damnation.  I don't mean to make fun at this point, but its like
>Dirty Harry said, "You've got to ask yourself, 'Do I feel lucky?'  Well do
>you?"  "A man's got to know his limitations."  Don't be one of the "whosoever
>wont's."  

This is a ridiculous argument for being a Christian.  So then, you might 
consider switching from Christianity to another religion if you were 
offered an even more frightening description of another hell?  How many
Christians do think there are who view it strictly as an insurance policy?
Not many I know; they believe in a message of love and compassion for 
others.  A faith based on fear of hell sounds like a dysfunctional 
relationship with God.  Like a child who cringes in fear of a parent's
physical violence.  

Many religions have concrete views of heaven and hell, with various
threats and persuasions regarding who will go where.  Competition over
who can envison the worst hell can hardly nurture the idea of loving
your neighbor as yourself.

>--Rex

-- 
comments, criticism welcome...
-Ken
alvin@ucsu.colorado.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20709
From: drt@athena.mit.edu (David R Tucker)
Subject: Re: Question: Jesus alone, Oneness

Regarding "Jesus only" believers, our moderator writes:

   [There may be some misunderstanding over terms here...]

I agree.  Quite likely, actually.

                                                      [...I believe "Jesus
   only" originally was in the context of baptism.  These are folks who
   believe that baptism should be done with a formula mentioning only
   Jesus, rather than Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  This may have
   doctrinal implications, but as far as I know it does not mean that
   these folks deny the existence or divinity of the Father.  I'm not the
   right one to describe this theology, and in fact I think there may be
   several, including what would classically be called monophysite or
   Arian (two rather different views), as well as some who have beliefs
   that are probably consistent with Trinitarian standards, but who won't
   use Trinitarian language because they misunderstand it or simply
   because it is not Biblical.  --clh]

Not Biblical?  What then can they make of the end of Matthew?

(28:18)And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on
earth has been given to me. (19)Go therefore and make disciples of all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and
of the Holy Spirit, (20) and teaching them to obey everything that I
have commanded to you.  And remember, I am with you always, to the end
of the age." {Other ancient authorities add *Amen*} [NRSV]

The notes give no sense that this is emended.  Do other texts
contradict this regarding Baptism?  Or is a misunderstanding of the
Trinity the most likely explanation after all?

But maybe I simply misunderstand their views.  (Is anyone else out there
forced to read this group with both a good Bible and an unabridged
dictionary??  Christianity really is an education in itself.)

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|David R. Tucker		KG2S		     drt@athena.mit.edu|
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Arrgggghhhh.  When I talked about people who rejected Trinitarian
language as unBiblical, I was speaking of Trinitarian theology, things
like "one essense and three persons".  Obviously the three-fold
baptismal formula is Biblical, as you point out.  (I normally use the
term "three-fold" in referring to Mat.  While it is certainly
consistent with belief in the Trinity, the Trinity is a doctrine whose
full formulation occurred in the 4th and 5th Cent's.  It's unlikely
that Mat. had in mind the fully-developed Trinitarian doctrine.
Indeed the three-fold baptismal formula is used by some groups that do
not believe in the Trinity.)  The disagreement over baptismal formulae
occurs because of passages such as Acts 2:38, which command baptism in
the name of Jesus.  (There are a couple of other passages in Acts as
well.)  This leaves us with sort of a problem: we're commanded in Mat.
to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
and in Acts to baptize in the name of Jesus.

"Jesus only" groups baptize in the name of Jesus.  They consider this
consistent with Mat 28:18, because they say that Jesus is the name of
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  I'm not the right one to
ask to explain what this means.  I will simply say that it does not
appear to be normal Trinitarian theology.  (It is also an odd way of
dealing with the idiomatic phrase "in the name of".)

Those who use the three-fold formula don't seem to have a standard
answer to the passages talking about baptizing in the name of Jesus.
I suspect that the most common explanation is to say that "in the name
of" need not be a verbal formula.  To say that you baptize in the name
of Jesus may simply mean that you are doing baptism under Jesus'
authority.  In the 1st Cent. context, it contrasts Christian baptism
with the baptism of John or other Jewish baptism.  Of course there's a
certain parallelism between these passages.  That suggests that we
could just as well say that Mat 28:18 doesn't require the specific
three-fold formula to be used in baptism, but simply characterizes
baptism done by those who follow the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

One might well suspect that in the early church, more than one
baptismal formula was used.  So long as we consider following Jesus to
be the same as following the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, no great
damage would be done by such a difference.  This does *not* mean that
I think we should go back to using both formulae.  Baptism is one of
the few things that almost all Christian groups now recognize
mutually, so I do not think doing something to upset that would be in
the interests of the Gospel.  This is reinforced by the fact that
those groups that actually use "in the name of Jesus" now do seem to
have in mind a difference in doctrine.  But as I've said before, I'm
not the one to explain what their doctrine is.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20710
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse

And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone,
able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in
the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the
truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the
devil, who has taken them captive to do his will. 
IITimothy 2:24-26

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20711
From: max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb)
Subject: Re: A question that has bee bothering me.

In article <Apr.14.03.07.55.1993.5435@athos.rutgers.edu> wquinnan@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Malcusco) writes:
>In article <Apr.11.01.02.39.1993.17790@athos.rutgers.edu> atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez) writes:
>	My problem with Science is that often it allows us to
>assume we know what is best for ourselves.  God endowed us
>with the ability to produce life through sexual relations,

You assume this because you believe in a designing creator,
and you observe our ability to procreate...

>for example, but He did not make that availible to everyone.
>Does that mean that if Science can over-ride God's decision
>through alterations, that God wills for us to have the power
>to decide who should and should not be able to have 
>children?

.... But then you observe our ability to modify fertility
through intelligence & experiment, and draw no similar conclusions
about God designing us for scientific inquiry & the use of the
technology that it produces.  How is it that one ability is "obviously
from God", and the other not?

>	I cannot draw a solid line regarding where I
>would approve of Scientific study, and where I would not,
>but I will say this:  Before one experiments with the
>universe to find out all its secrets, one should ask
>why they want this knowledge.

I want to know the truth, and hold the Truth as the most
basic of all ethical values, because correct moral judgement
relies on knowing the truth, not vice versa. Moralities that
assert that assent to a belief is a moral choice, and not
compelled by evidence inevitably cut off the limb they sit upon.
Falsification of evidence, conscious and unconscious, follows
corrupting both the intellect and the heart.

>I will say that each person should pray for guidance
>when trying to unravel the mysteries of the universe, and
>should cease their unravelling if they have reason to 
>believe their search is displeasing to God.
>
>			---Malcusco

If there is a God, he has nothing to fear from truth.
As to imaginary gods and there followers: Be afraid. Be very
afraid.

	Max

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20712
From: marka@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?

>I would like to get your opinions on this: when exactly does an engaged
>couple become "married" in God's eyes? 

I'm waiting for an RC to speak up ! 8-)
Nobody has, so I will...

Those with Bibles on hand can give the exact chapter & verse...
At the time Jesus told Peter that he was the "rock", He said
whatever you hold true on earth is held true in heaven, and 
whatever you don't hold true won't be true in heaven.

Therefore, with respect to marriage, the ceremony has to be
done by an RC priest. No big parties required. Just the priest,
the couple and witnesses. "Divorce" is not allowed. But anullments
are granted upon approval by either the bishop or the Pope 
(not sure if the Pope delegates this function).

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Ashley                        |DISCLAIMER: My opinions. Not Harris'
marka@gcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com      |
The Lost Los Angelino              |

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20713
From: rjb@akgua.att.com
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?

In article <Apr.23.02.55.25.1993.3117@geneva.rutgers.edu>, rjs2@po.cwru.edu (Richard J. Szanto) writes:
> In a previous article, randerso@acad1.sahs.uth.tmc.edu (Robert Anderson) says:
> 
> >I would like to get your opinions on this: when exactly does an engaged
> >couple become "married" in God's eyes?  Some say that if the two have
> >publically announced their plans to marry, have made their vows to God, and
> >are unswervingly committed to one another (I realize this is a subjective
> >qualifier) they are married/joined in God's sight.
> 
> I have discussed this with my girlfriend often.  I consider myself married,
> though legally I am not.  Neither of us have been with other people sexually,
> although we have been with each other.  We did not have sexual relations
> until we decided to marry eventually.  For financial and distance reasons,
> we will not be legally married for another year and a half.  Until then,
> I consider myself married for life in God's eyes.  I have faith that we
> have a strong relationship, and have had for over 4 years, and will be
> full of joy when we marry in a church.  First, however, we must find a
> church( we will be living in a new area when we marry, and will need to
> find a new church community).
> 
> Anyway, I feel that if two people commit to marriage before God, they are
> married and are bound by that commitment.
> 
> -- 
> 						-Rick Szanto


Rick has nailed the problem down pretty well.

As I can find no Scripture (have I missed it ?) that details
when you are married, I have to make some assumptions based
on the PRINCIPLES of Scripture.  

It seems to me that it takes 3 parties to make a marriage:
husband-to-be, wife-to-be, and God.  If you promise before
each other and God that you will convenant together to be
married, then...you are (IMO).

So why do we have the ceremonial part ?  That seems to be
there for "connectedness" in the Body of Christ.  My brothers
and sisters ought to be involved so that there can be some
accountability on both our parts.  That's part of the concept
from Hebrews about "not forsaking the assembling of yourselves
together as is the custom of some."  We need each other because
Lone Ranger Christians and Lone Ranger Marriages smack of a
self sufficiency that the I don't see in the NT.  Does anyone
see the Paul Simon "I am a rock, I am an island..." model anywhere
in Christianity. (Song lyrics show your age :-) ) ?

Further, since marriage is a legal matter/institution in the USA
and many other places, and such laws do not specifically go
crosswise to the clear teachings of Scripture, we ought to
obey them to avoid even the appearance of "evil" (I Thess 5:22)

So this would imply at least a civil ceremony before marriage,
but keep in mind we are at least doing all of this for the 
conscience of others because back to the beginning...you are
married when you and your intended promise each other and God
to be in convenant. (IMO)

What ch'all think ?

Bobby - akgua!rjb

[In some states, the kind of commitment described in Richard Szanto's
posting can create a common law marriage.  Indeed his posting itself
might go a long way towards establishing that a marriage exists,
should the issue ever end up in court.  He might want to consult a
lawyer who is familiar with common law marriage in his state.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20714
From: bluelobster+@cmu.edu (David O Hunt)
Subject: Re: Serbian genocide Work of God?

On 23-Apr-93 in Serbian genocide Work of God?
user James Sledd@ssdc.sas.upe writes:
>Are the governments of the United States and Europe not moving
>to end the ethnic cleansing by the Serbs because the targets are
>muslims?

Bingo - that and there's no oil there.

On 23-Apr-93 in Serbian genocide Work of God?
user James Sledd@ssdc.sas.upe writes:
>Are the Serbs doing the work of God?  Hmm...

If this is the "work of god" then I'm doubly glad that I don't worship him.



David Hunt - Graduate Slave |     My mind is my own.      | Towards both a
Mechanical Engineering      | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and
Carnegie Mellon University  | <<<Use Golden Rule v2.0>>>  | Jewish homeland!
====T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=========T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=====
Email:  bluelobster+@cmu.edu    Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper"

It will be a great day when scientists and engineers have all the R&D money
they need and religions have to beg for money to pay the priest.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20715
From: caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

(Dean and I write lots and lots about absolute truth and arrogance.)

vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.) writes:
> I strongly suspect that we are reaching an impasse here, which is why I
> deign from commenting much further.

I agree that we'll probably never agree, and I'm starting to feel 
frustrated, and I'm tired of having my conversations with my husband 
dominated by this topic (just kidding, :-)).

I do have to say, though, that participating in this discussion has been
a good learning experience for me.  My views on this topic have evolved
and clarified through this, and I suspect that we may not disagree as 
much as we think. 

I admit that I'm strongly prejudiced against evangelical Christianity,
and I may not always be rational in my reactions to it.  I grew up
in EC, and went to an EC college.  It was definitely the wrong place
for me, and I react strongly to any implication that EC or conservative
Christianity has any sort of stronghold on true Christianity.  I shudder 
when I remember the condescending attitude I had about other Christians 
who didn't adhere to the EC model.

I have come to see that my real objection to this whole notion of 
absolute truth is the actions I have seen it lead to.  I have had some 
very bad experiences with evangelical Christians claiming to know the 
truth, and judging me or others based on their belief that they have 
the answers.  Knowing the truth doesn't seem to leave a whole lot of 
room for others' opinions.

I can accept your belief in absolute truth as long as you* don't try to 
use that belief to try to force others to comply with it, and you are 
very careful that you don't hurt others with it.  Love your neighbor 
seems to go totally out the window when one knows the truth and believes 
that everyone should be living by that truth.  Other people have 
convictions about the truth every bit as strong and sincere as yours, 
based on careful searching, prayer, and their relationship with God.  
Don't dismiss them because God didn't lead them to the same conclusions 
as yours.

*This is not directed personally at you, Dean.

Carol Alvin
caralv@auto-trol.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20716
From: will@futon.webo.dg.com (Will Taber)
Subject: Re: Being right about messiahs

In article 2262@geneva.rutgers.edu, Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca (Desiree Bradley) writes:
> I must have missed the postings about Waco, David Koresh, and the Second
> Coming.  How does one tell if a Second Coming is the real thing, unless the
> person claiming to be IT is obviously insane?

One rule of thumb is that if a person is making the claim, they are
wrong.  I was just reading John 14 this morning (I think that is the
right chapter, anyway it is close and I don't have a Bible at work to
check with.) and in it Jesus is talking to his disciples about his
impending death and he says that he will be going away and then later
he will be with them.  He said something along the lines of "I will
be in you and you will be in me."  (Again I cannot provide the exact
quote or citation.)  Anyway, my understanding of this is that
the Second Coming will not be an outward event.  It is an inward
event, Christ will come to live in our hearts and we will live in him.
If you look for a person you will be deceived.

It seems to me that the Jews had been looking for a Messiah that would
be a political or military leader and so didn't recognize Jesus when
he came.  Jesus tried to show that his Kingdom was not of this earth.
A lot of what I have seen written about the Second Coming seems to
based on an expectation of Christ coming back and finally taking over
the world and running it the way it should be.  It sounds a lot like
what the Jews were looking for.  The First Coming wasn't like that and
I see no reason for the Second Coming to be like that either.

Oh and by the way, I don't expect it to happen once.  There is no one
Second Coming, there are a lot of little ones.  Every time Christ
comes into someones heart, Christ has come again.

Peace,
Will.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
| William Taber         | Will_Taber@dg.com 	  | Any opinions expressed |
| Data General Corp.    | will@futon.webo.dg.com  | are mine alone and may |
| Westboro, Mass. 01580 |                         | change without notice. |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| When all your dreams are laid to rest, you can get what's second best,   |
|	But it's hard to get enough.		David Wilcox               |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20717
From: shd2001@andy.bgsu.edu (Sherlette Dixon)
Subject: Was Jesus Black?

The people who post to this particular newsgroup are either too cowardly,
too arrogant, or too apathetic to discuss this issue since I have yet to
see any discussion grace my computer screen.  While it holds PARTICULAR
interest to the African-American community, everyone has something to gain
from discussing it.  As any knowledgable person should know, Christianity
has been used in this country to tighten the spiritual, emotional, & mental
hold slavery placed on the minds, souls & hearts of African-Americans. 
This was most effectively done by the display of white icons of Jesus in
slave churches to encourage the godly superiority of slaveowners.  It
wasn't enough that the slaveowner was your provider, but he was also your
GOD, to be looked upon with unconditional love & loyalty and to be
worshipped with great pride.  But how culturally & biblically accurate are
these icons?  Pictures & statues of a Black Jesus have been found in
European countries, as that of a Black Madonna.  But what about Biblical
physical descriptions of Jesus, His hair being compared to that of wool,
His feet to that of brass?  And think about the area of the world where all
Biblical actions took place.  I welcome all intelligent commentary on this
important topic; flamers need not reply.

Sherlette 

P.S.  I expect at least THIS type of response:  "It doesn't matter what
color His skin was; His actions & what He did for mankind are what counts."
 This is true; I am not questioning this.  But He walked the earth for 3
decades as a HUMAN; this part of His existence intrigues me.  And as for
saying that "it doesn't matter..."  to a member of a physically emancipated
people who is still struggling for MENTAL emancipation, believe me:  IT
MATTERS.

[The general attack on the members of this group seems unjustified.
There has been discussion of this issue in the past.  We can't discuss
everything at once, so the fact that some specific thing hasn't been
discussed recently shouldn't be taken as a sign of general cowardice,
arrogance or apathy.  In past discussions no one has been outraged by
suggestions that Jesus could be black (and it has been suggested by a
few scholars), but the concensus is that he was most likely Semitic.
As you probably know, there is a tradition that portrayals of Jesus in
art tends to show him as one of the people.  Thus you wouldn't be
surprised to find African art showing him as black, and oriental art
showing him as oriental.  There are good reasons relating to Christian
devotion to think of him in such a way.  It's also good now and then
to have that image challenged, and to think of Jesus as being a member
of XXX, where XXX is the group you least respect.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20718
From: seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."

{Dan Johnson asked for evidence that the most effective abuse 
recovery programs involve meeting people's spiritual needs.

I responded:
 In 12-step programs (like Alcoholics Anonymous), one of the steps
 involves acknowleding a "higher power".  AA and other 12-step abuse-
 recovery programs are acknowledged as being among the most effective.}

Dan Johnson clarified:
>What I was asking is this:
>
>Please show me that the most effective substance-absure recovery
>programs involve meetinsg peoples' spiritual needs, rather than
>merely attempting to fill peoples' spiritual needs as percieved
>by the people, A.A, S.R.C. regulars, or snoopy. 

You are asking me to provide objective proof for the existence of
God.  I never claimed to be able to do this; in fact I do not believe
that it is possible to do so.  I consider the existence of God to
be a premise or assumption that underlies my philosophy of life.
It comes down to a matter of faith.   If I weren't a Christian, I
would be an agnostic, but I have sufficient subjective evidence to
justify and sustain my relationship with God.  Again this is a matter
of premises and assumptions.  I assume that there is more to "life, the
universe and everything" than materialism; ie that spirituality exists.
This assumption answers the question about why I have apparent spiritual
needs.  I find this assumption consistent with my subsequent observat-
ions.  I then find that God fills these spiritual needs.  But I cannot 
objectively prove the difference between apparent filling of imagined 
spiritual needs and real filling of real spiritual needs.  Nor can I
prove to another person that _they_ have spiritual needs.
==
Seanna Watson   Bell-Northern Research,       | Pray that at the end of living,
(seanna@bnr.ca) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada       | Of philosophies and creeds,
                                              | God will find his people busy
Opinion, what opinions? Oh *these* opinions.  | Planting trees and sowing seeds.
No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.          |
I knew I'd left them somewhere.               |  --Fred Kaan

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20719
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Hell_2:  Black Sabbath

In article <Apr.22.00.57.03.1993.2118@geneva.rutgers.edu> jprzybyl@skidmore.edu (jennifer przybylinski) writes:
>I may be wrong, but wasn't Jeff Fenholt part of Black Sabbath? 

Yes, he was.  He also played Jesus in "Jesus Christ Superstar" before 
he became a Christian.  He played in Black Sabbath right after he first 
got saved, but then left it.

Link Hudson.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20720
From: u9126619@athmail1.causeway.qub.ac.uk
Subject: Could anyone answer this question???


	I've heard it said that the accounts we have of Christs life and
ministry in the Gospels were actually written many years after the event.
(About 40 years or so). Is this correct?? If so, why the big time delay??
I know all scripture is inspired of God, so the time of writing is I suppose
un-important, but I still can't help be curious!

---------------------------------------------------
Ivan Thomas Barr 

Contact me at u9126619@athmail1.causeway.qub.ac.uk

[The Gospels aren't dated, so we can only guess.  Luke's prolog is
about the only thing we have from the author describing his process.
The prolog sounds like Luke is from the next generation, and had to do
some investigating.  There are traditions passed down verbally that
say a few things about the composition of the Gospels.  There are
debates about how reliable these traditions are.  They certainly don't
have the status of Scripture, yet scholars tend to take some of them
seriously.  One suggests that Mark was based on Peter's sermons, and
was written to preserve them when Peter had died or way about to die.
One tradition about Matthew suggests that a collection of Jesus words
may have been made earlier than the current Gospels.  

In the ancient world, it was much more common to rely on verbal
transmission of information.  I think many people would have preferred
to hear about Jesus directly from someone who had known him, and maybe
even from someone who studied directly under such a person, rather
than from a book.  Thus I suspect that the Gospels are largely from a
period when these people were beginning to die.  Scholars generally do
think there was some written material earlier, which was probably used
as sources for the existing Gospels.

Establishing the dates is a complex and technical business.  I have to
confess that I'm not sure how much reliance I'd put on the methods
used.  But it's common to think that Mark was written first, around 64
AD., and that all of the Gospels were written by the end of the
Century.  A few people vary this by a decade or so one way or the
other.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20721
From: bassili@cs.arizona.edu (Amgad Z. Bassili)
Subject: Copt-Net Newsletter[4]

This is to let you know that the fourth issue of the Copt-Net Newsletter 
has been issued. The highlights of this issue include:


 1. Easter Greating: Christ is risen; Truly he is risen!
 2. The Holy Family in Egypt (part 1)
 3. Anba Abraam, the Friend of the Poor (part 4)
 4. A review of the Coptic Encyclopedia
 5. A new Dictionary of the Coptic Language


This Newsletter has been prepared by  members  of  Copt-Net,  a  forum
where news, activities, and services of  the  Coptic Orthodox Churches
and  Coptic communities outside Egypt are coordinated  and  exchanged.
If you want your name to be included in the mailing  list, or have any  
questions please contact Nabil Ayoub at <ayoub@erctitan.me.wisc.edu>.

Copt-Net Editorial Board

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20722
From: robp@landru.network.com (Rob Peglar)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

In article 1373@geneva.rutgers.edu, parkin@Eng.Sun.COM (Michael Parkin) writes:
>Another issue of importance.  Was the crucification the will of God or
>a tragic mistake.  I believe it was a tragic mistake.  God's will can
>never be accomplished through the disbelief of man.

I finished reading a very good book, "The Will of God", Weatherhead.
This was very helpful to me in applying thought to the subject of the
will of God.

Weatherhead broke the will of God into three distinct parts;
intentional will, circumstancial will, and ultimate will.  He
(Weatherhead) also refuted the last statement (above) by Michael
Parkin above quite nicely.

Summarizing; _despite_ the failures of humankind, God's ultimate will
is never to be defeated.  God's intentions may be interfered with,
even temporarily defeated by the will of humankind, brought down by
circumstance.  His ultimate will (the reconcilication of all
humankind) will never be stopped.

Time after time, Weatherhead used the Cross as the best description of
this process at work.  His points, paraphrased, were 1) God's
intentional will was for Jesus, the Christ, to live out a full life
and perform the work of the Living God.  2) The failures, sins, and
deviousness of humankind frustrated God's intent for His Son.  3)
Despite the circumstance, God's ultimate will was revealed in the
Cross, as Jesus willingly ("not my will, Lord, but yours") died for
the redemption of all humankind.  The Cross was utterly triumphant,
overcoming even the most cruel of circumstances.

>this world to build the kingdom of heaven on the earth.  He
>desperately wanted the Jewish people to accept him as the Messiah.  If
>the crucification was the will of God how could Jesus pray that this
>cup pass from him.  Was this out of weakness.  NEVER.  Many men and
>women have given their lives for their country or other noble causes.
>Is Jesus less than these.  No he is not.  He knew the crucification
>was NOT the will of GOD. 

It was not the intentional will of God.  It was the circumstancial
will, thus enabling the victory of the ultimate will.


> God's will was that the Jewish people accept
>Jesus as the Messiah and that the kingdom of Heaven be established on
>the earth with Jesus as it's head. 

Right, intentional will.

(Just like the Jewish people
>expected). If this had happened 2000 years ago can you imagine what
>kind of world we would live in today.  It would be a very different
>world.  And that is eactly what GOD wanted.  Men and women of that age
>could have been saved by following the living Messiah while he was on
>the earth.  Jesus could have established a sinless lineage that would
>have continued his reign after his ascension to the spiritual world to
>live with GOD.  Now the kingdom of heaven on the earth will have to
>wait for Christ's return.  But when he returns will he be recognized
>and will he find faith on this earth.  Isn't it about time for his
>return.  It's been almost 2000 years.

We know neither the time nor the place.  He will return as a thief in the night.

Peace.

Rob

---
-legal mumbo jumbo follows-
This mail/post only reflects the opinions of the poster (author), 
and in no manner reflects any corporate policy, statement, opinion,
or other expression by Network Systems Corporation.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20723
From: rcfec@westminster.ac.uk (James Holland)
Subject: Re: Help

In article <Apr.21.03.26.51.1993.1379@geneva.rutgers.edu> lmvec@westminster.ac.uk (William Hargreaves) writes:
>Hi everyone, 
>	   I'm a commited Christian that is battling with a problem.  I know
>that romans talks about how we are saved by our faith not our deeds, yet
>hebrews and james say that faith without deeds is useless, saying' You fools,
>do you still think that just believing is enough?'

some deleted

>Now I am of the opinion that you a saved through faith alone (not what you do)
>as taught in Romans, but how can I square up in my mind the teachings of James
>in conjunction with the lukewarm Christian being 'spat-out'
>
>Can anyone help me, this really bothers me.

Dear Will,

I've never replied on this thing before so I hope it gets thru ok.
I had a few thoughts!:

"Faith on its own, if not accompanied by action is dead" - James 2:17

Faith is both belief and action.
If I say that I am a great swimmer but I never go swimming, am I really a
swimmer? and will people believe that I am?
Likewise if I say I'm a Christian but I never talk to God, am I really a
Christian? My faith is demonstrated by my action. The fact that we talk to
God proves we have faith. Satan believes in God but does not follow Him!

In a similar vein, I have recently been challenged by 1John2:3-6
v3 says "We know that we have come to know Him if we obey His commands"
I find this verse quite encouraging as it could imply that 'if we have
come to know Him, then we'll obey His commands' cos He lives within us and
we cannot help but obey what He says.
I tend to feel that as we daily submit ourself to God He will keep changing
us into the likeness of Jesus and His fruit and works will be automatically
produced in our lives.

Hope this helps.

James Holland (rcfec@westminster.ac.uk)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20724
From: dotsonm@dmapub.dma.org (Mark Dotson)
Subject: Re: Hell_2:  Black Sabbath

: I may be wrong, but wasn't Jeff Fenholt part of Black Sabbath?  He's a
: MAJOR brother in Christ now.  He totally changed his life around, and
: he and his wife go on tours singing, witnessing, and spreading the
: gospel for Christ.  I may be wrong about Black Sabbath, but I know he
: was in a similar band if it wasn't that particular group...

   Yes, but Jeff also speaks out against listening to bands like Black
Sabbath. He says they're into all sorts of satanic stuff. I don't know.

                          Mark (dotsonm@dmapub.dma.org)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20725
From: stoney@oyster.smcm.edu (Stanley Toney)
Subject: Re: Am I going to Hell?

In article <Apr.23.02.55.31.1993.3123@geneva.rutgers.edu>  
tbrent@ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes:
> I have stated before that I do not consider myself an atheist, but 
> definitely do not believe in the christian god.  The recent discussion
> about atheists and hell, combined with a post to another group (to the
> effect of 'you will all go to hell') has me interested in the consensus 
> as to how a god might judge men.  As a catholic, I was told that a jew,
> buddhist, etc. might go to heaven, but obviously some people do not
> believe this.  Even more see atheists and pagans (I assume I would be 
> lumped into this category) to be hellbound.  I know you believe only
> god can judge, and I do not ask you to, just for your opinions.
 excellent question timothy. i hpoe the answers you get will be satisfactory  
as we can not understand the mind of god. but to attempt to answer you  
clearly. GOD of the Bible has given us humans relativly little about how he  
intends to judge mankind. the first test is those who have beleived that Jesus  
Christ is the Son of GOD and that his death and resurrection was sufficent to  
serve justice for all the acts we commit that are wrong in the eyes of god,  
the bible calls this sin. for those who die before the end of the world/have  
already died it is more complicated to explain without lapsing in to cliche.
  God must judge people on the baasis of their works in this world. however  
there is no plus and minus system for GOD. he has declared that he can not  
tolerate spiritual imperfection, thus he can only based your worthiness to  
live with him on the wrong in your life. 
  Good people, yes even Christians are going to constantly sin before GOD, The  
Christian hoever thanks GOD that Christ has given his life for his sin's  
penalty. the proscribed punishment for sin is death, just as the proscribed  
punishment for robbery is time in jail. God then cannot ask for anything but  
punishement for those sins. He does not want to condem. the Bible says in John  
3:17, that God did not send his son in to the word to condem it but that  
through him it might be saved." when i realize that i have sinned, and i do  
with painful regularity, i must approach GOD and ask him to not hold thew sin  
against me, i have that right and privlige only because of Christ. as for Jews  
they are promised that they must believe on the Messiah who would come, and  
dis come in Jesus of Nazereth. Muslims, i fear have been given a lie from the  
fater of lies, Satan. They need Christ as do us all.
  for those who don't have that right, in the view of the bible they stand  
olone in their defense. are you going to hell? i can not answer that for you.  
i can only say that perhaps it is eaiser to ask and answer how can i not go to  
Hell? that step is much more rewarding.

stan toney stoney@oyster.smcm.edu
my opinions are my own, you may borrow them

p.s. stay in touch and keep asking questions not just to us but to God as  
well, he listens too.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20726
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?

To recapitulate a bit:

- The essence of marriage is two people's commitment to each other.

- If two people claim to be married "in their hearts" but are not
  willing to have the marriage recognized by church and state, that's
  prima facie evidence that the commitment isn't really there.

- There are obvious situations in which Christian marriage is possible
  without a civil or church wedding: if you're stranded on a desert
  island, or if your state forbids the marriage for an unjust reason
  (e.g., laws against interracial marriage).

- The legal concept of "common-law marriage" is meant to ensure that
  the state will recognize marriages that did not start out with the
  usual ceremony and record-keeping.

- Pastorally, I'm concerned that people should not use "being married
  in God's eyes" as an excuse for living together without a formal wedding.
  One has a duty to have one's marriage properly recorded and witnessed.
  
- But there are also people who have been through a wedding ceremony
  without making a genuine commitment, and therefore are not married
  in God's eyes.  Right?
-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

[I think the last statement is dangerous.  I believe as long as
someone has formally undertaken the responsibility of marriage, they
have a moral obligation, even if their intention was not right.  Other
people are involved in the marriage covenant.  If they believed in
good faith that a marriage occurred, then I think there are
obligations created to them.  Of course there are situations where
intent can cause a marriage not to exist.  The classic example is when
it's done as part of a play.  But these are exceptions, and should be
clear to all parties.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20727
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Re: Assurance of Hell

In a previous article, lfoard@hopper.virginia.edu (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>
>> did you know that Jesus talked more
>> about hell than He did about heaven!  
> 
> Thank you for this info.  What respect I had for the man now
>      has been diminished tenfold.  I promise never again to
>      say how wise or loving this man was...

I have a hard time understanding this attitude.

If the gospels are the least bit accurate, then there can be little
doubt that Jesus belived hell was a reality.

As a teacher, what would be the wise and loving thing to do if people
in your audience were headed there?  To warn them!  It would, however, 
be rather cruel and/or sadistic to believe that such a place exists 
and then remain quiet about it.  

The only scenario I can envision in which dimished respect would be
justified is if Jesus knew there was no such place as hell, and spoke
about it anyway, just to scare people. Unless you would accuse Jesus
of this, I would encourage you to reconsider what a loving response 
is when you perceive someone to be in danger. 

---
Dave Weaver                  | "He is no fool who gives what
weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com   |  he cannot keep to gain what he
                             |  cannot lose." - Jim Elliot (1949)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20728
From: revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille)
Subject: Re: Serbian genocide Work of God?

James Sledd (jsledd@ssdc.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: Are the Serbs doing the work of God?  Hmm...

: I've been wondering if anyone would ever ask the question,

: Are the governments of the United States and Europe not moving
: to end the ethnic cleansing by the Serbs because the targets are
: muslims?

: Can/Does God use those who are not following him to accomplish
: tasks for him?  Esp those tasks that are punative?

: James Sledd
: no cute sig....  but I'm working on it.

Are you suggesting that God supports genocide?
Perhaps the Germans were "punishing" Jews on God's behalf?

Any God who works that way is indescribably evil, and unworthy of
my worship or faith.

revdak@netcom.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20729
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (boundary, the catechist)
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell

>>"We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the
>>life of the world to come."  - Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

>I always took the 'resurrection' in this statement to mean the
>resurrection of the soul, but I guess resurrection does strictly mean
>the raising of the physical body.  I have some questions on this point:

The next time you go to church, you can check the better creed, that is,
the Apostles' Creed.  It says: "the resurrection of the body."  Should
have learned that on the first go around.  But what's a body without 
a little bit a'soul? 

>1.  I always thought that Christians believe the descent into hell was 
>pretty much immediate, and that there are people burning in hell right
>now. Where will my "soul" 
>(which, by the way, I don't believe in) exist until that time?

At the risk of offending everybody, I will interject the 13th century
point of view.  Christ descended immediately into the bosom of Abraham
to set captives captive.  He preached to the saved for three days before
drawing them with Him back to this earth.  I'm no expert on this part,
but Matthew (27:52-53) says about the death of Jesus: "tombs were opened,
and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised.  And
coming forth from the tombs after his resurrection, they entered the
holy city and appeared to many."  (NAB)  Regarding the hell of the
damned, of which you speak, Christ did not see it (Ps 16:10, Acts 2:27),
although it saw Him (cf. Is 45:2).  

Concerning the abodes of the dead, I don't want to subject my brethren
to further anguish, so I will direct you to contact me through e-mail
if you are genuinely concerned. 

>2.  Will the new body I will have be created out of the same atoms 
>that my body now is made of, or will it be built from scratch? 

Your new body might be something like Adam's before his fateful encounter
with the Just One (Acts 7:52, CR trans. Vulgate): filled with infused
knowledge, absent of concupiscence, and immortal.  It would probably be
a little glorified, too.

>3.  Since I will have a physical body, I assume it will need a physical
>place to exist in -- where is this hell?  In the center of the earth?
>Do you think we could find it if we dig?

I wouldn't recommend it.  It's really hot down at the center of the earth!
You know, the normal geothermal gradient, and all that.
  
Regards.

-- 
boundary, the catechist 

no teneis que pensar que yo haya venido a traer la paz a la tierra; no he
venido a traer la paz, sino la guerra (Mateo 10:34, Vulgata Latina) 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20730
From: phs431d@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article <Apr.19.05.11.41.1993.29112@athos.rutgers.edu>, aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker) writes:

> I am asking you to believe in things not visible. I don't know if this is >
believeing blindly or not. I'm not sure how blindness comes into it. I do > not
deny reason, indeed I insist upon it, but reason only draws conclusions > from
evidence. If you decide in advance that your reason will act only on > the
evidence of the five physical senses, then you cut reason off from any >
possibility of reaching a conclusion outside the physical sphere (beyond the >
rather provocative, if inconclusive, conclusion that the physical sphere > is
not self explanatory). 

So your are saying to rely on our feelings and experiences (since
this is the only other source of information left to us).
How can you then convince somebody that your "feelings and experiences"
are the correct ones then if you can't show somebody visible and
measurable effects?  If my experiences say that "there exists no god"
and yours says there does, where does that leave us?  Since we are only
going on experiences, then both of us are correct within our own personal
realities.

Furthermore, the trouble with "feelings and experiences" is that they
can lead you astray, as the tragic outcome of Waco illustrates.  I
am sure that many of Koresh's followers really believed in him but
I think that you and I will agree that they were being misled.

Finally, how on earth do you come to the conclusion that the physical
sphere is not self-explanatory when you only rely on the five senses?

> Christians claim that they have received a different kind of evidence, 
> which they call faith, and which is a gift of God. That is, this evidence
> is the evidence of a thing which chooses to reveal or hide itself. The 
> evidence of the senses cannot tell you is such a ting exists. Reasoning
> on the evidence of the senses won't help either. But Christians do reason
> of the evidence of faith, and do claim that this evidence is wholly
> consistent with the evidence of the other senses, and indeed, that the
> evidence of these other senses is part of God's revelation of himself
> to us.

You must be using a definition of "evidence" that I am not familiar with.
To me, evidence is something you can show others -unambiguously- that
what you are saying is true.

However, I agree with you that belief in a diety is a matter of faith.
It is not something you can share around - others must experience it
independantly.  Unfortunately, as I have explained above, this puts
belief down to a matter of experience.  My impression is that Christians
do not have the monopoly on reason, evidence and faith as far as any of
these things can go.

> In a previous article, phs431d@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au () says:
> 
>>You are right that science and reason cannot PROVE anything.  However, if
>>we do not use them we can only then believe on FAITH alone.  And since
>>we can only use faith, why is one picture of "God" (e.g. Hinduism) any less
>>valid than another (e.g. Christianity)?
>>
> Faith, as I have said, is not opposed to reason, it is simply a new source 
> of evidence on which reason may operate. It is clear that human beings
> have many systems for explaining the evidence of the physical senses, and
> similarly there are many systems for explaining the evidence provided by
> faith. Religious believers in general, and Christians in particular, use
> reason to help sift through the evidence to come to a clearer understanding
> of the evidence provided by faith. Science claims, with good reason, to be
> the most valid system for explaining the physical universe, and Christianity
> claims, also with good reason, to be the most valid system, possessed of the
> best evidence, for explaining Gods revelations of himself to man.

At the risk of repeating my argument : As I have explained previously, 
the trouble is that Moslems, Buddhists, Jews, etc will ALL say that THEY
claim, with good reason, to be a valid system, possessed of the best
evidence, for explaining Gods revelations to man (for Buddhists it
should read "for explaining the non-existence of God").  So not only
must you "prove" your own case, you have to "disprove" theirs.

(alt.messianic is a good place to see people strong in the belief
of their own faiths ... and with their own good reasons)

> If you doubt that Christians use reason, read this newsgroup for a while
> and you will see rational debate aplenty.

I know that ALL people can use reason ... I never claimed that they don't.
I just wish to make sure that their arguments are well-founded.  It goes
without saying that if I make a blunder that I expect people to correct
me.  Once we have all gone through this process of removing the 
non-essential and contradictory bits, we should (hopefully) have made
some progress towards the truth.

> -- 
> ==============================================================================
> Mark Baker                  | "The task ... is not to cut down jungles, but 
> aa888@Freenet.carleton.ca   | to irrigate deserts." -- C. S. Lewis
> ==============================================================================

-- 
Don Lowe, Department of Physics, Monash University, 
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 3168.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20731
From: ss6349@csc.albany.edu (Steven H. Schimmrich)
Subject: Looking for Christians in Urbana, Illinois...


   I apologize if this post isn't entirely appropriate for the newsgroup.

   I would like to correspond with any Christians attending the University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.  I will be transfering there in August to
complete my Ph.D. and I thought it would be nice to correspond with people
before I moved out.

--
Steven H. Schimmrich     Department of Geological Sciences         "Non semper
ss6349@csc.albany.edu    State University of New York at Albany   ea sunt quae
ss6349@albnyvms.bitnet   Albany, New York 12222  (518) 442-4466   videntur."

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20732
From: XOPR131@maccvm.corp.mot.com (Gerald McPherson)
Subject: Re: Am I going to Hell?

In <Apr.23.02.55.31.1993.3123@geneva.rutgers.edu>
Tim asks:

>I have stated before that I do not consider myself an atheist, but
>definitely do not believe in the christian god.  The recent discussion
>about atheists and hell, combined with a post to another group (to the
>effect of 'you will all go to hell') has me interested in the consensus
>as to how a god might judge men.  As a catholic, I was told that a jew,
>buddhist, etc. might go to heaven, but obviously some people do not
>believe this.  Even more see atheists and pagans (I assume I would be
>lumped into this category) to be hellbound.  I know you believe only
>god can judge, and I do not ask you to, just for your opinions.
>
   This is probably too simplistic for some, but John 3:16 saus,
   "For God so loved the world that He gave His only son, that
   whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life".

   Genesis 15:6, "And he (Abram) believed the LORD; and He reckoned
   it to him as righteousness".

   I don't find anywhere that God restricts heaven to particular
   ethnic groups or religious denominations or any other category
   that we humans like to drop people into. But He does REQUIRE
   that we believe and trust Him. In Hebrews it says that God spoke
   of old by the prophets (the old testament), but in these last days
   he has spoken to us by His son Jesus Christ. And we learn of
   Him through the pages of the New Testament. The Bible tells us
   what we need to believe. For those who have never heard, I leave
   them in God's capable care, He will make himself known as he
   desires. It behooves each one of us to act upon the knowledge
   we have. If you reject the claims of Jesus, and still go to
   heaven, then the joke's on me. If you reject him and go to hell,
   that's no joke, but it will be final.


   Gerry

 ============================
   The opinions expressed
   are not necessarily those
   of my employer.
 ============================

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20733
From: max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb)
Subject: Re: Atheist's views on Christianity (was: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")

In article <Apr.14.03.08.08.1993.5448@athos.rutgers.edu> jasons@atlastele.com (Jason Smith) writes:

>One of the Laws of Nature, specifying cause and effect seems to dictate 
>(at least to this layman's mind) there must be a causal event.  No
>reasonable alternative exists.

The big-bang model supposes a temporal singularity at the point of
origin. There was _no_ time for a prior cause to occur in. If you
want to invent fables for the surrounding context, fine, but one fable
is only as good as any other. Why should I prefer to believe in a God that
_just_ exists, as opposed to a singularity that _just happened_, or 
giant puce subspace iguanas, that fling universes off their tongues
like gobs of spit?

|As far as I can tell, the very laws of nature demand a "why".  That isn't
|true of something outside of nature (i.e., *super*natural).

>I believe the "genetic code" will be entirely deciphered in our lifetimes,
>but we will not see man convert entirely inert material into self sustaining, 
>reproducing life, *ever*.  (I've never been much of a prophet, though. I
>can't even *picture* New York in my mind 8^] ).  I don't believe *any*
>technology would be able to produce that necessary *spark* of life, despite
>having all of the parts available. Just my opinion.

Just your opinion, and unfortunately wrong. Self assembling molecules
have already been produced, entirely from inert matter, and have
spontaneously mutated into a more rapidly assembling form on exposure
to ultraviolet light. Both abiogenesis and the beginnings of evolution,
TODAY. (saw this in "Nature", early last year.)

Biological vitalism is dead, and has been dead for many, many years.
Give it up. Life is not a 'spark'. Life is the self-organization
of systems poised between chaos and order.

>Until the King returns,
>
>Jason

Your King baldly and repeatedly stated he would be back within the lifetime
of some then present and alive. "Soon, soon" he said, over and over - as
have many would be messiahs.

It is Nineteen Ninety Three
	of Years Anno Domini
Tell me, Tell me, where is He?
	Nowhere at all, Q. E. D.

	Max G. Webb

[I should have watched this more closely.  We had a discussion about
the first cause, etc., not long ago.  I'm not up for a replay.
There was also a detailed discussion of the point Max brings up
here about the initial singularity.  The geometry near the big bang
is very interesting.  Time turns into space, so there is no "before".
--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20734
From: u2i02@seq1.cc.keele.ac.uk (RJ Pomeroy)
Subject: Re: Losing your temper is not a Christian trait

From article <Apr.15.00.58.22.1993.28891@athos.rutgers.edu>, by ruthless@panix.com (Ruth Ditucci):
> Coming from a long line of "hot tempered" people, I know temper when I see
> it.  One of the tell tale signs/fruits that give non-christians away - is
> when their net replies are acrid, angry and sarcastic.  

I do hope that you are not suggesting that merely because a person
replies in an "acrid, angry and sarcastic" manner that this
demonstrates their 'non-christianity'?  The simple fact is that there
is not a Christian on the face of the planet (that I know of!) that is
perfect.  I have been known at times to have a fit of temper, or a
sulk, but this does not make me any the less a Christian.

One of the points of being a Christian (as I perceive it) is to become
MORE LIKE Christ.  This statement inherently suggests that we ARE NOT
already like Christ.  Jesus never unrighteously lost his temper.  I
do.  Jesus was perfect.  I'm not.

> We in the net village do have a laugh or two when professed, born again
> christians verbally attack people who might otherwise have been won to
> christianity and had originally joined the discussions because they were
> "spiritually hungry."  Instead of answering questions with sweetness and
> sincerity, these chrisitan net-warriors, "flame" the queries. 

You must understand that this is because Christians often forget to
treat others as our role-model - Christ - would.  This is because we are
human and falible.  I, for one, do not pretend to be infalible, and I
hope that my fellow-men will bear with me when I make mistakes.  This
surely is not too much to ask, when I make every effort to bear with
_them_.


> You don't need any enemies.  You already do yourselves the greatest harm.

And don't we know it!

> Again I say, foolish, foolish, foolish.

Again I say, we are ALL human!

To my brethren, this:  

Ms Duticci has a valid point and we as Christians ought to heed the
warning in her article.  We oftimes discredit ourselves and our
Saviour, in the way that we treat others.  Strive towards the goal set
us by our Lord, but in the meantime, remember :

     "There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ..."

When you blow it - go easy on yourself.  Forgive yourself, as your
Father in heaven forgives you!  And remember - and this is something I
firmly beieve and cling to - one day, we shall see Him face to face,
and in that day, we shall (finally!) be perfected.  

I look forward to seeing you there.


     RRRRR        OO       BBBBB          :
     R    R     OO  OO     B    B         :
     R     R   OO    OO    B    BB        :          Robert Pomeroy
     R   RR    O      O    B    B         :
     RRRR      O      O    BBBBB          :    u2i02@teach.cs.keele.ac.uk
     R  R      O      O    B    B         :
     R   R     OO    OO    B    BB        :              1993
     R    R     OO  OO     B    B         :
     R     R      OO       BBBBB          :


PS  If you want to draw anything to my attention, then please mail me
direct, because I don't often read the news...

PPS  If I have offended anyone with this article, I beg your
forgiveness, in advance!

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20735
From: jono@mac-ak-24.rtsg.mot.com (Jon Ogden)
Subject: Re: Hell_2:  Black Sabbath

In article <Apr.23.02.54.12.1993.3063@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
salaris@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrabbits) wrote:

> Jeff Fenholt claims to have once been a roadie for Black Sabbath.
> He was never ever a musician in the band.  He was in St. Louis several
> months back.  The poster I saw at the Christian bookstore I frequent
> really turned me off.  It was addressed to all "Homosexuals, prostitutes,
> drug addicts, alcoholics, and headbangers..." or something like that.
> 
> Well, if I showed up with my long hair and black leather jacket I
> would have felt a little pre-judged. 

I have seen Jeff Fenholt speak and I didn't find him judgemental.  I think
that the wording for that add was certainly inappropriate, but I think they
were trying to say that headbangers would like the program.  But I would
NOT put headbangers in the same class as alcholics, etc.  it is
condescending.  And I believe that Jeff was wearing black when I saw him.

By the way, Fenholt played Jesus in Jesus Christ Superstar.

Personally, I'm a headbanger at times too, but I have a hard time with what
most of the secular metal groups promote.  Free sex and drugs (my opinion
that many promote these) aren't my thing.  I HAVE found several good
Christian metal groups that I like.


Jon

------------------------------------------------
Jon Ogden         - jono@mac-ak-24.rtsg.mot.com
Motorola Cellular - Advanced Products Division
Voice: 708-632-2521      Data: 708-632-6086
------------------------------------------------

They drew a circle and shut him out.
Heretic, Rebel, a thing to flout.
But Love and I had the wit to win;
We drew a circle and took him in.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20736
From: jono@mac-ak-24.rtsg.mot.com (Jon Ogden)
Subject: Re: Losing your temper is not a Christian trait

In article <Apr.23.02.55.47.1993.3138@geneva.rutgers.edu>, jcj@tellabs.com
(jcj) wrote:

> I'd like to remind people of the withering of the fig tree and Jesus
> driving the money changers et. al. out of the temple.  I think those
> were two instances of Christ showing anger (as part of His human side).
> 
Yes, and what about Paul saying:

26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:
(Ephesians 4:26).

Obviously then, we can be angry w/o sinning.

Jon

------------------------------------------------
Jon Ogden         - jono@mac-ak-24.rtsg.mot.com
Motorola Cellular - Advanced Products Division
Voice: 708-632-2521      Data: 708-632-6086
------------------------------------------------

They drew a circle and shut him out.
Heretic, Rebel, a thing to flout.
But Love and I had the wit to win;
We drew a circle and took him in.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20737
From: djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson)
Subject: Re: harrassed at work, could use some prayers

(Well, I'll email also, but this may apply to other people, so
I'll post also.)

>I've been working at this company for eight years in various
>engineering jobs.  I'm female.  Yesterday I counted and realized that
>on seven different occasions I've been sexually harrassed at this
>company.

>I dreaded coming back to work today.  What if my boss comes in to ask
>me some kind of question...

Your boss should be the person bring these problems to.  If he/she
does not seem to take any action, keep going up higher and higher.
Sexual harrassment does not need to be tolerated, and it can be an
enormous emotional support to discuss this with someone and know that
they are trying to do something about it.  If you feel you can not
discuss this with your boss, perhaps your company has a personnel
department that can work for you while preserving your privacy.  Most
companies will want to deal with this problem because constant anxiety
does seriously affect how effectively employees do their jobs.

It is unclear from your letter if you have done this or not.  It is
not inconceivable that management remains ignorant of employee
problems/strife even after eight years (it's a miracle if they do
notice).  Perhaps your manager did not bring to the attention of
higher ups?  If the company indeed does seem to want to ignore the
entire problem, there may be a state agency willing to fight with
you.  (check with a lawyer, a women's resource center, etc to find out)

You may also want to discuss this with your paster, priest, husband,
etc.  That is, someone you know will not be judgemental and that is
supportive, comforting, etc.  This will bring a lot of healing.

>So I returned at 11:25, only to find that ever single
>person had already left for lunch.  They left at 11:15 or so.  No one
>could be bothered to call me at the other building, even though my
>number was posted.

This happens to a lot of people.  Honest.  I believe it may seem
to be due to gross insensitivity because of the feelings you are
going through.  People in offices tend to be more insensitive while
working than they normally are (maybe it's the hustle or stress or...)
I've had this happen to me a lot, often because they didn't realize
my car was broken, etc.  Then they will come back and wonder why I
didn't want to go (this would tend to make me stop being angry at
being ignored and make me laugh).  Once, we went off without our
boss, who was paying for the lunch :-)

>For this
>reason I hope good Mr. Moderator allows me this latest indulgence.

Well, if you can't turn to the computer for support, what would
we do?  (signs of the computer age :-)

In closing, please don't let the hateful actions of a single person
harm you.  They are doing it because they are still the playground
bully and enjoy seeing the hurt they cause.  And you should not
accept the opinions of an imbecile that you are worthless - much
wiser people hold you in great esteem.
-- 
Darin Johnson
djohnson@ucsd.edu
  - Luxury!  In MY day, we had to make do with 5 bytes of swap...

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20738
From: gchin@ssf.Eng.Sun.COM (Gary Chin)
Subject: Christians that are not church members

Over the years, I have met Christians who are not associated with
any local church and are not members of any local church. This is
an issue that may be very personal, but is important.  What does
the Bible say about this and how can we encourage our friends with
regard to this issue?

|-------------------|
| Gary Chin         |
| Staff Engineer    |
| Sun Microsystems  |
| Mt. View, CA      |
| gchin@Eng.Sun.Com |
|-------------------|

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20739
From: khan0095@nova.gmi.edu (Mohammad Razi Khan)
Subject: Re: Am I going to Hell?

tbrent@ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes:

>I have stated before that I do not consider myself an atheist, but 
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So you believe in the existance of One creator I assume.


>definitely do not believe in the christian god.  The recent discussion
>about atheists and hell, combined with a post to another group (to the
>effect of 'you will all go to hell') has me interested in the consensus 
>as to how a god might judge men.  As a catholic, I was told that a jew,
>buddhist, etc. might go to heaven, but obviously some people do not
>believe this.  Even more see atheists and pagans (I assume I would be 
>lumped into this category) to be hellbound.  I know you believe only
>god can judge, and I do not ask you to, just for your opinions.

Ok, god has the disclaimer, reserves the right to judge individual
cases.  If we believe him to be loving, then we also believe him to be
able to serve justice to all.  Don't worry if a Jew, or athiest is
going to heaven or hell, for that is god to judge (although truly
if you were concerned you could only worry abput those who refuse to
believe/satisfy gods decrees) as much as keeping yourself straight.
If you see something going on that is wrong, discuss it and explore it
before making summary judgement.  People have enough free will to choose
for themselves, so don't force choices on them, just inform them
of what they're choices are.  God will take care of the rest in his justice.

>Thanks,
>-Tim
--
Mohammad R. Khan                /    khan0095@nova.gmi.edu
After July '93, please send mail to  mkhan@nyx.cs.du.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20740
From: khan0095@nova.gmi.edu (Mohammad Razi Khan)
Subject: Re: Bible Unsuitable for New Christians

news@cbnewsk.att.com writes:

>True.

>Also read 2 Peter 3:16

>Peter warns that the scriptures are often hard to understand by those who
>are not learned on the subject.

Where do insparations/Miracles fit in?  I was a new reader to the bible
and Qu'ran at the same time in my life and I can tell you that I would 
have drifted in my faith if Those books were not exposed to me.



>Joe Moore
--
Mohammad R. Khan                /    khan0095@nova.gmi.edu
After July '93, please send mail to  mkhan@nyx.cs.du.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20741
From: lmvec@westminster.ac.uk (William Hargreaves)
Subject: Re: Help

: > 	   I'm a commited Christian that is battling with a problem.  I know
: > that romans talks about how we are saved by our faith not our deeds, yet
: > hebrews and james say that faith without deeds is useless, saying' You fools,
: > do you still think that just believing is enough?'
: 
: [Stuff deleted]
:  
: > Now I am of the opinion that you a saved through faith alone (not what you do)
: > as taught in Romans, but how can I square up in my mind the teachings of James
: > in conjunction with the lukewarm Christian being 'spat-out'
: > 
: > Can anyone help me, this really bothers me.
: 

I have received tons of mail from people replying to this article I wrote, and
I would just like to thank everyone who took the time to give me a hand.  It
has indeed helped me and re-affirmed alot of theories that I held but was a
little unsure about.

God bless you all

Will 
-- 
============================================
| Dallas Cowboys - World Champions 1992-93 |
============================================

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20742
From: scott@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Scott Shalkowski)
Subject: Re: Doing the work of God??!!)

Desiree Bradley (Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca) wrote:

<. . ..

: The next Sunday, the sermon was about Joshua 6 (where the Israelites
: take Jericho and then proceed to massacre everybody there --- except
: for Rahab, who had sheltered the spies).  With those reports about
: Bosnia in my mind, I felt uncomfortable about the minister saying that
: the massacre (the one in Joshua) was right.  But what really bothered
: me was that, if I was going to try taking Christianity seriously, I
: shouldn't be so troubled about the reports of "ethnic cleansing" in
: Bosnia.  Certainly, my sympathies shouldn't be with the Moslims.
: Considering that the Bosnian Muslims are descendants of Christians
: who, under Turkish rule, converted to Islam could the Serbs be doing
: God's work?

Perhaps it would be useful to ask whether those doing the ethnic
cleansing could be said to be loving those they are killing in the very
act of killing.  Does it reflect the attitude of God, who sends rain to
both the just and the unjust?  If not, then Christians should be
uncomfortable with it.  Jesus gave his followers the law of love to
follow and it is by exhibiting this that disciples will be known. 
Doctrinal (or political) correctness is not the standard, so I don't see
why Christians should be moved against the Serbs because their ancestors
converted from Christianity to Islam.  It seems to me that as a
Christian you _should_ be troubled by the ethnic cleansing.
--


Peace,
Scott Shalkowski                            scott@arts.uwa.edu.au

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20743
From: gchin@ssf.Eng.Sun.COM (Gary Chin)
Subject: National Day of Prayer,5/6/93

This is an annual time of prayer organized by the Focus on the Family
organization.  If you have not heard about it on your Christian radio
station or at your local church, call them and they may be able to
give you the information.

Many cities in the San Francisco bay area have local coordinators
organizing the time and the place to meet to pray.  In San Francisco,
Oakland, Berkeley, San Jose, people will be meeting at ~12:15pm at
each city's City Hall.

Last year, I attended at the Mountain View city hall.  It was a very
quiet and meaningful time of prayer.

|-------------------|
| Gary Chin         |
| Staff Engineer    |
| Sun Microsystems  |
| Mt. View, CA      |
| gchin@Eng.Sun.Com |
|-------------------|

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20744
From: MANDTBACKA@finabo.abo.fi (Mats Andtbacka)
Subject: Re: Hell_2: Black Sabbath

In <Apr.22.00.57.03.1993.2118@geneva.rutgers.edu> jprzybyl@skidmore.edu writes:

> I may be wrong, but wasn't Jeff Fenholt part of Black Sabbath?  He's a
> MAJOR brother in Christ now.  He totally changed his life around, and

      Why should he have been any different "then"? Ozzy Osbourne,
ex-singer and main character of the Black Sabbath of good ole days past,
is and always was a devout catholic. Or so I've heard over on the
alt.rock-n-roll.metal newsgroups, an' I figure those folks oughta know..

-- 
  Disclaimer?   "It's great to be young and insane!"

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20745
From: ide!twelker@uunet.uu.net (Steve Twelker)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

>	Why do we follow God so blindly?  Have you ever asked a
>physically blind person why he or she follows a seeing eye dog?
>The answer is quite simple--the dog can see, and the blind person
>cannot.
...
>	Of course, you may ask, if I cannot trust my own senses,
>how do I know whether what I see and hear about God is truth or
>a lie.  That is why we need faith to be saved.  We must force
>ourselves to believe that God knows the truth, and loves us
>enough to share it with us, even when it defies what we think
>we know.  Why would He have created us if He did not love us 
>enough to help us through this world?


Seems to me if you learned to differentiate between illusion and
reality on your own you wouldn't need to rely on doctrines that
need to be updated.  My experience of Christianity (25+ years) is
that most Christians seek answers from clergymen who have little
or no direct experience of spiritual matters, and that most of
these questions can be answered by simple introspection.  Most
people suspect that they cannot trust their senses, but few take
the next step to figure out that they can trust themselves.  Not to
get too esoteric, but it seems that most religions, Christianity
included, are founded by particularly intuitive people who understand
this.

(stuff deleted)

>	As for you, no one can "convert" you.  You must
>choose to follow God of your own will, if you are ever to
>follow Him.  All we as Christians wish to do is share with
>you the love we have received from God.  If you reject that,
>we have to accept your decision, although we always keep
>the offer open to you.  If you really want to find out
>why we believe what we believe, I can only suggest you try
>praying for faith, reading the Bible, and asking Christians
>about their experiences personally....

And what if the original poster, Pixie, is never "converted?"
Does it make sense that she (or I, or the majority of humanity
for that matter) would go to hell for eternity, as many 
Christians believe?  It makes more sense to me that rather
than be converted to a centuries-old doctrine that holds no
life for her, that she simply continue to decide for herself
what is best.  

--------------------------------------------

[You may be right about Christians relying on clergy, but I have some
reason to hope you're not.  Protestants emphasize conversion,
experience of the Holy Spirit, and use of the Bible.  This is intended
to make sure that Christians have religious experience of their own,
and that they have some basis on which to judge claims of clergy and
other Christians.  I can't speak for Catholics and Orthodox, but I
believe they also attempt to avoid having members who simply repeat
what they are told.  I admit that this isn't always successful -- we
certainly see young people join our church because at that age parents
expect it.  But most of our members do seem quite able and willing to
make judgements for themselves, and have a commitment that comes out
of their own experience.  Unfortunately, it's the nature of Usenet
that doctrinal disagreements get emphasized, so it looks like we spend
most of our time dealing with doctrine.  That's certainly not my
experience of the way Christians really live.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20746
From: kramersc@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Kramer)
Subject: Re: Daily Verse

In article <Apr.15.00.58.36.1993.28909@athos.rutgers.edu> Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch) writes:
>How much better to get wisdom than gold, to choose understanding rather
>than silver! 
>
>Proverbs 16:16

Ah and how...??? Amen to that one!!!!!!  Thanks Chuck for sharing...
after all, no one can serve two masters...God and money......
after all, the preciousness of God as Lord and Savior is far more valuable than
being a millionaire will ever be...


In Him,
Scott

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20747
From: nichael@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Subject: Re: Some questions from a new Christian

OFM responds to a query about reference works:

   [Aside from a commentary, you might also want to consider an
   introduction.  These are books intended for use in undergraduate Bible
   courses.  They give historical background, discussion of literary
   styles, etc.  And generally they have good bibligraphies for further
   reading.  I typically recommend Kee, Froehlich and Young's NT
   introduction...

Two other Intros to consider:

The "Introduction" by Ku:mmel is a translation of a strandard NT text.
The references are slightly dated and the style is somewhat dense, but
the book contains a wealth of information.

Perrin and Duling's Intro is also very good.  It's somewhat more
modern than Ku:mmel's but not quite so densely packed.  Also the
authors tend to go through the books of the NT in the historical order
of composition; this gives a very useful perspective on the
development of the NT.

   ... There are also some good one-volume commentaries.  ... Probably the
   best recommendation these days would be Harper's Bible Commentary.

A slight dissent: I think the Harper's is "OK" but not great.  One
particular problem I have is that it tends to be pretty skimpy on
bibliographic material.  My feeling is that it is OK for quick
look-ups, but not real useful for study in depth (e.g. I keep a copy
in my office at work).

   ... (I think there may be a couple of books with this title...

So far as I know there is the only one book with this exact title
(James L Mays, general editor, Harper and ROw, 1988) although I think
I recall a (older) series under the name "Harper Commentaries".  Also
there's a separate Harper's Bible Dictionary (most of my comments on
the HC also apply to the HBD.)

My favorite one-volume commentary is the "New Jerome Biblical
Commentary".  The NJBC is rather Catholic in focus and somewhat biased
towards the NT.  (The reader can decide for her- or himself whether
these are pluses or minuses.)  In any case the scholarship is by and
large excellent.

NOTE: The NJBC is a completely reworked, updated version of the
"Jerome Biblical Commentary", copies of which can still be found on
sale.

Nichael

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20748
From: tsmith@cs.stanford.edu (Todd Michael Smith)
Subject: God-shaped hole (was Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")

In article <Apr.14.03.07.38.1993.5420@athos.rutgers.edu>, johnsd2@rpi.edu (Dan Johnson) writes:

|> >Those who have an empty spot in the God-shaped hole in their hearts must 
|> >do something to ease the pain.
|> 
|> I have heard this claim quite a few times. Does anybody here know
|> who first came up with the "God-shaped hole" business?
|> 

Was it Pascal, or maybe Descartes, who first used this figure of speech? 
I seem to have some vague recollections from reading some of their essays,
but I certainly couldn't say it was one of them for sure.

----
Todd Smith
tsmith@cs.stanford.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20749
From: J.Hale@latrobe.edu.au
Subject: Re: Can sin "block" our prayers?

In article <Apr.7.23.20.24.1993.14263@athos.rutgers.edu>, 
	3225200@qucdn.queensu.ca writes:
> I have heard an interesting notion that sin can "block" our prayers to God,
> i.e. God will not hear our prayers if we have not confessed our sins. Now I am
> totally supportive of confessing our sins before God, but I simply do not
> believe God will "shut us out" just because we did not confess. This is kind of
> like the idea that suffering is caused by sin, which, as any Job reader will
> realize, is too simpilistic.
{rest deleted}

Can the Father possibly not hear the words of His children.
Of course He hears all your prayers.
Whether you are a sinner or a saint, no questions.
The real question you should be asking is: "Does sin block OUR hearing His
answer?" And the answer to that question is a resounding YES.
To paraphrase the gospel "Many are called but few choose to listen"
and so it is with prayer. 


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
_____________________________________________________________________________

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20750
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Subject: Daily Verse

Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of
sins. 

IPeter 4:8

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20751
From: phs431d@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article <Apr.13.00.08.07.1993.28379@athos.rutgers.edu>, aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker) writes:
>  
> [Very good and reasonable statements on "authority" deleted]
> 
> The atheist position seems to be that there are no authorities. This is a
> reasonable assertion in itself, but it leads to a practical difficulty.
> If you reject all authority out of hand, you reject all possibility of
> every receiving information. Thus the atheist position can never possibly
> change. It is non-falsifiable and therefore unscintific. 

This is not true.  The athiest's position is that there is no PROOF of the
existence of God.  As much as some people accept their Church, their priests
or straight from their own scriptures as the "proof", this does not 
satisfy atheists.

Atheists DO believe in recognisable authorities.  If they were as dogmatic as
you claim they are, they would be trying to prove 1 + 1 =2 every time they
got up.  What they dispute is that Churches, priests, scriptures etc.
represent true authorities and know the TRUTH.

> To demand scintific or rational proof of God's existence, is to deny
> God's existence, since neither science, nor reason, can, in their very
> nature, prove anything.

Are you asking us to believe blindly?  You are trying to deny that part of
us that makes us ask the question "Does God exist?" i.e. self-awareness and
reason.  If we do not use our ability to reason we become as ignorant
as the other animals on this earth.  Does God want us to be like that?

You are right that science and reason cannot PROVE anything.  However, if
we do not use them we can only then believe on FAITH alone.  And since
we can only use faith, why is one picture of "God" (e.g. Hinduism) any less
valid than another (e.g. Christianity)?

> ==============================================================================
> Mark Baker                  | "The task ... is not to cut down jungles, but 
> aa888@Freenet.carleton.ca   | to irrigate deserts." -- C. S. Lewis
> ==============================================================================

-- 
Don Lowe, Department of Physics, Monash University, 
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 3168.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20752
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Ancient Books

In article <Apr.14.03.07.58.1993.5438@athos.rutgers.edu>, mayne@ds3.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne) writes:
> In article <Apr.13.00.09.02.1993.28445@athos.rutgers.edu> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>>[Any former atheists converted by argument?}
>>This is an excellent question and I'll be anxious to see if there are
>>any such cases.  I doubt it.  In the medieval period (esp. 10th-cent.
>>when Aquinas flourished) argument was a useful tool because everyone
>>"knew the rules."  Today, when you can't count on people knowing even
>>the basics of logic or seeing through rhetoric, a good argument is
>>often indistinguishable from a poor one.
> 
> The last sentence is ironic, since so many readers of
> soc.religion.christian seem to not be embarrassed by apologists such as
> Josh McDowell and C.S. Lewis.

I haven't followed whatever discussion there may have been on these
people, but I feel that C. S. Lewis is an excellent apologist and I
see no reason for embarrassment.  If you think that errors and flawed
arguments are a reason for dismissing a thinker, you must dismiss
nearly every thinker from Descartes to Kant; any philosophy course
will introduce you to their weaknesses.  
 
  The above also expresses a rather odd sense
> of history. What makes you think the masses in Aquinas' day, who were
> mostly illiterate, knew any more about rhetoric and logic than most people
> today? If writings from the period seem elevated consider that only the
> cream of the crop, so to speak, could read and write. If everyone in
> the medieval period "knew the rules" it was a matter of uncritically
> accepting what they were told.

I said nothing about "the masses."  However comparing "the masses" in
our day and in Aquinas' day really *is* odd.  Read Ortega y Gasset on
this.

I'm talking about the familiar experience of arguing all night and
winning on logic and evidence, only to discover your opponent to be
unaware, even intuitively, of things like entailment (let alone
pragmatics).  (I am assuming that both parties are college graduates
or better...)  Myself, I don't bother any more.

Ken
-- 
miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu | Nobody can explain everything to everybody.
opinions are my own      | G. K. Chesterton

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20753
From: sdittman@liberty.uc.wlu.edu (Scott Dittman)
Subject: Re: Some questions from a new Christian

Steven R Hoskins (18669@bach.udel.edu) wrote:
: Hi,

: I am new to this newsgroup, and also fairly new to christianity.
: ... I realize I am very ignorant about much of the Bible and
: quite possibly about what Christians should hold as true. This I am trying
: to rectify (by reading the Bible of course), but it would be helpful
: to also read a good interpretation/commentary on the Bible or other
: relevant aspects of the Christian faith. One of my questions I would
: like to ask is - Can anyone recommend a good reading list of theological
: works intended for a lay person?

I'd recommend McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" books (3 I
think) and  Manfred Brauch's "Hard Sayings of Paul".  He also may have
done "Hard Sayings of Jesus".  My focus would be for a new Christian to
struggle with his faith and be encouraged by the historical evidence,
especially one who comes from a background which emphasizes knowable faith.
-- 
Scott Dittman                    email: sdittman@wlu.edu
University Registrar             talk: (703)463-8455   fax: (703)463-8024
Washington and Lee University    snail mail:  Lexington Virginia 24450

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20754
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?

In article <Apr.14.03.07.21.1993.5402@athos.rutgers.edu> randerso@acad1.sahs.uth.tmc.edu (Robert Anderson) writes:
>I would like to get your opinions on this: when exactly does an engaged
>couple become "married" in God's eyes? 

Not if they are unwilling to go through a public marriage ceremony,
nor if they say they are willing but have not actually done so.

Let's distinguish _real_ logistical problems (like being stranded on a
desert island) from _excuses_ (such as waiting for so-and-so's brother
to come back from being in the army so he can be in the ceremony)...


-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20755
From: smayo@world.std.com (Scott A Mayo)
Subject: Re: proof of resurection

jsledd@ssdc.sas.upenn.edu (James Sledd) writes:

>Finally:
>There is no proof of the resurrection of Christ, except in our spirits
>communion with his, and the Father's.  It is a matter of FAITH, belief
>without logical proof.  Incedently one of the largest stumbling blocks for
>rational western man, myself included.
>I hope that this is taken in the spirit it was intended and not as a 
>rejection of the resurrection's occurance.  I beleive, but I wanted to point 
>out the weakness of logical proofs.

Terms are being used in a loaded way here.

"Logical proof" is an extremely messy thing to apply to real
life. If you think otherwise, try to construct a proof that
yesterday happened. Obviously it did; anyone old enough to be
reading this was there for it and remembers that it happened.
But *proof*? A proof starts with axioms and goes somewhere.
You need axioms to talk about logical proof. You can say that
you remember yesterday, and that you take as axiom that anything
you clearly remember happened. I could counterclaim that you
hallucinated the whole thing.

To talk about proofs of historical events, you have to relax the
terms a bit. You can show evidences, not proofs. Evidences of the
resurrected Jesus exist. Proofs do not.

I think Christianity goes down in flames if the resurrection is
ever disproved. I also think that this will not happen, as
the evidence for the resurrection is quite good as these things
go. It is not entirely fair to claim that you can only take
the resurrection on faith. There are reasons to believe it
that appeal to the mind, too.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20756
From: pwhite@empros.com (Peter White)
Subject: Some questions from a new Christian

Reply-To: pwhite@empros.com
In article <Apr.15.00.58.29.1993.28900@athos.rutgers.edu>, 18669@bach.udel.edu (Steven R Hoskins) writes:
 
|> I have another question I would like to ask. I am not yet affiliated
|> with any one congregation. Aside from matters of taste, what criteria
|> should one use in choosing a church? I don't really know the difference
|> between the various Protestant denominations.
 
Here in America people tend to think of choosing a church much like they
think of choosing a car or a country club. What I mean is that our 
culture is such that we tend towards satisfying our own wants rather
than considering things with others in mind and not making prayer 
an initial and primary part of the decision process. People tend to
treat church as they would a club and when something is less than to
their liking, off they go to another one.

I think that scripture presents the idea that God takes a different 
perspective on the "church choosing process". It seems to me from 1Cor 12
that God doesn't subscribe to the idea of us choosing a church at all
but that he places us in the body as he wants us. So, I think a better
question is not how do I choose a church but how do I figure out where
God is trying to place me.

If a person was instrumental in leading you to Christ, the church they
go to is a logical first choice. You have been born into the family of
God. People should hop around from church to church as often as they
hop from natural family to family.

If you met the Lord on your own (so to speak) there may not be an 
easily identifiable church to try for starters. Here you are more
like an orphan. Prayerfully go and "leave yourself on a few doorsteps"
and see if anyplace feels like home. 

I wouldn't expect that God want to place you in a church where you
have difficulty fitting in with the people, but on the other hand
there are no perfect churches. If you have an attitude of looking
for problems you will both find them and make them. On the other hand
if you have an attitude of love and committment, you will spread that
wherever you go. 

In general, I think that God will try to place you in a church that
talks about the Lord in the way that you have come to know him and is
expanding on that base.
-- 
Peter White
disclaimer: None of what is written necessarily reflects 
     			a view of my company.
	Phil    I want to know Christ and the power of his
	3:10 	resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in
	NIV		his sufferings, becoming like him in his death	

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20757
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: RE: Does God love you?

In article <Apr.13.00.08.10.1993.28382@athos.rutgers.edu> jayne@mmalt.guild.org
(Jayne Kulikauskas) writes:

>I am uncomfortable with the tract in general because there seems to be 
>an innappropriate emphasis on Hell.  God deserves our love and worship 
>because of who He is.  I do not like the idea of frightening people into 
>accepting Christ.  

And yet, Jayne,  as we read the Gospels and in particular the topics that Jesus
himself spoke on, Hell figures in a large % of the time -certainly more than
heaven itself.  Paul, as we learn in I Thess, taught new believers and new
churches eschatology and did not hesitate to teach hell and damnation.  Rev,
chapter 20:11-15 is very specific and cannot be allegorized.  I think the word
"throne" is used 45 times in Rev and that the unbelieving come to receive the
assignment of the severity of judgement, for in John 3 we read that they are
already judged.  Rom 3 speaks that every mouth will be shut.  There is no
recourse, excuse or defense.
>
>I see evangelism as combining a way of living that shows God's love with 
>putting into words and explaining that love.  Preaching the Gospel 
>without living the Gospel is no better than being a noisy gong or a 
>clanging cymbal.

Yes I agree with you.  Life is often like a pendulum where it swings to
extremes before stopping at "moderation."  I think we have seen the extreme of
the "hell fire & brimstone" preacher, but also we have seen the other extreme
where hell not talked about at all for fear of offending someones
sensibilities.

I forget who founded the Word of Life Ministries, but I remember him telling a
story.  He was in a small town hardware store and some how a man got to the
point of telling him that he didn't believe in Satan or hell.  He believed
everybody was going to heaven.  It was at this point that the man was asked to
pray to God that He would send his children to hell!  Of course the man
wouldn't do it.  But the point was made.  Many people say they don't believe in
hell but they are not willing to really place their faith in that it doesn't
exist.  If this man had, he would of prayed the prayer because hell didn't
exist and there would have been no fear in having his prayer answered.  And
yet, they walk as if they believe they will never be sent there.

I'd use a different illustration however.  I have to include myself in it. 
When I watch, say a Basketball (go Bulls!) game, and I see a blatant foul that
isn't called, oi vey!.  What's with that ref that he didn't make that call. 
It's unfair.  And just so in life, righteousness demands payment.  As the
surgeon takes knife in hand to cut the cancer away, so God cuts off that which
is still of the old creation.  We must preach the Gospel in all its richness
which includes the fact that if you reject The Way and The Truth and The Life,
then broad is the way to distruction.

>
>Here's a question:  How many of you are Christians because you are 
>afraid of going to Hell?  How many are responding to God's love?

I think I would fall in there somewhere.  Actually it was both.  After all,
repentance isn't only a turning towards, but also a turning away from!
No, again, if Jesus used it in His ministry then I can surely see that we
should do it also.  In love, of course, but in truth most assuredly.  

I have thought about writing something on this topic, but not now and here.  I
would say that there are some good reasons for its existence and its
eternality.

1) God is Light.  Yes He is love, but His love has the boundary of Holiness.
2) Dignity of Man.  Either a man is a robot or he is a responsible creature.
   If responsible, then he is also accountable.
3) The awfulness of sin.  Today we have a poor, poor concept of sin & God.
4) Christ.  He was willing to die and go there Himself to offer an avenue to
   the "whosoever will."

--Rex

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20758
From: af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.)
Subject: MAJOR VIEWS OF THE TRINITY

[With Frank's permission, I have added some information here (and in
one case changed the order of his contributions) in order to clarify
the historical relationship of the views.  My comments are based
primarily on William Rusch's historical summary in "The Trinitarian
Controversy", Fortress.  I'm going to save this as an FAQ.  --clh]

MAJOR VIEWS OF THE TRINITY
 
[SECOND CENTURY

The writers of the 2nd Cent. are important, because they set up much
of the context for the later discussions.  Justin Martyr, Aristides,
Athenagoras, Tatian, and Theophilus of Antioch are known as the
"Apologists".  Their theology has often been described as "Logos
theology".  Based strongly on wording in John, they took more or less
a two-phase approach.  Through eternity, the Logos was with the
Father, as his mind or thought.  This "immanent Word" became
"expressed" as God revealed himself in history, ultimately in Jesus.
Thus Jesus' full distinction from the Father only became visible in
history, though the Logos had been present in God from eternity.
Rusch regards this view is containing many of the emphases of the
final orthodox position, but in a form which is less sophisticated,
because it did not have the technical language to properly deal with
the eternal plurality in the Godhead.

Irenaeus held views somewhat similar to the Apologists.  However he
was uncomfortable with the two-stage approach.  He still viewed God as
one personage, with distinctions that did not become fully visible
except through his process of self-revelation (the "economy").  The
distinctions are present in his essential nature.  Irenaeus emphasized
the Holy Spirit more than the Apologists.  Irenaeus' views should
probably be called "economic trinitarianism", though that term is
normally used (as below) to refer to later developments.


THIRD CENTURY

--clh]

Dynamic Monarchianism
 
Source: Theodotus
Adherents: Paul of Samosota, Artemon, Socinus, Modern Unitarians
Perception of God's Essence: The unity of God denotes both oneness of nature
and oneness of person. The Son and the Holy Spirit therefore are
consubstantial with the Father's divine essence only as impersonal attributes.
The divine dunamis came upon the man Jesus, but he was not God in the strict
sense of the word.
Perception of God's Subsistence: The notion of a subsistent God is a palpable
impossibility, since his perfect unity is perfectly indivisible. The
'diversity' of God is apparent and not real, since the Christ event and the
work of the Holy Spirit attest only to a dynamic operation within God, not to
a hypostatic union.
Asignation of Deity/Eternality:
 Father: Unique originator of the universe. He is eternal, self-existent, and
without beginning or end.
 Son: A virtuous (but finite) man in whose life God was dynamically present in
a unique way; Christ definitely was not deity though his humanity was deified.
 Holy Spirit: An impersonal attribute of the Godhead. No deity or eternality
is ascribed to the Holy Spirit.
Criticism(s): Elevates reason above the witness of biblical revelation
concerning the Trinity. Categorically denies the deity of Christ and of the
Holy Spirit, thereby undermining the theological undergirding for the biblical
doctrine of salvation.
[In summary, this probably best thought of as not being Trinitarianism
at all.  God is an undifferentiated one.  Son and Holy Spirit are seen
as simply names for the man Jesus and the grace of God active in the
Church.  --clh]

 
Modalistic Monarchianism
 
Source: Praxeas
Adherents: Noatus, Sabellius, Swedenborg, Scleiermacher, United Pentecostals
(Jesus Only)
Perception of God's Essence: The unity of God is ultra-simplex. He is
qualitatively characterized in his essence by one nature and person.  This
essence may be designated interchangeably as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
They are different names for but identical with the unified, simplex God. The
three names are the three modes by which God reveals Himself.
Perception of God's Subsistence: The concept of a subsistent God is erroneous
and confounds the real issue of the phenomenon of God's modalistic manifesting
of himself. The paradox of a subsisting "three in oneness" is refuted by
recognizing that God is not three persons but one person with three different
names and corresponding roles following one another like parts of a drama.
Asignation of Deity/Eternality:
 Father: Fully God and fully eternal as the primal mode or manifestation of
the only unique and unitary God
 Son: Full deity/eternality ascribed only in the sense of his being another
mode of the one God and identical with his essence. he is the same God
manifested in temporal sequence specific to a role (incarnation).
 Holy Spirit: Eternal God only as the tile designates the phase in which the
one God, in temporal sequence, manifested himself pursuant to the role of
regeneration and sanctification.
Criticism(s): Depersonalizes the Godhead. To compensate for its Trinitarian
deficiencies, this view propounds ideas that are clearly heretical. Its
concept of successive manifestations of the Godhead cannot account for such
simultaneous appearances of the three persons as at Christ's baptism.
[Rusch comments that evidence on these beliefs is sketchy.  There are
actually two slightly different groups included: Noetus and his
followers, and Sabellius.  Noetus was apparently more extreme.
Sabellius followed him, and attempted to use some features of economic
Trinitarianism to create a more sophisticated view.  Unfortunately,
information about Sabellius comes from a century later, and there
seems to be some confusion between him and Marcellus of Ancyra. --clh]
 
[I've moved the following description to be with the other
third-century views.  It originally appeared near the end.  --clh]

"Economic" Trinitarianism
 
Source: Hippolytus, Tertullian
Adherents: Various "neo-economic" Trinitarians
Perception of God's Essence: The Godhead is characterized by triunity: Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit are the three manifestations of one identical,
indivisible substance. The perfect unity and consubstantiality are especially
comprehended in such manifest Triadic deeds as creation and redemption.
Perception of God's Subsistence: Subsistence within the Godhead is articulated
by means of such terms as "distinction" and "distribution" dispelling
effectively the notion of separateness or division.
Asignation of Deity/Eternality:
The equal deity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is clearly elucidated in
observation of the simultaneous relational/operational features of the
Godhead. Co-eternality, at times, does not intelligibly surface in this
ambiguous view, but it seems to be a logical implication.
Criticism(s): Is more tentative and ambiguous in its treatment of the
relational aspect of the Trinity.
[Note that this is a development of the Apologists and Irenaeus, as
mentioned above.  As with them, the threeness is visible primarily in
the various ways that God revealed himself in history.  However they
did say that this is a manifestation of a plurality that is somehow
present in the Godhead from the beginning.  Tertullian talks of
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as being three that are one in
substance.  Many people regard this view as being essentially
orthodox, but with less developed philosophical categories.  --clh]

[Origen, developing further an approach started by Clement, attempted
to apply neo-Platonism to Christian thought.  He set many of the terms
of the coming battle.  In Platonic fashion, he sees the Son as a
mediator, mediating between the absolute One of God and the plurality
of creating beings.  The Son is generated, but he is "eternally
generated".  That is, the relationship between Father and Son is
eternal.  It cannot be said that "there was once when he was not" (a
phrase that will haunt the discussion for centuries).  Having the Son
is intrinsic to his concept of God.  The Father and Son are described
as separate "hypostases", though this may not have quite the meaning
of separate subsistence that it had in some contexts.  The union is
one of love and action, but there is some reason to think that he may
have used the term homoousios ("of the same substance").  The Holy
Spirit is also an active, personal substance, originated by the Father
through the Son.  Origen's intent is trinitarian, not tritheistic, but
he pushes things in the direction of separateness.


FOURTH CENTURY

--clh]

Subordinationism  [often called Arianism --clh]
 
Source: Arius
Major Adherents: Modern Jehovah's Witnesses, and several other lesser known
cults
Perception of God's Essence: The inherent oneness of God's nature is properly
identifiable with the Father only. The Son and the Holy Spirit are discreet
entities who do not share the divine essence.
Perception of God's Subsistence: The unipersonal essence of God precludes the
concept of divine subsistence with a Godhead. "Threeness in oneness" is self-
contradictory and violates biblical principles of a monotheistic God.
Asignation of Deity/Eternality:
 Father: The only one, unbegotten God who is eternal and without beginning.
 Son: A created being and therefore not eternal. Though he is to be venerated,
he is not of the divine essence.
 Holy Spirit: A nonpersonal, noneternal emanation of the Father. He is viewed
as an influence, an expression of God.  Deity is not ascribed to him.
Criticism(s): It is at variance with abundant scriptural testimony respecting
the deity of both Christ and the Holy Spirit. Its hierarchial concept likewise
asserts three essentially separate persons with regard to the Father, Christ,
and the Holy Spirit. This results in a totally confused soteriology.
[Note also that in most versions of this view, the Son is not fully
human either.  He is supernatural and sinless.  That distinguishes this
view from adoptionism.  --clh]
 
Orthodox Trinitarianism
 
Source: Athanasius
Adherents: Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Augustine, Thomas
Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Contemporary orthodox Christianity
Perception of God's Essence: God's being is perfectly unified and simplex: of
one essence.  This essence of deity is held in common by Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit. The three persons are consubstantial, coinherent, co-equal, and co-
eternal.
Perception of God's Subsistence: The divine subsistence is said to occur in
three modes of being or hypostases. As such, the Godhead exists "undivided in
divided persons." This view contemplates an identity in nature and cooperation
in function without the denial of distinctions of persons in the Godhead.
Asignation of Deity/Eternality:
In its final distillation, this view unhesitatingly sets forth Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit as co-equal and co-eternal in the Godhead with regard to both
the divine essence and function.
Criticism(s): The only shortcoming has to do with the limitations inherent in
human language and thought itself: the impossibility of totally describing the
ineffable mystery of "three in oneness."
[At least in the 4th Cent, there were several different approaches, all
of which fit the description here, and all regarded as orthodox, but which
are somewhat different in detail.  Nicea was originally held to respond
to Arius.  Arius can be thought of as carrying Origen's thought a bit
too far, to the point of making the Son a separate entity.  In general
the East tended to take an approach based on Origen's, and it was hard
to get acceptance of Nicea in the East.  Its final acceptance was
based on the work of Athanasius with the Cappadocians: Gregory of Nyssa and
Gregory of Nazianzus, among others.  While starting with three,
they show that their unity in nature and and action is such that one
must think of them as being a single God.  This allowed the Council
of Constantinople, in 381, to get wide agreement on the idea of
three hypostatese and one ousia.  --clh]

Adapted from _Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine_, by H. Wayne House.


Frank
-- 
"If one wished to contend with Him, he could not answer Him one time out
 of a thousand."  JOB 9:3

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20759
From: cs89mcd@brunel.ac.uk (Michael C Davis)
Subject: Love Europe

Are any readers of s.r.c. going to the Love Europe congress in Germany this
July?
-- 
Michael Davis (cs89mcd@brunel.ac.uk)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20760
From: hedrick@cs.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: Doing the work of God??!!)

Desiree Bradley (Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca) asked us whether we
should think of the Serbs as doing God's work in Bosnia.  I've
refrained from posting, in hope that someone who is more familiar with
the OT than I would answer.  But at this point I feel I have to say
something.

Many things about this posting bother me.  I know of not the slightest
suggestion in the NT that Christians should use force to propagate the
Gospel, and the idea that we should not be concerned about the death
of Moslems violates the heart of the Gospel.  Christ died to break
down these distinctions.  In him there is neither Jew nor Greek, there
is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female.  If
Moslems do not know him, we may preach to them, but we don't kill
them.  Furthermore, the attack is between states, not religions.
There are Christians being attacked as well.  One of the towns under
attack is one of the few places where Christians and Moslems are
living together peacefully.

The precedents being suggested are from the OT.  There are in fact two
different things being alluded to.  The first is from the entry into
Canaan.  For that to be a parallel, we would need for God to have
promised this land through a prophet.  And we would need the war to be
a holy war.  There were tight constraints on behavior in those
attacks.  Any violations were likely to cause the Israelites to be
defeated.  Rape would not have been tolerated.  While the accounts in
Joshua emphasize towns that were totally destroyed, note that it was
possible for a town to make peace with the Israelites, and that once
that was done -- even when deception was involved -- they were
expected to honor it.  In contrast, there have been many violations of
agreement in this incident. I see no evidence that God has granted
Bosnia to the Serbs as a promised land, and if he had, their behavior
would have disqualified this from being a holy war.

The other OT parallel is from later, when Israel was defeated by
Assyria and Babylonia.  The prophets saw this as a judgement on Israel
for her sins.  Someone asks whether we shouldn't see this as a
judgement on the Bosnians for their sins.  This sounds like a replay
of the old claim that we shouldn't have doctors or hospitals because
illness is God's judgement.  Yes, even bad things may be used by God
for good.  That includes actions of bad people.  But that doesn't
justify them.  If you read the prophets, you find them very clear that
in attacking Israel, the Assyrians and Babylonians were acting as
*unintentional* agents of God.  Their intent was to attack God's
people, and they would be judged for it.  The fact that they were
actually carrying out God's plan didn't excuse their action.
Furthermore, we shouldn't conclude from this that all attacks are
judgements from God.  God explicitly interpreted that case, through
his prophets.  As far as I know, he did not send any prophets to
Bosnia.  While I find it hard to see any good in the current fighting,
I am sure God will eventually make good come out of bad.  But that
doesn't justify it, and it won't save the people who are doing it from
judgement.

I am particularly concerned about the implications of this issue
because of current tensions between the West and Moslem-oriented
nations.  What we do not need is for Moslems to conclude that
Christians think it's OK to kill Moslems.  The implications for the
mid-East, and even relations with American Moslems, could be quite
serious.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20761
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Subject: Daily Verse


   But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." 
    Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what
I do. 

James 2:18

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20762
From: labson@borneo.corp.sgi.com (Joel Labson)
Subject: Maybe?????

Hi Christian friends,

My name is Joel, I have a sister who's 25th birthday is tomorrow.....She
used to be on fire for the Lord, but somehow, for some reason, she
became cold....she don't want to associate anymore with her old
christian friends.........so I thought maybe some of you could help her
out again by sending her a postcard or card with a little message of
encouragement.....hand written is okay....her address is 3150 Hobart
Ave. San Jose Ca. 95127...........

Thank you and God Bless.

PS: Jesus Christ is LORD!!!!!!!! 

[I have some qualms about postings like this.  You might want to
engage in a bit more conversation with Joel before deluging 
someone who doesn't expect it with cards.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20763
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Hell_2:  Black Sabbath

In article <Apr.21.03.25.03.1993.1292@geneva.rutgers.edu>
salaris@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrabbits) writes:

>I like those lyrics,
>since whenever I am approached by judgemental, pharisitical,
>evangelical fundamentalists who throw the Bible at me because
>I have long hair, wear a black leather jacket, and listen to Black
>Sabbath, I have something to throw back....

>It just goes to show that there are more important evils in the
>world to battle than rock lyrics...........


It just goes to show that not all evangelical fundamentalists are pharisitical!
I wear a black leather jacket, like classic rock, but no longer have the long
locks I once had.  However,  I too rely upon the Bible as a basis for Christian
ethics.

a fundamentalistic evangelical,
--Rex 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20764
From: jono@mac-ak-24.rtsg.mot.com (Jon Ogden)
Subject: Re: Help

> 	   I'm a commited Christian that is battling with a problem.  I know
> that romans talks about how we are saved by our faith not our deeds, yet
> hebrews and james say that faith without deeds is useless, saying' You fools,
> do you still think that just believing is enough?'

[Stuff deleted]
 
> Now I am of the opinion that you a saved through faith alone (not what you do)
> as taught in Romans, but how can I square up in my mind the teachings of James
> in conjunction with the lukewarm Christian being 'spat-out'
> 
> Can anyone help me, this really bothers me.


Will, there has been a lot of discussion going on about this over in
s.r.c.b-s.
I will make the case here though and try to help you out:

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it
is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
(Ephesians 2:8-9).

Yes, it is by God's grace and our faith that we are saved.  We are not
saved by what we do.  However,

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
(John 14:15).

Keeping Christ's commandments is a "work" per se, and a demonstration of
our love for him.  Also,

6 He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his
vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.
7 Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years
I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why
cumbereth it the ground?
8 And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I
shall dig about it, and dung it:
9 And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it
down.
(Luke 13:6-9).

Again,

16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye
should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that
whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
(John 15:16).

It is clear from these verses that we are called to bring forth fruit. 
What is that fruit.  Well, Paul speaks of the fruit of the spirit being
love, joy, peace, patience, etc.  All of these are things that are manifest
in the actions that we carry out.

If a person claims to believe in Jesus Christ, but does not do the things
Christ commanded, I dare say, that they really don't have any faith. 
Asking which is more important, faith or works, is like asking which blade
on a pair of scissors is most important or like asking which leg of your
pants is more important.

Good works should come out of and be a result of our faith.  To have faith,
true faith in Christ requires you to do what he commands.  The parable
above speaks allegorically of a person who does bear no fruit.  Christs
commands are actions, and if we don't do those actions and produce fruit,
then we shall be uprooted just like the tree. 

It is a dead and useless faith which has no action behind it.  Actions
prove our faith and show the genuineness of it.  I can sit and talk for
days about the fact that I have so much faith in my ability to jump off a
building and not hit the ground.  In other words, I can sit and tell you
all day long that I have faith in my ability to fly.  I really don't have
that faith though unless I am willing to jump off the roof and take the
test.  Words and talk mean nothing.

I could go on and give more scriptures and if people want me to I will, but
this should be sufficient.

Hope it helped.

Jon

----------------
sig file broken....

please try later...
----------------

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20765
From: parkin@Eng.Sun.COM (Michael Parkin)
Subject: Re: Being right about messiahs

In article 2262@geneva.rutgers.edu, Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca (Desiree Bradley) writes:
> I must have missed the postings about Waco, David Koresh, and the Second
> Coming.  How does one tell if a Second Coming is the real thing, unless the
> person claiming to be IT is obviously insane?

First by his fruits.  The messiah comes to build the kingdom of heaven
on the earth.  He also comes to first reveal the root cause of
original sin (fallen nature) and then provide a means to cut the
connection to that original sin.  He also wants to create world peace
based on Godism.  The messiah's teachings will build on the foundation
of the Bible but provide profound new insights into the nature of God,
the fall of man, the purpose of creation, and God's providence of
restoration.  It will also provide a foundation for the unity of all
the World's religions.

Many Christians expect Jesus to come on literal clouds, so they may
miss him when he returns. Just as the Jewish people missed Jesus 2000
years ago.  They are still waiting for his first coming.  The Jewish
people of that age expected Elijah to come first.  Jesus said that
John the Baptist was Elijah. But John the Baptist denied that he was
Elijah.  (How did this reflect on Jesus?)  Later in prison John even
questioned who Jesus was: "is he the one who is to come or do we look
for another". (see book of Matthew)

> 
> I'm not saying that David Koresh is the Second Coming of Christ.  How could
> somebody who breaks his word be the Second Coming?  Koresh did promise that
> he would come out of his compound if only he was allowed to give a radio
> broadcast.  He didn't.  Still it seems to me that he did fool some people.

David Koresh didn't even come close.  The problem is that people like
this make it difficult for people to believe and trust in the real
Messiah when he does show up.

> 
> And, from my meagre knowledge of the Bible, it seems that Christians have
> been hard on the Jews of Christ's day for being cautious about accepting
> somebody that their religious authorities didn't accept as the Messiah.
> 
> So I was surprised that nobody had discussed the difficulty of wanting to be
> early to recognize the Second Coming while, at the same time, not wanting to
> be credulously believing just anybody who claims to be God.

Very good point and perhaps the most important point of all for
Christians: How to recognize the Second Coming?

The Messiah should not claim to be God.  What sets a Messiah apart is
that he is born without original sin.  He is not born perfect but
achieves perfection after a period of growth.  Adam and Eve were born
sinless but they fell, and this tragedy meant that it would take God
thousands of years to create the kingdom of heaven on the earth as God
originally intended.  God's restoration providence is still not
complete.  The messiah is the true Son of God, one with God, God's
representative on the earth, but not God himself.  There is only one
God.

> [Mark 13:21   And then if any one says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' 
> or 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it. 
...
> Mark 13:26   And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with 
> great power and glory. 

> My understanding of Jesus' answer is that, unlike his first coming,
> which was veiled, the second coming will be quite unmistakeable.

> By the way, from Koresh's public statement it's not so clear to me
> that he is claiming to be Christ.

Who else in this world is claiming to be the Messiah.  Maybe he's already here.

Mike

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20766
From: bohja@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Subject: WITCHES AND WICCAN:  your opinion

I am a student at UW-Eau Claire.  I am doing a paper an witches and wanted to
get your point of view.  I will not use you name unless you specifically tell
me to do so.

Please answer this question:

As a Christian, are you offended by witches and Wiccan?  Do you feel that tehy
are pagan in the evil sense of the word?

You time and cooperation is appreciated.  Thanks, J.

-This survey is being conducted in partial fulfillment of the course
requirements for Engl 201, taught by Karen Welch at the University of
Wisconsin-Eau Claire.  This course is in compliance with the course
certification requirements of the University Institutional Review Board for the
PRotection of Human Subjects.

[but is it in compliance with any reasonable method for choosing
samples???  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20767
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Assurance of Hell

In article <Apr.21.03.26.39.1993.1370@geneva.rutgers.edu>
lfoard@hopper.virginia.edu (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:

[ -and many others mailed me.  Here is a reply to one of the letters.  Seems to
me that atheist do not like the doctrine of hell!]

>There's nothing like a preacher to put fear into an
>     ignorant man...

>If God hadn't created Hell in the first place, there'd be no
>     no need to "die" and save us.  Isn't it also a bit paradoxical
>     to say "God died" when, in fact, no such thing is remotely
>     possible.  Can the infinite die?

Your using 20th century concepts to interprete 1st century writers.  Of course,
in your termonology, God could not "cease to exist."  However, that is not what
death ever means in the Scriptures.  If you will study the word, you will see
that it signifies "separation."  Death is separation, not ceastation.  This is
the reason for the agony of the cross.  For the first time in eternity, one
member of the Godhead was separated from the other two.  

I once met a young lady that was as beautiful as any model that ever lived. 
She was as personable as any saint ever imagined.  She was to become my
"girlfriend" for several years.  However, having been drafted, we were
separated by distance.  To me that was a form of death.  Later, she decided
that she couldn't wait for me to come home and bid me adue.  That to me was
death.  It was separation from that which had made me whole.  Death is
separation and eternal death is eternal separation from His fellowship, not
because He chose to send you into outer darkness, but because you chose to go
there.  

>> did you know that Jesus talked more
>> about hell than He did about heaven!  

>Thank you for this info.  What respect I had for the man now
>     has been diminished tenfold.  I promise never again to
>     say how wise or loving this man was...

When I rebelled against my earthly father, he spanked me.  I found no wisdom in
that until I had grown older and especially until I had my own children.  He
was trying to guide me away from hurt that would enter my life if I continued
on my suicidal course.  He did it in love though I interpreted it as harsh and
unloving.  If God warns of impending danger, that is love.  If choose to let us
do as we please, and then at the end tell us the rules, that would be harsh. 
You have a conscience, no matter how calused or fallen it is, that witnesses to
you that a thing is wrong and that there is cause for fear.  

>Being Jesus was allegedly God, I doubt he could honestly feel
>     the pinpricks man dealt him...

This may give light to the error of your understanding.  One must have correct
knowledge in order to have correct faith.  Faith and knowledge are inseparable.
 Jesus most certainly felt the "pinpricks" of life.  As the Scripture say:

Heb. 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our
weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without
sin.

The kenosis passage of Phil 2 states that He gave up His Godhead attributes
when He took upon Himself humanity.  It has been a favorite meditation of mine
to think about this.  It was to be my PhD thesis.  "The Consciousness of
Christ."  I have talked at length with a great many people about this
interesting study, including clh.  

It is my conclussion that as Jesus, the 2nd member of the Trinity, actually
suffered as we do.  He became part of the human race and experienced it as we
do.  He "grew in knowledge."  He chose not to grasp His omniscience, but chose
to be taught.  It is my understanding that He was "led of the Spirit" to such
an extent that sometimes it is hard to distinquish between Jesus the man and
Jesus as God.  But in Jn 8 where the adulterous women was thrown before Him,
the tenses are quite clear in that the whole situation took Him by surprise. 
That is, He was not aware that this event was to take place in time.  He was
living sequential history as you or I.  

Maybe some other time we can discuss this, but it is a very lengthy discussion
and one that causes the curcuit breakers of the brain to pop more often than
not.

>Thanks again for the info.  Just so you know, some friends and I
>     are starting a Freethinkers organization-- and I'm going to
>     use some of the info you provided for an organization intro-
>     duction... :-)

I was once a member of that club.  THe "free thinker" is a glorious ideal.  By
contrast, of course, you believe that the believer is the unforunate repository
of everything that is dogmatic, inhibited, reactionary and repressive.  I find
such a stance to be as amusing as it is absurd.   If the liberal humanist
wishes to criticize a Christian or a Buddhist or a Marxist, that is his right. 
But what he must not pretend is that he was led to this solely by his "rational
doubt" when in fact he was led to it by his "faith".  He must acknowledge that
while it is rational doubt for him as a "free thinker" to criticize the
Christian, it might equally be a rational doubt for the Christian to criticize
him as a humanist.  If there is no faith, there can be no dout.  There is no
faith which cannot choose to cast doubt on some other faith.

Pascal pointed out that "sceptical arguments allow the positive to be positive.
 Few. . .speak dubiously of scepticism."  The fact that skeptics are not
skeptical about skepticism is further evidence that to doubt anything we must
believe in something else!  THe person who is skeptical toward one faith or
even most faiths, will be the devoted adherent of another.  In fact, it is a
measure of his poverty both that he is unaware of it and that he can define
himself only in negative terms, hence the term "a"-theist.

Some people claim otherwise and argue vociferously for complete skepticism.  In
my campus ministry I ran across this more times than I care to remember. 
However, they disproved their own argument with every thought, every word,
every point of logic that they used.  Every moment of shared communication
speaks against their total skepticism.  Their very insistence of trying to make
sense is eloquent testimony to assumptions that are powerful though silent.

That is to say, that complete skepticism is impossible and limited skepticism
is arbitrary.  Next time you're in a room of skeptics, yell out "Look, your fly
is undone!"  Each person chooses what he is skeptical about and what he
believes without skepticism.  To stress this is to belabor the obvious, but it
underlines the point that no one can know exhaustively how he knows what he
knows.  Pure objectivism is a myth and complete skepticism an impossiblity. 
The answer to this impasse lies in  a 3rd way of knowing, one which is based on
presuppositions.  But if knowledge proceeds on what must be presupposed before
it is proved, the cover is blown on the pretentions of critical doubt, and
critical doubt depends on the idea that human knowledge is totally objective
and neutral.  In other words, another myth.  

Presuppositions my friend.  It is impossible to doubt anything unless there is
something we do not doubt -our own assumptions/presuppostions.  Even these can
be criticezed only upon the basis of other assumptions.  Presuppostitons are
our silent partners in thought but their silence must not be mistaken for
absence.

>  I tell you what-- if God condemns me for being honest, He is
>    unworthy of my worship.  Better to burn in Hell than to
>     serve a tyrant in Heaven..

Of course that is hardly an original statement.  Milton coined it but it had
been in use for millenia.  It was even used in the first "Highlander" movie. 
But again, your presuption is based on a faulty knowledge of the character of
God.  You are operating off of a presuppositional premise of humanistic
theology, not what He has revealed of Himself through history, through His
prophets, through His Word, and lastly, but most of all, thru His Son.  If you
are to reject God's annointed savior, then reject Him from a correct
understanding of Himself.

--Rex

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20768
From: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article <Apr.16.23.18.07.1993.1879@geneva.rutgers.edu> phs431d@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>But what if the geologists are wrong and these people are warning of a
>non-existent danger?  Analogies can only push an argument so far (on both
>sides).  Both Melinda's and yours assume the premises used to set up your
>respective analogies are true and thus the correct conclusion will arise.
>
>The important point to note is the different directions both sides come from.
>Christians believe they know the TRUTH and thus believe they have the right
>(and duty) to tell the TRUTH to all.  
>
>Christians can get offended if others do not believe (what is self-evidently
>to them) the TRUTH. Non-christians do not believe this is the TRUTH and get
>offended at them because they (christians) claim to know the TRUTH.

The analogy does not depend on the premisses being true, because the 
question under discussion is not truth but arrogance. 

A similar analogy might be a medical doctor who believes that a blood 
transfusion is necessary to save the life of a child whose parents are 
Jehovah's Witnesses and so have conscientious objections to blood 
transfusion. The doctor's efforts to persuade them to agree to a blood 
transfusion could be perceived to be arrogant in precisely the same way as 
Christians could be perceived to be arrogant.

The truth or otherwise of the belief that a blood transfusion is necessary 
to save the life of the child is irrelevant here. What matters is that the 
doctor BELIEVES it to be true, and could be seen to be trying to foce his 
beliefs on the parents, and this could well be perceived as arrogance.

============================================================
Steve Hayes, Department of Missiology & Editorial Department
Univ. of South Africa, P.O. Box 392, Pretoria, 0001 South Africa
Internet: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za         Fidonet: 5:7101/20
          steve.hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
FAQ: Missiology is the study of Christian mission and is part of
     the Faculty of Theology at Unisa

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20769
From: mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server)
Subject: Re: src

dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:

>I find it interesting that cls never answered any of the questions posed. 
>Then he goes on the make statements which make me shudder.  He has
>established a two-tiered God.  One set of rules for the Jews (his people)
>and another set for the saved Gentiles (his people).  Why would God
>discriminate?  Does the Jew who accepts Jesus now have to live under the
>Gentile rules.
> 
>God has one set of rules for all his people.  Paul was never against the
>law.  In fact he says repeatedly that faith establishes rather that annuls
>the law.  Paul's point is germane to both Jews and Greeks.  The Law can
>never be used as an instrument of salvation.  And please do not combine
>the ceremonial and moral laws in one.
> 
>In Matt 5:14-19 Christ plainly says what He came to do and you say He was
>only saying that for the Jews's benefit.  Your Christ must be a
>politician, speaking from both sides of His mouth.  As Paul said, "I have
>not so learned Christ."  Forget all the theology, just do what Jesus says.
> Your excuses will not hold up in a court of law on earth, far less in
>God's judgement hall.

Pardon me for being a little confused, but at the beginning of your second 
paragraph, you say, "God has one set of rules for all his people," yet at the 
end of the same paragraph you declare, "please do not combine the ceremonial 
and moral laws in one."  Not only do I not understand where in the Bible you 
find the declaration that there are 2 laws (ceremonial and moral), but I am 
also unclear on whether you think it is bad to have 2 sets of laws in the first 
place.  If it's bad to have 2 sets of laws, how can there be a ceremonial law 
that is different from the moral law (and vice versa)?

I would also be interested in your comments on the passage in I Cor. 10:1-16, 
where Paul teaches different rules for covering you head while praying 
depending on whether you are a man or a woman.  Do you think the apostles can 
prescribe different sets of rules for men and women?  If so, then why not for 
Jews and Gentiles?  Also, why did Paul, who was so opposed to circumcising 
Gentiles, voluntarily circumcise Timothy?

- Mark

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20770
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5

In article <Apr.20.03.02.26.1993.3803@geneva.rutgers.edu> clh writes:
>Re: Are you Christian or Pauline?
>Both.

Sure, why not? But, are you using Paul to correct the words of Jesus?

>There is no doubt in my mind about what is sin and what is
>not, at least not in this case.  Jesus did not deal explicitly with
>the question of whether the Law was binding on Gentiles. 

"So *anyone* who dissolves even one of the smallest commands and teaches
others the same way, will be known as the lowest in the kingdom of the
skies; whereas *anyone* who keeps the commands and teaches them too, will
be known as *someone* great in the kingdom of the skies." Mat5:19 (Gaus)

Are you an "anyone" or are you a "no one?"

Why not assume, that since Jesus didn't say that his words apply only to
Jews, that they apply to all human beings, irregardless of race or sex?

Why not assume, that even though Jesus did not mention your name, still
Jesus was talking directly to you?

>That's why I
>have to cite evidence such as the way Jesus dealt with the Centurion.
>As to general Jewish views on this, I am dependent largely on studies
>of Pauline theology, one by H.J. Schoeps, and one whose author I can't
>come up with at the moment.  Both authors are Jews.  Also, various
>Christian and non-Christian Jews have discussed the issue here and in
>other newsgroups.
>Mat 5:19 is clear that the Law is still valid.  It does not say that
>it applies to Gentiles.

Does it say that it applies to *you*? Are you anyone or no one?

>And yes, I say that the specific requirement for worship on the
>Sabbath in the Ten Commandments is a ceremonial detail, when you're
>looking at the obligations of Gentiles.

Ex20:8-11(JPS) Remember the sabbath day and keep it holy. Six days you
shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of
the LORD your God; you shall not do any work - you, your son or
daughter, your male or female slave, or your cattle, or the stranger who
is within your settlements. For in six days the LORD made heaven and
earth and sea, and all that is in them, and He rested on the seventh
day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and hollowed it.

Note: There is no specific requirement for worship here, however I for
one would not be so bold as to call these verses a "ceremonial detail."

>Similarly circumcision.

Don't many Christians still practice circumcision?

>I'm not sure quite what else I can say on this subject.  Again, it's
>unfortunate the Jesus didn't answer the question directly.

It's unfortunate that Jesus didn't use your name directly, or maybe
Jesus did? Are you somebody or nobody?

>However we
>do know (1) what the 1st Cent. Jewish approach was, (2) how Jesus
>dealt with at least one Gentile, and (3) how Jesus' disciples dealt
>with the issue when it became more acute (I'm referring to Acts 15
>more than Paul).  Given that these are all in agreement, I don't see
>that there's a big problem.

If you don't see a problem, then perhaps there is none. As Paul closes
Romans 14 (Gaus):

  In short, pursue the ends of peace and of building each other up.
Don't let dietary considerations undo the work of God. Everything may be
clean, but it's evil for the person who eats it in an offensive spirit.
Better not to eat the meat or drink the wine or whatever else your
brother is offended by. As for the faith that you have, keep that
between yourself and God. The person is in luck who doesn't condemn
himself for what he samples. On the other hand, the person with doubts
about something who eats it anyway is guilty, because he isn't acting on
his faith, and any failure to act on faith is a sin.

[As far as I know, Christians (except specific Jewish Christian
groups, and maybe some of the sabbatarians -- both of which are very
small groups) do not practice circumcision on religious grounds.  In
some countries it has been done for supposed health reasons, but I've
not heard it argued that it is being done because of the Biblical
commandment.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20771
From: vbv@nomad.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article <Apr.21.03.25.34.1993.1316@geneva.rutgers.edu> caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin) writes:
>vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.) writes:
>> 
>> Hold it.  I said that all of scripture is true.  However, discerning
>> exactly what Jesus, Paul and company were trying to say is not always so
>> easy.  I don't believe that Paul was trying to say that all women should
>> behave that way.  Rather, he was trying to say that under the circumstances
>> at the time, the women he was speaking to would best avoid volubility and
>> cover their heads.  This has to do with maintaining a proper witness toward
>> others.  Remember that any number of relativistic statements can be derived
>> from absolutes.  For instance, it is absolutely right for Christians to
>> strive for peace.  However, this does not rule out trying to maintain world
>> peace by resorting to violence on occasion.  (Yes, my opinion.)
>
>I agree that there is truth in scripture.  There are principles to be 
>learned from it.  Claiming that that truth is absolute, though, seems 
>to imply a literal reading of the Bible.  If it were absolute truth 
>(constant across time, culture, etc.) then no interpretation would be 
>necessary.

I strongly disagree that absolute truth would not require interpretation.
That's because truth may be absolute, but it may not be obvious.  Like
so many things, the truth is always subject to misinterpretation.

I strongly suspect that we are reaching an impasse here, which is why I
deign from commenting much further.

>> Sure.  The Bible preaches absolute truths.  However, exactly what those
>> truths are is sometimes a matter of confusion.  As I said, the Bible does
>> preach absolute truths.  Sometimes those fundamental principles are crystal
>> clear (at least to evangelicals).  
>
>This is where the arrogance comes in to play.  Since these principles 
>are crystal clear to evangelicals, maybe the rest of us should just take
>their word for it?  Maybe it isn't at all crystal clear to *me* that 
>their fundamental principles are either fundamental *or* principles.

Now hold it.  I never said that Christians cannot be arrogant.  Indeed, as
many other Christians on SRC have stressed before, this is a trap that
Christians must always be wary about.  However, this does not mean that if
you believe in the absolutes established by the Bible, you are necessarily
being arrogant.  A Christian can believe that the Word of God is absolute,
but he or she should not expect this to be immediately evident to everyone.
 
>So, I think that your position is:
>The Bible is absolute truth, but as we are prone to error in our 
>interpretation, we cannot reliably determine if we have figured out 
>what that truth is.
>Did I get that right?

Not quite.  You say that according to my stance, we cannot *reliably*
determine what is true.  That is not what I said.  I say that as fallible
human beings, we cannot discern the truth with 100% certainty.  The 
distinction is subtle yet important.

When a scientist performs an experiment, he can claim that his results
are reliable, without claiming that absolutely no mistake whatsoever could
have been made.  In other words, he can admit that he could be mistaken,
without sacrificing his convictions.

Nobody can establish what absolute truth is with 100% certainty.
Throughout the centuries, philosophers have argued about what we can know
with complete certainty and what we cannot.  Descartes made a step in the
right direction when he uttered, "Cogito, ergo sum," yet we have not advanced
much beyond that.

Do you believe that other people aside from you exist?  Do you believe that
the computer terminal you are using exists?  If so, can you be absolutely
certain about that?  Are you sure it is not some grand illusion?  Of course,
you have no such assurance.  This does not mean, however, that for all
practical purposes, you can be certain that they exist.  So it is with
Christianity.  The most mature Christians I know have deep convictions about
absolute morality, yet they acknowledge that there is a non-zero probability 
that they are wrong.  This does not, however, mean that they should (or do) 
abandon these absolutes.

>What's the point of spending all this time claiming and defending 
>absolute truth, when we can never know what those truths are, and we 
>can never (or at least shouldn't) act upon them?  What practical 
>difference can this make?

As I said, we can never be absolutely certain that we are correct.  This does
not mean that we cannot be certain enough, in light of the evidence, to 
render all doubts unreasonable.

-- 
Virgilio "Dean" Velasco Jr, Department of Electrical Eng'g and Applied Physics 
	 CWRU graduate student, roboticist-in-training and Q wannabee
    "Bullwinkle, that man's intimidating a referee!"   |    My boss is a 
   "Not very well.  He doesn't look like one at all!"  |  Jewish carpenter.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20772
From: mussack@austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Subject: Re: Questioning Authority

Despite my trendy, liberal, feminist tendencies and the fact
that I basically agree with what you are saying I will rebut:

(Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
> (Chris Mussack) writes:
> > For all those people who insist I question authority: Why?
> ...
> Authorities sometimes tell people to do evil things.  People who "just
> follow orders" have tortured and killed others in very large numbers,
> and protest their innocence afterwards.
 
The basic question here is "how do I know what I am supposed to do?"
This is true in every situation that comes up. Some people do not
think about it at all and merely follow their impulses. I claim
that is just as dangerous as "following authority". I could site
sexually transmitted diseases, drug abuse, all manner of criminal
activity, the savings and loan scandal, car accidents, eggs thrown
at my house, all are examples of people not "following authority".
I could easily argue that in the evil examples you gave the 
problem was a leader not following _his_ authority and doing what 
he wanted. Of course, where is the top of the chain? Therein lies 
our search.
 
> When your authority starts telling you to do things, you should ask
> questions.  Except for situations of pressing need ("I said shut the
> hatch because the submarine is filling with water!"), any reasonable
> authority should be able to give at least some justification that you
> can understand.

I don't think it's as simple as you are claiming. "Pressing need" is
ambiguous. Should I recycle or not? 
 
Realize that I have four kids who, despite being very precocious 
of course, are very tiring with their constant lack of understanding
the tremendous knowledge I wish to impart to them.

> Just be sure to listen when authority answers.

Ahh! An ironic ending.
 
The irony I was implying in my initial pithy retort to the bumper 
sticker cliche "Question Authority" was that I was questioning 
the authority of the person telling me to question authority.
It seems there is a certain segment of society that finds meaning
only in being different, only in rebelling, forsaking everything
for the sake of freedom. I question their integrity and fortitude. 
There is another freedom that comes from doing a task correctly.
Different people are at different levels of development in different
areas. Part of the challenge of life is to find the right authorities
to follow, we can't know everything about everything. Often 
when learning a new skill or subject I will follow the teacher,
perhaps blindly. Only when I have learned enough to ask appropriate
questions should I question him, only when I have developed
my skills enough should I challenge him. Once again, how do I know
when I get to those stages?

If you have to be told to question authority, perhaps you shouldn't.

Chris Mussack
(A good comedian should never have to explain his jokes.)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20773
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

I've just read Carol's response and I just had to get into this.  I've
got some verses which are not subject to interpretation because they say
what they say.  They are 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and
Galatians 1:11-12.  

Also, based on the fact that Jesus is the Word incarnate and he judges
people if they follow him (see Acts 17:29-31 and John 5:21-27) and that
those who reject Jesus' teachings are judged by the very words he spoke
(see John 12:47-50), then Jesus' words are true and do not need
interpretation, nor would it be just of God to judge based on his word
if it had to be interpreted.

Joe Fisher

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20774
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Cell Church discussion group

In article <Apr.21.03.25.58.1993.1337@geneva.rutgers.edu> reid@cs.uiuc.edu (Jon Reid) writes:
>I am beginning an e-mail discussion group about cell churches.  If you are

Please, define cell church.  I missed it somewhere in the past when this
was brought up before.

Joe Fisher

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20775
From: KEMPJA@rcwusr.bp.com
Subject: Re: Religious wars


In article <Apr.21.03.24.44.1993.1288@geneva.rutgers.edu>, fraseraj@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Andrew J Fraser) writes:
> "Well you know that religion has caused more wars than
> anything else"
> It bothers me that I cannot seem to find a satisfactory
> response to this. After all if our religion is all about
> peace and love why have there been so many religious wars?

Of course if this question was asked in a group dealing with economics,
the answer would be that the cause of war was economic. My observations
over the past 30 years (and not withstanding a little history reading
beside) is that while religious differences do play a part in many of
the conflicts, so does (unfortunately) race, economics and any other
items that identify one group of men as being different from another.

If we want to couch the cause of conflict in Christian terms, I would
put it while Christ died for our sins, we are yet sinners. While some
individuals assume "Christlike" natures, most of us do not even
come close.

I realize that in many ways this is a trite answer, but I guess that
it is my way of rationalizing man's constant (or so it seems)
conflict.


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Jerry Kemp (Somtime Consultant)
Internet: kempja@rcwusr.bp.com
          kemp_ja@tnd001.dnet.bp.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20776
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: prayers and advice requested on family problem

Julie, it is a really trying situation that you have described.  My
brother was living with someone like that and things were almost as bad
(although he left after a considerably shorter amount of time due to
other problems with the relationship).  Anyway, the best thing to do
would be to get everyone in the same room together (optimally in a room
with nothing breakable), lock the door behind you, throw the key out
underneath the door (just as far as the longest hand can reach.  You
would like to get out after the conclusion, I would imagine), and hash
things out.  More than likely, there will be screaming, crying, and
possibly hitting (unless of course someone decided to bring some rope to
tie people down).  Some of the best strategies in keeping things calmer
would include:
   have each individual own their own statements (ie, I feel that this
relationship is hurting everyone involved because.... or I really don't
understand where you're coming from.)
   reinforce statements by paraphrasing, etc. (ie, So you think that we
did this because of...?  Well, let me just say that the reason for this
was ....)
   don't accuse each other (It was your fault that ... happened!)
   find a common ground about SOMETHING (Lampshades really are
decorational and functional at the same time.)
   Guaranteed, in a situation like this, there is going to be some
gunnysacking (re-hashing topics which were assumed resolved, but were
truly not and someone feels someone else is to blame).  However, this
should be kept to a minimum and simply ask for forgiveness or apologize
about each situation WITHOUT holding a smoldering grudge.  

The relationship really can work.  It's just a matter of keeping things
smooth and even.  It's sort of like making a peace treaty between
warring factions:  you can't give one side everything; there must be a
compromise.  Breaks can be taken, but communication between everyone
involved must continue if the relationships here are to survive.

Joe Fisher

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20777
From: rbutera@owlnet.rice.edu (Robert John Butera)
Subject: Re: about Eliz C Prophet

In article <Apr.21.03.27.03.1993.1388@geneva.rutgers.edu> JEK@cu.nih.gov writes:
>Rob Butera asks about a book called THE LOST YEARS OF JESUS, by
>Elizabeth Clare Prophet.

> ...

>marriage, if I remember aright), base almost all their teachings on
>messages they have allegedly received by telepathy from Tibet. I
>should be surprised if the book you mention has any scholarly basis.

Actually, there was very little to the book.  First of all looking at
the titles of her other books, I would personally consider her 
to be engaged in a bizarre form of Christian-like mysticism
heavily influenced by eastern philosphies (great titles like 
_The_Astrology_of_the_4_Horsemen_).

However, other than the Chapter One into, there's nothing original,
biased, or even new this book.  It is basically a collection of previously
published works by those who claim that there exist Buddhist and Hindu
stories that Christ visited India and China (he was known as Issa) 
during the period from late teens to age 30.

Conclusion:  the book actually lets you come to your own view by presenting
a summary of various published works and letters, all of which you
could verify independently.  It includes refutations to such works as
well.  Therefore, even if you think she is theologically warped, this 
book is a nice reference summary for the interested.	 

-- 
Rob Butera        |
ECE Grad Student  |     "Only sick music makes money today" 
Rice University   |
Houston, TX 77054 |               - Nietzsche, 1888

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20778
From: kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko)
Subject: Re: Atheist's views on Christianity (was: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")

First, I thank collectively all people who have given good answers
to my questions. In my follow-up to Jason Smith's posting, I will
address some issues that have caused misunderstanding:

Jason Smith (jasons@atlastele.com) wrote:

> In article <Apr.19.05.13.48.1993.29266@athos.rutgers.edu> kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko) writes:

> I also concede that I was doubly remiss, as I asserted "No reasonable
> alternative exists", an entirely subjective statement on my part (and one
> that could  be invalidated, given time and further discovery by the
> scientist).  I also understand that a proving a theory does not necessarily
> specify that "this is how it happened", but proposes a likely description of
> the phenomena in question.  Am I mistaken with this understanding?

Yes, to some degree. There was an excellent discussion in sci.skeptic
on the nature of scientific work two weeks ago, I hope it did not
escape your notice. 

The correct word is 'likely'. There is no way to be sure our models and
theories are absolutely correct. Theories are backed up by evidence,
but not proved - no theory can be 'true' in a mathematical sense.

However, theories are not mere descriptions or rationalisations of
phenomena. It is extremely important to test whether theories can
_predict_ something new or not yet observed. All successful theories
science has come up with have passed this test, including the Big
Bang theory of cosmic evolution, the theory of natural selection etc.
It does not mean they _must_ be correct, but they are not mere
'best fits' for the data. 

> = But if you claim that there must be
> = an answer to "how" did the universe (our spacetime)  emerge from 
> = "nothing", science has some good candidates for an answer.

> All of which require something we Christians readily admit to: ``Faith''.

Well, yes, if you want to _believe_ in them. This is not what science
requires - take a good look at the theory and the evidence, see if
the theory has made any successful predictions, and use your reason.
Disbelievers are not punished. 

> The fact that there are several candidates belies that *none* are conclusive.  
> With out conclusive evidence, we are left with faith.

This is what puzzles me - why do we need to have faith in _anything_?
My fellow atheists would call me a weak atheist - someone who is
unable to believe, ie, fails to entertain any belief in God. 

Yes, I know that one can't believe without God's help; Luther makes
this quite clear in his letter to Erasmus. I'm afraid this does not
change my situation. 

> [ a couple of paragraphs deleted.  Summary: we ask "Why does the
> universe exist" ]


> = I think this question should actually be split into two parts, namely
> = 
> = 1) Why is there existence? Why anything exists?
> = 
> = and
> = 
> = 2) How did the universe emerge from nothing?

(deletions)

> = The question "why anything exists" can be countered by
> = demanding answer to a question "why there is nothing in nothingness,
> = or in non-existence".  Actually, both questions turn out to be
> = devoid of meaning. Things that exist do, and things that don't exist
> = don't exist. Tautology at its best.

> Carefully examine the original question, and then the "counter-question". 
> The first asks "Why", while the second is a request for definition. 

No, it is not, although it does look like one. This is a true dichotomy,
either something exists, or nothing exists. If nothing exists, nobody
would ask why. If something exists, it is possible to ask why, but
actually no existing being could give an answer. 

Imagine, for a moment, that the nobodies in non-existence could also
ask: "Why nothing exists?" This is equivalent to my counter-question,
"why nothing exists in nothingness". 

Now, "why anything exists" is equivalent to "why something exists in
somethingness".  _This_ is what I meant with my tautology, my apologies
for the poor wording in my previous post.

> I might add, the worldview of "Things that exist do, and things that
> don't...don't" is as grounded in the realm of the non-falsifiable,
> as does the theist's belief in God.  It is based on the assumption
> that there is *not* a reason for being, something as ultimately
> (un)supportable as the position of there being a reason.  Its very
> foundation exists in the same soil as that of one who claims there *is* a
> reason.

I do indeed think there probably _is_ no reason for being, or existence,
in general, for reasons I stated above. However, they will still
leave open the question "why this, and not that", and this is where
theistic explanations come in.

Science cannot give reasons for any _particular_ human being's existence.

> We come to this. Either "I am, therefore I am.", or "I am for a reason."

This is a deep philosophical question - is determinism true, or not?
Also, is God deterministic or not? I tend to think this question has
no meaning in His case. 

If I am for a reason, I've yet failed to see what it would be. 
From our perspective, it looks like 'I' exist for truly random
reasons. I just rolled two dice - why did I get 6 and 1? How can
I believe there is any better reason for my existence?

> If the former is a satisfactory answer, then you are done, for you are
> satisfied, and need not a doctor.  If the latter, your search is just
> beginning.  

Yes, I am satisfied with this reason, until I find something better.
My 15 years of Christianity were of no help in this respect, I have
to admit, but I am patient.

> = Another answer is that God is the _source_ of all existence.
> = This sounds much better, but I am tempted to ask: Does God
> = Himself exist, then? If God is the source of His own existence,
> = it can only mean that He has, in terms of human time, always
> = existed. But this is not the same as the source of all existence.

> This does not preclude His existence.  It only seeks to identify His
> *qualities* (implying He exists to *have* qualities, BTW).

No, it doesn't, but I think an existing God cannot know why He exists,
for an answer to this question is not knowable. Of course, this
should not be any obstacle to belief in His existence.

> I also have discovered science is an inadequate tool to answer "why".   It
> appears that M. Pihko agrees (as we shall see).  But because a tool is
> inadequate to answer a question does not preclude the question.  Asserting
> that 'why' is an invalid question does not provide an answer.  

It is impossible to know unknowable things. However, the question 
"why do I exist, in particular" is _not_ an invalid question - this
is not what I said. But from our perspective, it is impossible to
tell, and I can't just believe in any given explanation instead of
another, especially since I found I was deluding myself. 

> My apologies.  I was using why as "why did this come to be".  Why did
> pre-existence become existence.  Why did pre-spacetime become spacetime.

I think "pre-existence" is an oxymoron. There is no time 'outside' of
this spacetime (except in some other universe), and from that 
perspective, our universe never was. It exists only for those who
are inside it. 

> But we come to the admission that science fails to answer "Why?".  Because
> it can't be answered in the realm of modern science, does that make the
> question invalid?

No. The validity of the question has to be discussed separately; I think
philosophy is of great help here. What can be known, and what is not
knowable?

> M. Pihko does present a good point though.  We may need to ask "What do I 
> as an individual Christian base my faith on?"  Will it be shaken by the
> production of evidence that shatters our "sacred cows" or will we seek to
> understand if a new discovery truly disagrees with what God *said* (and
> continues to say) in his Word?

This is a very good question. In trying to answer this, and numerous
other questions that bothered me, I finally found nothing to base
my faith on. 

I think it would be honest if we all asked ourselves, "why do I believe"
or "why I don't believe". 

Petri

--
 ___. .'*''.*        Petri Pihko    kem-pmp@          Mathematics is the Truth.
!___.'* '.'*' ' .    Pihatie 15 C    finou.oulu.fi    Physics is the Rule of
       ' *' .* '*    SF-90650 OULU  kempmp@           the Game.
          *'  *  .*  FINLAND         phoenix.oulu.fi  -> Chemistry is The Game.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20779
From: healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy)
Subject: Re: Branch Davidians info

In article <Mar.18.02.31.54.1993.25350@athos.rutgers.edu> clitton@opie.bgsu.edu writes:
>From: clitton@opie.bgsu.edu
>Subject: Branch Davidians info
>Date: 18 Mar 93 07:31:55 GMT
>I am looking for any information on the Branch Davidians.  Send info to Chad
>Litton, ACS Dept. BGSU, Bowling Green OH  43403.  Or e-mail to
>clitton@andy.bgsu.edu  Thanks in advance.

I don't claim to be an expert on the branch Davidians, but I might know more 
than most.

The Branch Davidian group (led by Koresh) is actually one of two off-shoots 
of a group known as the Shephard's Rod.  The Shephard's Rod (now 
defunct as far as I know)broke off from the SDA Church in the 30's.

The Shephard's Rod broke away from the SDA Church because they felt that the 
SDA Church was becoming weak and falling into apostacy.  They felt that they 
were the remnant spoken about in Revelation.

About the Koresh group, Koresh gained control of it in 1987 or 1988.  Once 
in control, he made himself the center of it. He proclaimed himself as 
Christ.

Koresh himself came from an SDA background. He was excommunicated as a young 
adult by the local congregation for trying to exert too much control over 
the youth in the church.  After this, he joined the Branch Davidians.

They were/are a survivalist cult. This is why they had the stockpile of 
weapons, food, a bomb shelter, etc.  They had no intent of raiding the US 
government or anything. They were preparing for Armaggedon and were 
putting themselves in a self defense position.  

In my opinion, if the ATF and the FBI had left well enough alone, we wouldn'
t have the blood of 20+ children crying out from the ashes in Waco.

If you want to know about The Shephard's Rod, you might want to visit the 
local SDA church and talk to some of the older people.  They could give you 
some insight into where Koresh got his theology.

Tammy

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20780
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (boundary, the catechist)
Subject: Re: Assurance of Hell

In article <Apr.21.03.26.39.1993.1370@geneva.rutgers.edu> lfoard@hopper.virginia.edu (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:

>A God who must motivate through fear is not a God worthy of worship.
>If the God Jesus spoke of did indeed exist he would not need hell to

The reason for the existence of hell is justice.  Fear is only an effect
of the reality of hell.

-- 
boundary, the catechist 

no teneis que pensar que yo haya venido a traer la paz a la tierra; no he
venido a traer la paz, sino la guerra (Mateo 10:34, Vulgata Latina) 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20781
From: schnitzi@osceola.cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell

db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes:

>Mark Schnitzius writes:

>>>  Literal interpreters of the Bible will have a problem with this view, since
>>>the Bible talks about the fires of Hell and such.  
>> 
>>This is something I've always found confusing.  If all your nerve endings
>>die with your physical body, why would flame hurt you?  How can one "wail
>>and gnash teeth" with no lungs and no teeth?

>One can feel physical pain by having a body, which, if you know the
>doctrine of the resurrection of the body, is what people will have after
>the great judgement.  "We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the
>life of the world to come."  - Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.  You
>will have both body and soul in hell - eventually.

Now this is getting interesting!

I was raised Roman Catholic before becoming an atheist, so I have stated
this Creed you quote nearly every Sunday until I was about 18.  For some
reason, I always took the 'resurrection' in this statement to mean the
resurrection of the soul, but I guess resurrection does strictly mean
the raising of the physical body.  I have some questions on this point:

1.  I always thought that Christians believe the descent into hell was 
pretty much immediate, and that there are people burning in hell right
now.  You seem to be implying that it will not occur until after the
"great judgement" (which I read as meaning the proverbial Judgment Day).
I was always a little confused on this point, even when I was with the
church -- maybe someone can clear it up for me.  Where will my "soul"
(which, by the way, I don't believe in) exist until that time?

2.  Will the new body I will have be created out of the same atoms 
that my body now is made of, or will it be built from scratch?  My
physical body now is susceptible to aging, etc. -- so I guess my
new body will have to be radically different in order to be immortal
so it can be tortured for all eternity?

3.  Since I will have a physical body, I assume it will need a physical
place to exist in -- where is this hell?  In the center of the earth?
Do you think we could find it if we dig?

Mark Schnitzius
schnitzi@eola.cs.ucf.edu
Univ. of Central Florida

[There is not complete agreement on the details of the afterlife.  I
think the most common view is that final disposition does not occur
until a final judgement, which is still in the future.  In the
meantime, some believe that people "sleep" until the final
resurrection (or because God is above time, pass directly from death
to the future time when the resurrection occurs), while others believe
that souls have a disembodied, pre-resurrection existence until then.
There are probably other alternatives that I'm omitting.

The new body is generally conceived of being implemented in a
different "technology" than the current one, one which is not mortal.
(Paul talks about the mortal being raised to immortality, and Jesus'
resurrected body -- which is the first example -- clearly was not
subject to the same kind of limitations as ours.)  It is assumed that
there are enough similarities that people will recognize each other,
but I don't think most people claim to know the details.  I don't
think I'd say it's the same atoms.  I'd assume there would be some
analog of a physical place, but I wouldn't expect to find it under the
earth or up in the sky.  I'd suspect that it's in another dimension,
outside this physical world, or whatever.  But again, we have little
in the way of details.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20782
From: cs89mcd@brunel.ac.uk (Michael C Davis)
Subject: Re: WBT (WAS: Re: phone number of wycliffe translators UK)

poram%mlsma@att.att.com wrote:
: Having met Peter Kingston (of WBT) some years back, he struck me 
: as an exemplery and dedicated Christian whose main concern was with
: translation of the Word of God and the welfare of the people
: group he was serving.
: WBT literature is concerned mainly with providing Scripture
: in minority languages.

Yes, in fact Peter is now at Wycliffe HQ in the U.K., and is a member of my
church. I would fully endorse the above -- Peter is a very Godly man, with a
passion for serving Christ.

On one occasion he specifically addressed the issue of ``cultural
interference'' in a sermon, presumably from his experience of allegations
directed at Wycliffe. (Perhaps I could find the tape...?)
-- 
Michael Davis (cs89mcd@brunel.ac.uk)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20783
From: jprzybyl@skidmore.edu (jennifer przybylinski)
Subject: Re: Hell_2:  Black Sabbath

Hey...

I may be wrong, but wasn't Jeff Fenholt part of Black Sabbath?  He's a
MAJOR brother in Christ now.  He totally changed his life around, and
he and his wife go on tours singing, witnessing, and spreading the
gospel for Christ.  I may be wrong about Black Sabbath, but I know he
was in a similar band if it wasn't that particular group...

HOW GREAT IS TH LOVE THE FATHER HAS LAVISHED ON US, THAT WE SHOULD BE
CALLED CHILDREN OF GOD!  AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE!  (1 JOHN 3:1)

Grace and peace to all, (I'll see you ALL Someday!)
Jenny
jprzybyl@scott.skidmore.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20784
From: marka@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley)
Subject: Re: hearing sinners

In article <Apr.21.03.24.19.1993.1271@geneva.rutgers.edu> JEK@cu.nih.gov writes:
>On the question, "Does God hear the prayers of sinners?" we need to
>distinguish.
>If we say that He never hears the prayers of any who have sinned, we
>make pointless all prayers by anyone born less than 19 centuries
>ago.
>But if we consider the prayers of the impenitent sinner, of someone
>who says, "Lord, I want you to do this for me, but don't expect me
>to change my way of life," that is a different matter. 

I have no doubt that God hears everybody's prayers.
However, He does things His way, i.e. things will happen
only if it is His will.

Now if the question really is "Does God grant everybody's wishes ?"
then you'll get a brutal shot of reality similar to when you didn't
get that toy you wanted for Christmas. You just cannot expect
to get everything you want in this world.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Ashley                        |DISCLAIMER: My opinions. Not Harris'
marka@gcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com      |
The Lost Los Angelino              |

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20785
From: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?

In article <Apr.16.23.15.27.1993.1836@geneva.rutgers.edu> cs89mcd@brunel.ac.uk (Michael C Davis) writes:

>: I would like to get your opinions on this: when exactly does an engaged
>: couple become "married" in God's eyes?  Some say that if the two have
>: publically announced their plans to marry, have made their vows to God, and
>: are unswervingly committed to one another (I realize this is a subjective
>: qualifier) they are married/joined in God's sight.
>
>The way I read Scripture, a couple becomes married when they are *physically*
>married, i.e. when they first have sexual intercourse.

Some years ago an Anglican synod was discussing the marriage canons and 
there was some debate on what actually constituted a marriage.

The bishop of Natal, whose wife of many years had died, and who had recently 
remarried, announced "It MUST be consummated" and looked like that cat that 
got the cream.

So I suppose he at least would agree with you.

============================================================
Steve Hayes, Department of Missiology & Editorial Department
Univ. of South Africa, P.O. Box 392, Pretoria, 0001 South Africa
Internet: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za         Fidonet: 5:7101/20
          steve.hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
FAQ: Missiology is the study of Christian mission and is part of
     the Faculty of Theology at Unisa

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20786
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: Latest on Branch Davidians

In article <Apr.20.03.02.42.1993.3815@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt) wrote:
>
>
> I think it's really sad that so many people put their faith in a mere
> man, even if he did claim to be the son of God, and/or a prophet.

I'll pose a question here that's got me thinking:  what distinguishes
"true" religion from cults (I'm speaking generally here, not specifially
about Christianity)?  Jerry Falwell was on Good Morning America on 
Tuesday ostensibly to answer this question.  Basically, he said that
true religion follows a message whereas a cult follows a person.
But, then, Christianity is a cult because the message of Christianity
IS the person of Jesus.  So what distinguishes, for example, the
Branch Davidian "cult" from the Presbyterian "church"?  Doctrinal
differences don't answer the question, IMHO, so don't use them as
an answer.

  -- Scott at Brandeis

	"But God demonstrates His     "The Lord bless you, and keep you;
	 own love for us, in that      the Lord make His face shine on you,
	 while we were yet sinners,    and be gracious to you;
	 Christ died for us."	       the Lord lift up His countenance on you,
				       and give you peace."
		-- Romans 5:8 [NASB]		-- Numbers 6:24-26 [NASB]

[There have been some attempts to characterize "cult".  Most commonly
it uses characteristics involving high pressure, brainwashing
techniques, etc.  But some people characterize it by doctrinal
error.  In the end I'm afraid it becomes a term with no precise
meaning that's used primarily to dismiss groups as not worthy
of serious consideration.  That doesn't mean that there aren't
groups that do highly irresponsible things and have serious
doctrinal errors.  But past discussions have not suggested to me
that "cult" is a very helpful term.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20787
From: reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: proof of resurection

In article <Apr.23.02.56.33.1993.3165@geneva.rutgers.edu>, andrew@srsune.shlrc.mq.edu.au (Andrew McVeigh) writes:

> The Bible's message is that we are to love all people, and
> that all people are redeemable.  It preaches a message of
> repentance, and of giving.  Unfortunately, all people have
> deceitful hearts, and are capable of turning this message
> around and contorting it in sometimes unbelievable ways.
> This is also a fundamental Christian doctrine.

Andrew,

   How I wish this were true, and how I long for the day in which it will
be true.  But alas, it is not true of history.  The Bible does not have a 
message -- it has messages.  And some of those are messages of repentance and
giving, to turn the other cheek, and do unto the least of these.  But some
of the messages are the complete opposite.  Like the isrealites order to 
wipe out other tribes including women and children down to cattle, and 
punished severely when they were less than complete about the job.  Like
jews who are said to have cried out in Matthew, "His blood be upon our heads
and our childrens heads" A verse quoted in every pogrom from the crusades to
the holocaust.  Have these been misunderstood?  I think not.  They have only
been understood too clearly.  It is essential that christians grasp firmly
the good the bible teaches, the meek carpenter from Nazareth is a potent 
symbol for how we should be, his teachings we must take to heart, but we
cannot ignore the other material in the bible which is not to our liking and
say those who live by that have misread it.  To say that is only to chose a
point of interpretation and declare it normative.  Such can be done with the
same legitmacy by anyone.  Instead we must let the text critique the text.
Understanding that there is both good and bad in our sacred corpus, we test
all things and hold fast to that which is good. 
> 
> 
> p.s. I believe that a line of questioning like you presented
> is, strangely enough, compatible with becoming a Christian.
> Certainly Christianity encourages one to question the behaviour
> of the world, and especially Christians.  I praise God for
> Jesus Christ, and the fact that we can doubt our beliefs
> and still come back to God and be forgiven, time and time
> again.
> 

At the risk of sounding heretical (well ok, more heretical) I don't think
that doubt is something which requires forgiveness, it is something which
requires introspection and reflection.  If that is a sin, then there can
be no salvation, for doubt is an inescapble part of being human.  Consider
Job.  His friends had no doubt. Whereas Job had no doubt in himself but
doubted the wisdom and justice of God.  When God finally did appear he 
rebuked the friends and had job make sacrifices for them.  To be a Christian
it to always have doubt, or not to have honesty.

Randy 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20788
From: caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

> I've just read Carol's response and I just had to get into this.  I've
> got some verses which are not subject to interpretation because they say
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> what they say.  
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Joe, just 'cause you say they aren't subject to interpretation doesn't
necesarily make it so.  That's *your* *interpretation* of these texts.

> They are 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and
> Galatians 1:11-12.  

2 Peter 1:20-21
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter 
of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of
human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

The study notes in my Bible offer three possible meanings for verse 20.
Apparantly it's not as clear to Charles Ryrie as it is to you.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for
reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of
God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Galations 1:11-12
For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached
by me is not according to man.  For I neither received it from man, 
nor was I taught it, but I receieved it through a revelation of Jesus
Christ.

When I read these passages, it was not immediately clear to me what
every phrase meant.  I had stop and think about the possible
connotations of words, what the intent of the author may have been,
wonder if the translator used the correct English word to convey the 
same meaning: I had to interpret.  If you want to believe that your 
are not interpreting Scripture as you read, there's probably nothing 
I can say to change your mind.  But I think it's naive to think that 
our culture, experiences, education, do not affect everything we read.

> Also, based on the fact that Jesus is the Word incarnate and he judges
> people if they follow him (see Acts 17:29-31 and John 5:21-27) and that
> those who reject Jesus' teachings are judged by the very words he spoke
> (see John 12:47-50), then Jesus' words are true and do not need
> interpretation, nor would it be just of God to judge based on his word
> if it had to be interpreted.

In college, I took an entire course in Biblical interpretation.  Go to
any Christian bookstore, there are scores of books on interpreting and
understanding Scripture.  If interpretation is unnecessary, there are 
an awful lot of misguided Christians out there wasting a lot of time 
and energy on it.

Carol Alvin
caralv@auto-trol.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20789
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: iterations of the bible

OFM replies to a question on the multiplicity of translations of the bible,

>As far as I know, no Christians
>believe that the process of copying manuscripts or the process of
>translating is free of error.  

Unfortunately, this isn't true.  On another news group earlier this year,
someone posted that the King James Bible was the divinely inspired version
of the Bible in English and was, therefore, inerrant; all other English
translations were from Satan, trying to deceive the body of Christ.  A
few years ago, the pastor of a church I was attending showed me a poster
advertising the availability of a certain man to address congregations.
Very prominantly on the poster was the fact that the man used only the KJV.
The idea that the KJV is THE English Bible is more prevalent than many
might think.

  -- Scott at Brandeis

	"But God demonstrates His     "The Lord bless you, and keep you;
	 own love for us, in that      the Lord make His face shine on you,
	 while we were yet sinners,    and be gracious to you;
	 Christ died for us."	       the Lord lift up His countenance on you,
				       and give you peace."
		-- Romans 5:8 [NASB]		-- Numbers 6:24-26 [NASB]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20790
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Serbian genocide Work of God?

D. Andrew Kille writes:

>Are you suggesting that God supports genocide?
>Perhaps the Germans were "punishing" Jews on God's behalf?
> 
>Any God who works that way is indescribably evil, and unworthy of
>my worship or faith.

The Bible does tell us that governments are ordained by God (Romans 13).
 And furthermore, God foreknows everything that would happen.  It is
just to difficult for humans to graps with our limited minds, the
inevitablity of the sucess of God's plan, and this is especially hard to
grasp when we see governemnts doing evil.  However, though they are
doing evil (and we should not cooperate with them when they do such), it
must be understood that what happens is what God wanted so as to lead to
the final sucess of His plan to save as many souls from hell as is
possible.  In short, the slaughter in Bosnia, though deplorable in the
eyes of God (maybe, then again, they might be getting their just deserts
now rather than later; there are plenty of examples of God killing
people for their sins - Onan in the Old Testmament for example, and
Annias and Spahira in the New) is what he willed to happen so that His
plan might be accomplished.
    But don't forget, it is not unbiblical for God to use one nation to
execute His just judgement upon another.  The Romans were used to
fulfill the chorus of "Let his blood be upon our hands" of the crowd in
Jersualem.  And Chaldea was chastised by Babylon, which got Israel,
which was inturn gotten by Persia, etc.  God does use nations to punish
other nations, as the Bible very clearly shows in the Old Testament. 
Don't you remember the words of God recorded in Daniel, "Mene, mene,
tekel, peres?"  Babylon had been weighed in the balance scales of God's
justice, found severly wanting, and was thus given over to the Persians
as their due punishment for their rebellion.  Another exammple is the
extirmination of the Cannanites, ordered by God as the task of Israel. 
The Cannanites had been given their chance, found severly wanting, and
the Great Judge, carried out His just sentence accrodingly.  I could go
on with more examples, but I see little need to do so, as my point is
quite clear.
Two things need to be remembered at all times. 1) It is not up to us to
question why God has ordered the world as He has.  In His divine Wisdom,
He made the world as was best in His eyes, and like Paul says in Romans
9, the clay is not one to tlak back to the potter.  2) The message of
Jesus Christ is as follows: "Repent now, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at
hand."  Jesus Christ did not allow any time for dilly-dallying - "Let
the dead bury the dead, come, follow me."  There is not an infinite
amount of time, rather Christ is passing by right now, calling people to
follow Him and become fishers of men.  He does not say, "well, alright,
you can call me back in a week and see if my Kingdom fits in with your
plans."  He said "Follow me."  His message is NOT "I'm just a sweety-pie
who would never hurt a fly, you've got all the time in the world, and
Divine Judgement, that's only a fairy tale."  "Our great God and Savior"
Jesus Christ (Titus 2.5) is also the just and righteous Judge of the
world.  And it is not up to the defendants in the trial to be
questioning his entirely just sentences of either chastisement or mercy.

D. Andrew Byler
"Does not He who ways the heart perceive [sin], and will He not judge
men according to their works?" - Proverbs 24.12

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20791
From: mwhaefne@infonode.ingr.com (Mark W. Haefner)
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell

In article <Apr.20.03.01.40.1993.3769@geneva.rutgers.edu> trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:
>
>I don't have a problem with being condemned to Hell either.  The
>     way I see it, if God wants to punish me for being honest in
>     my skepticism (that is, for saying he doesn't exist), He
>     certainly wouldn't be changing His nature.  Besides, I would
>     rather spend an eternity in Hell than be beside God in Heaven
>     knowing even one man would spend his "eternal life" being
>     scorched for his wrongdoings...
>

I see some irony here. Jesus was willing to go through torture to free
you from the definite promise of hell (based on Adam/Eve's fall from grace)
but rather than allow him to stand in your place, you would give up
your redemption to stand with those who do not accept his grace.
God would rather have none in hell, which seems to put the burden of 
choice on us. Of course, this is all fictional anyway since you reject him
also.

My former sociology professor once told us at the beginning
of our term, "you all start out with an A...what you do with that during
the course of this term is up to you". In the beginning...Adam and Eve
were given an A. 



Mark Haefner

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20792
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Cell Church discussion group

Then by that definition, I would be in a cell church only here at IU,
not when the whole group gets together at Indianapolis (>950 every week
in attendance).

Joe Fisher

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20793
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Christians that are not church members

Here are some notes about what the church is to be like and some helpful
ideas about how to choose a church:

Colossians 1:15-18
   A.  Jesus is the head of the body, the church
   B.  You cannot say "yes" to Jesus, but "no" to the church

Ephesians 2:19-22
   A.  The church is the family of God
   B.  The church is based on the Word of God only
          Cornerstone=Christ
          Foundation= Apostles=New Testament
                      Prophets=Old Testament  (see Revelation 21:9-14)

1 Corinthians 12:12-13
   A.  Baptism is when we become a member of the church

As for the question of denominations:
   A.  The Bible teaches that there is only ONE church from Ephesians
4:4-6, Romans 12:4-5, 1 Corinthians 12:12-13
   B.  1 Corinthians 1:10-13 says that there should be no divisions in
the church.  There should be no following of personalities in the church
(and in time, their writings)
   C.  There are so many churches today because of a problem.  2 Timothy
4:1-4 says that people will turn away from the truth and try to find a
church that teaches a doctrine that suits their lifestyle

Hebrews 10:24-25
   A.  Do not miss church
   B.  Purpose is to encourage each other, so we will remain faithful.
Involved on a relationship level in the church
   C.  Must come to ALL services

Another verse which is helpful is Hebrews 3:12-15.  The church should be
encouraging daily, as it is their duty to do.

Of course, more standards apply:
   1 Timothy 4:16  People in the church should be watching their lives
and doctrines to make sure they both live up to the Word entirely (ie,
disciples).
   Acts 17:10-12  The pastor does not come close to the Apostle Paul
(natural conclusion since the Apostle Paul talked with Jesus directly
face to face), so if the Bereans, who were considered noble, didn't take
Paul at his word but checked out what he said with Scripture to verify
his statements, then church members are to do the same and verify the
pastor's statements.  If they are not verifiable or valid in light of
other verses, then that group should be avoided as a church (would've
made a wonderful suggestion to the Waco group, especially in light of
Matthew 24).

Joe Fisher

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20794
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?

i have a question for you all related to this.  jesus condemns divorce
several times in the new testament, and i have a hard time with this.
the catholic church (as far as i can tell) does grant annulments with
the statement that the marriage never really existed in God's eyes.
(please, if i am mistinterpreting, correct me.)  however, i have
witnessed marriages where two people were very much in love but
recognized that they were destroying themselves and each other by
staying in a marriage, and that the problems were due to personal
childhood issues that had never been resolved.  i ask you, is divorce
justified in such a case?  they knew who they were, what they were
doing, they were deeply in love, but in the end, it did not work out.
i must admit that i don't see jesus forcing them to live together, or
even condemning that they go and seek happiness with someone else
later on.  opinions?

vera
*******************************************************************************
I am your CLOCK!     |  I bind unto myself today    | Vera Noyes
I am your religion!  |  the strong name of the	    | noye@midway.uchicago.edu
I own you!	     |  Trinity....		    | no disclaimer -- what
	- Lard	     |	- St. Patrick's Breastplate | is there to disclaim?
*******************************************************************************

[This is a commonly discussed question, though it's been long enough
that I'll allow it to be asked.  As you might expect, there is a range
of answers.  Catholics and some others will say that divorce is never
justified.  (By the way, in situations where someone is being abused,
or for other serious cause, separation is allowed by all traditions
that I know.  No one should be forced to stay in a situation where
they are in danger.)  Others see it as a last resort in situations
that have fallen apart badly enough that the best we can hope for is
to choose the lesser of evils.  In some sense the difficult legal
question turns out not to be divorce, but remarriage.  That's because
of Jesus' statement in Mark 10:11-12 and par.  As with so many other
things, this turns on your approach to the Bible.  Conservative
Protestants tend to see statements like this as having no exceptions.
More liberal ones are willing to make allowances for situations where
a literal interpretation would lead to painful results.  (It is noted
that at the time it was possible for a man to divorce his wife almost
on a whim.  Thus a common explanation in the more liberal approach is
that Jesus was trying to protect people from this sort of thing, not
to establish an absolute rule to which there could never be
exceptions.)  Catholics, as is typical with Catholic ethics, take a
theoretical hard line, but allow for exceptions in practice through
the process of anullment.  In the last discussion most of our
non-Catholic readers seemed to accept with some reluctance that
in some cases there might be no good alternative, but there was a
feeling that the church should often be doing a better job of
helping people prepare for marriage and deal with problems that
come up during it, and that in a properly run church, divorce
should not be necessary.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20795
From: spebcg@thor.cf.ac.uk (BCG)
Subject: Re: Knowing God's Will

Hi,

I don't know much about Bible. Could you tell me the relations of
Christians with non-Christians in Bible? How should be The relations of
christian nations with each other and the relations of Christian nations
with other nations who are not Christians?

The other question is about the concept of religion in Bible. Does the
religion of God include and necessitate any law to be extracted from
Bible or is the religion only a belief and nothing to do with the
government sides? If for example, any government or a nation is one of
the wrongdoings according to Bible, how should they be treated? 

Is there any statement in Bible saying that Bible is a guide for every
aspects of life?  

Thank you.

Beytullah
 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20796
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: harrassed at work, could use some prayers

i'd just like to repeat and emphasize that because someone else is
trying to make you feel horrible and worthless does not mean that you
should feel that way, although that's easier to say than believe
sometimes.  remember, God made you and loves you, so he must think
you're something special.  (excuse the trite language here.)  also,
the bully may just be someone who is mean for no reason -- not out of
intentional mental torture.  has anyone else been harassed?  maybe
they're just not talking about it.  

i would have emailed but my reactions weren't fast enough and the post
i'm responding to didn't include your address.  just take courage and
remember that all of us on the net are rooting for you.

take care!
vera
_______________________________________________________________________________
Hand over hand				noye@midway.uchicago.edu
Doesn't seem so much			(Vera Noyes)
Hand over hand				
Is the strength of the common touch	drop me a line if you're in the mood
	- Rush, "Hand Over Fist"
_______________________________________________________________________________

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20797
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: Am I going to Hell?

In article <Apr.24.01.09.10.1993.4254@geneva.rutgers.edu> stoney@oyster.smcm.edu (Stanley Toney) writes:
> Muslims, i fear have been given a lie from the  
>fater of lies, Satan. They need Christ as do us all.
>
>stan toney stoney@oyster.smcm.edu
>my opinions are my own, you may borrow them

just picked out this one point because it struck me....
why do you believe this?  muslims believe in many of the same things
that christians and jews believe; they believe jesus, while not the
messiah, is a prophet.  this seems to me to be much closer to
christianity than other religions are.  (then again i tend to be
somewhat liberal about others' beliefs.)

this also relates to the serbian "ethnic cleansing" question.  i have
been waiting for condemnations of this and have seen very few.  HOW
can we stand by and watch innocent people, even people whose beliefs
we condemn, if this is the case (and don't get me wrong, the things
fundamenalist muslims have to say about women make my blood boil), be
tortured, raped (the stories about that made me physically ill), and
killed?  jesus loves all, not just those who love him back -- and he
would advocate kindness toward them (in the hopes of converting them,
if that's the way you want to put it) rather than killing them.  

i'm sorry i got off the subject here -- maybe i should have used a
different title.  i did need to get this off my chest, however.

peace (shalom),
vera shanti
_______________________________________________________________________________
Hand over hand				noye@midway.uchicago.edu
Doesn't seem so much			(Vera Noyes)
Hand over hand				
Is the strength of the common touch	drop me a line if you're in the mood
	- Rush, "Hand Over Fist"
_______________________________________________________________________________

[I am also worried about this issue.  I've made a posting under my own
name earlier today.  I do not much want to discuss Moslem beliefs
here.  This isn't the right group for it.  Their beliefs about Jesus
appear to come as much from the Koran as the Bible.  This means that
while they honor him, what they think he did and stood for differs in
many ways from Christian beliefs about him.  But Moslem beliefs are
an appropriate topic for soc.religion.islam.

As I'm sure you know, many Christians believe that you must accept
Christ in order to be saved.  While Stanley's comment appears to be
anti-Moslem, I would assume he would say the same thing about all
religions other than Christianity.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20798
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (boundary, the catechist)
Subject: Re: Am I going to Hell?

In article <Apr.23.02.55.31.1993.3123@geneva.rutgers.edu> tbrent@ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes:
>I have stated before that I do not consider myself an atheist, but 
>definitely do not believe in the christian god.  The recent discussion
>about atheists and hell, combined with a post to another group (to the
>effect of 'you will all go to hell') has me interested in the consensus 
>as to how a god might judge men.  As a catholic, I was told that a jew,
>buddhist, etc. might go to heaven, but obviously some people do not
>believe this.  Even more see atheists and pagans (I assume I would be 
>lumped into this category) to be hellbound.  I know you believe only
>god can judge, and I do not ask you to, just for your opinions.

Dear Tim:

You say that you were a "catholic," but if you do not believe in the Christian
God (I suppose that means the God of the Bible) and publicly state this,   
you are in all probability not a Roman Catholic.  "Public heretics, even
those who err in good faith (material heretics), do not belong to the body
of the Church" (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 1960, Ludwig Ott, p. 311).

All is not lost, however, as you still might belong spiritually to the
Church by your desire to belong to it.  As you said, only God can judge
the condition of a man's soul.  About judgment, on the other hand, St. Paul 
1 Cor 5:12) urges Christians to judge their fellow Christians. 
Following the Apostle's teaching, I judge that you should reconsider   
returning to the Christian fold and embrace the God of Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob.  He is the God who lives.  

Concerning what you were told about non-believers when you were a catholic,
that is true.  As I have posted before, Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, II,   
n. 16) teaches: "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know
the Gospel of Christ or His Chruch, but who nevertheless seek God with a
sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will
as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may
achieve eternal salvation."  

Responding to your solicitation for opinions on the thinking processes
of God, the best I can do is refer you to Scripture.  Scripture is one
of the best sources for learning what can be known about God.  

Stick with the best.
-- 
boundary, the catechist 

no teneis que pensar que yo haya venido a traer la paz a la tierra; no he
venido a traer la paz, sino la guerra (Mateo 10:34, tr. esp. Vulgata Latina) 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20799
From: johnsd2@rpi.edu (Dan Johnson)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article 1328@geneva.rutgers.edu, gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (boundary) writes:
>dleonar@andy.bgsu.edu (Pixie) writes:
[deletia- sig]
>>     p.s.  If you do sincerely believe that a god exists, why do you follow
>>it blindly?  
>>     Do the words "Question Authority" mean anything to you?
>>     I defy any theist to reply.      
>

[deletia- formalities]

I probably should let this pass, it's not worth the time, and it's not
really intended for me. But I couldn't resist. A personal weakness of mine.
Jerkius Kneeus. Tragically incurable.

>The foundation for faith in God is reason, without which the existence
>of God could not be proven.  That His existence can be proven by reason
>is indisputable (cf. my short treatise, "Traditional Proofs for the 
>Existence of God," and Summa Theologica).

Not so; I can prove that the existance of God is disputable
by showing that people dispute it; This is easy: I dispute that
God exists. Simple.

I missed your "Traditional Proofs" treatise, but the proofs I remember
from the Summa Theologic (the 5 ways I think it was) were rather poor
stuff. The Ontological argument is about a billion times better, imho.

I would think you'd want non-traditional proofs, considering the general
failure of the traditional proofs: at least the ones I know of.
(I am thinking of the Ontological Argument, the Cosmological Argument and
the Teleological argument. Those are the ones traditional enough to
have funny names, anyway.)

>Now, given that God exists, and that His existence can be proven by reason,
>I assert that His commands must be followed blindly, although in our fallen
>condition we must always have some measure of doubt about our faith.  Why?

This is the real question. So to discuss it, I'll assume God exists.
Otherwise, there is no heavenly authority to babble about.

>Because God is the First Cause of all things, the First Mover of matter,
>the Independent Thing that requires nothing else for its existence, the
>Measure of all that is perfect, and the essential Being who gives order
>to the universe (logos).

Please show this is the case. I am familiar with the First Cause
argument, and I'll accept (for the sake of argument) that there
is a First Cause, even though I find some of its premices
questionable. The rest you'll have to show. This includes
that the First Cause is God.

>I next assert that God is all good.

Got it. I deny that God is all good. So there.

>  If this is so, then that which is
>contrary to the will of God is evil; i.e., the absence of the good.  And,
>since God can never contradict Himself, then by His promise of a Savior
>as early as the Protoevangelium of Genesis 3:5, God instructs that because
>a human (Adam) was first responsible for man's alienation from the Source
>of all good, a man would be required to act to restore the friendship.
>Thus God became incarnate in the person of the Messiah.

This isn't self-consistent: if humans must renew the relationship,
then God (incarnate or not) can't do it. Well, unless you think God is
human. Granted, God made himself 'human', but this is nonetheless cheating:
The intent of the statement is clearly that man has to fix the problem
he caused. God fixing it- even by indirect means- contradicts this.

>Now this Messiah claimed that He is the Truth (John 14:6).  If this claim
>is true, then we are bound by reason to follow Him, who is truth incarnate.

Why?

Also, why assume said claim is true anyway?

If *I* claim to be Truth, are you bound by reason to follow me?

>You next seem to have a problem with authority.  Have you tried the United
>States Marine Corps yet?  I can tell you first-hand that it is an excellent
>instructor in authority.

:)

Undoubtably. Do you mean to imply we should all obey the commands of the
Marines without question? You seem to imply this about God, and
that the Marines are similar in this respect.. If this is not what
you are trying to say, they please explain what it is you are saying,
as I have missed it.

>  If you have not yet had the privilege, I will
>reply that the authority which is Truth Incarnate may never be questioned,
>and thus must be followed blindly.

Why? Why not question it? Even if it *is* truth, we cannot know this
certainly, so why is it so irrational to question? Perhaps we will
thus discover that we were wrong.

You assert that God is Truth and we can't question Truth. But
I assert that God is not Truth and anyway we can question Truth.
How is it my assertion is less good than yours?

>  One may NOT deny the truth.

Oh?

I hereby deny 1+1=2.

I hope you'll agree 1+1=2 is the truth.

Granted, I look pretty damn silly saying something like that,
but I needed something we'd both agree was clearly true.

Now, you'll notice no stormtroopers have marched in to drag
me off to the gulag. No heaven lighting bolts either. No mysterious
net outages. I seem to be permited to say such things, absurd or not.

>  For
>example, when the proverbial apple fell on Isaac Newton's head, he could
>have denied that it happened, but he did not.  The laws of physics must
>be obeyed whether a human likes them or not.  They are true. 

They are certainly not true. At least, the ones Newton derived are
not true, and are indeed wildly inaccurate at high speeds or small
distances. We do not have a set of Laws of Physics that always
works in all cases. If we did, Physics would be over already.

Science is all about Questioning this sort of truth. If we didn't,
we'd still follow Aristotle. I'd generalize this a little more:
If you want to learn anything new, you MUST question the things
you Know (tm). Because you can always be wrong.

>Therefore, the Authority which is Truth may not be denied.

Even presupposing that Truth may not be Denied, and may
not be Questioned, and that God is Truth, it only follows
that God may not be Denied or Questioned. NOT that he must
be obeyed!

We could unquestioningly DISobey him. How annoying of us.
But you have not connected denial with disobedience.

---
			- Dan "No Nickname" Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions probably show what I know.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20800
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Subject: Re: Was Jesus Black?

This subject seems to be incredibly inflammatory.  Those who subscribe to
_Biblical Archaeology Review_ will remember a spectacular letter battle set off when someone
complained about a Franklin Mint ad.  (_BAR_ is a great magazine, but the
contrast between the rather scholarly articles and the incredibly sleazy ads
is extreme.)  In this ad, they were hawking a doll with a head based on the
famous bust of Nefertiti, giving the face a typical doll-pink complexion.
The letter complained about this as a misrepresentation on the grounds that
Nefertiti was "a beautiful black queen."  This set off an exchange of
hotheaded letters than ran for several issues, to the point where they had
an article from an Egyptologist titled "Was Cleopatra Black?"  (The answer
to the title is "no"-- she was greek.)

I have to say that I hear a hysterical note in much of the complaining.  I
personally have seen only one blond-haired Jesus (in the National Shrine in
Wash. DC), and I found it very jarring.  Western representations vary
enourmously, but in general the image of is of a youngish male with dark
hair and beard, of a sort that can be found (modulo the nose) all up and
down the Mediterranean.

(Also, if what I remember is correct, the "Black Madonna" doesn't represent
a person with negroid features.  It is black because of an accident.  Joe
Buehler....?)

In the presence of all those marble statues, one is prone to forget that
greeks are rather likely to have black hair.  When one crosses the bosporus,
the situation breaks down completely.  Are Turks white?  How about Persians,
or various groups in the indian subcontinent?  Was Gandhi white?  How about
the Arabs?  Or picture Nassar and Sadat standing side by side.  And then
there are the Ethiopians....

Those of a white racist bent are not likely to say that *any* of these
people are "white" (i.e., of the racist's "race").  If I may risk a
potentially inflammatory remark, one undercurrent of this seems to be the
identification of modern jews as members of the oppressor race.  Considering
the extreme dicotomy between medieval religion on the one hand and medieval
antisemitism on the other, I don't think that this "Jesus was white" thesis
ever played the roles that some hold it did.

Representations of Jesus as black or korean or whatever are fine.  It seems
awfully self-serving to insist that Jesus belongs to one's own racial group.
-- 
C. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
                  +    but strife closed in the sod.
mangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
tove!mangoe       +    the marv'lous peace of God."

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20801
From: FSSPR@acad3.alaska.edu (Hardcore Alaskan)
Subject: Looking for videotapes

I have been looking at some of the recent productions on homosexuality
and decided that I was interested in videotaped copies of these.  If
anyone can help me out here, I would very much appreciate it.

Here is what I am looking for:

* - "The Gay Agenda" produced by Ty Beeson's group The Report.

* - John Ankerberg's recent series "Understanding Homosexuality and
Experiencing Genuine Change."

* - James Kennedy's special on homosexuality which aired this week,
and the portion of the previous week's program which discussed "The
Gay Agenda."

I will not pay money for copies, since this is copyrighted material
and that would be illegal.  I will pay for return postage.  If
somebody can think of something they would desire in trade, please let
me know and I'll see what I can do.

Oh, BTW, I'm watching the March On Washington right now on C-SPAN. 
Other than the fact that I'm generally repulsed by what I'm watching,
I found one thing of interest.  General David Dinkins just finished
speaking, and remarked that the New York City delegation consists of
about 200,000 people.  Funny, I don't see 200,000 people out there,
period.  Must've been quite the party scene last night.  Or maybe
their exaggerations were just too much.

Sean Patrick Ryan****fsspr@aurora.alaska.edu or sean@freds.cojones.com
3215 Oregon Dr. #2, Anchorage, AK  99517-2048****907-272-9184****fnord
Abortion stops a beating heart****Disclaimer:  I didn't inhale, either
IDITAROD SCOREBOARD 1993 - MEN 16, WOMEN 5****Read alt.flame.sean-ryan

[I don't suppose you'd be interested in hearing about the homosexual
agenda from homosexual Christians?  These portrayals of the homosexual
agenda are regarded by some as being somewhat akin to trying to
understand fundamentalist Christianity by looking at the Branch
Dividians.  You might also want to look at some outside evaluations of
the groups claiming to change homosexuals.  When our church (the
Presbyterian Church (USA)) looked into this issue, even the
conservative members of the committee were concerned about how real
and long-lasting the changes were.  I'll be interested to get reports
from police and the press about the number of people participating
today.  Presumably we'll have a better idea by tomorrow.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20802
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: Am I going to Hell?

XOPR131@maccvm.corp.mot.com (Gerald McPherson) writes:

>   If you reject the claims of Jesus, and still go to
>   heaven, then the joke's on me. If you reject him and go to hell,
>   that's no joke, but it will be final.

If this is God's attitude, then I'll think I'll go along with
Terry Pratchett's religious philosophy:

"Oh, I believe in God. I just don't actually _like_ the blighter."

P.
-- 
 moorcockpratchettdenislearydelasoulu2iainmbanksneworderheathersbatmanpjorourke
clive p a u l  m o l o n e y  Come, let us retract the foreskin of misconception
james trinity college dublin  and apply the wire brush of enlightenment - GeoffM
 brownbladerunnersugarcubeselectronicblaylockpowersspikeleekatebushhamcornpizza 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20803
From: trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre)
Subject: Theists And Objectivity

Can a theist be truly objective?  Can he be impartial
     when questioning the truth of his scriptures, or
     will he assume the superstition of his parents
     when questioning? 

I've often found it to be the case that the theist
     will stick to some kind of superstition when
     wondering about God and his scriptures.  I've
     seen it in the Christian, the Jew, the Muslim,
     and the other theists alike.  All assume that
     their mothers and fathers were right in the
     aspect that a god exists, and with that belief
     search for their god.
     
Occasionally, the theist may switch religions or
     aspects of the same religion, but overall the
     majority keep to the belief that some "Creator"
     was behind the universe's existence.  I've
     known Muslims who were once Christians and vice
     versa, I've known Christians who were once
     Jewish and vice versa, and I've even known
     Christians who become Hindu.  Yet, throughout
     their transition from one faith to another,
     they've kept this belief in some form of higher
     "being."  Why?
     
It usually all has to do with how the child is
     brought up.  From the time he is born, the
     theist is brought up with the notion of the
     "truth" of some kind of scripture-- the Bible,
     the Torah, the Qur'an, & etc.  He is told
     of this wondrous God who wrote (or inspired)
     the scripture, of the prophets talked about in
     the scripture, of the miracles performed, & etc.
     He is also told that to question this (as
     children are apt to do) is a sin, a crime
     against God, and to lose belief in the scrip-
     ture's truth is to damn one's soul to Hell.
     Thus, by the time he is able to read the
     scripture for himself, the belief in its "truth"
     is so ingrained in his mind it all seems a
     matter of course.
     
But it doesn't stop there.  Once the child is able
     to read for himself, there is an endeavor to
     inculcate the child the "right" readings of
     scripture, to concentrate more on the pleasant
     readings, to gloss over the worse ones, and to
     explain away the unexplainable with "mystery."
     Circular arguments, "self-evdent" facts and
     "truths," unreasoning belief, and fear of
     hell is the meat of religion the child must eat
     of every day.  To doubt, of course, means wrath
     of some sort, and the child must learn to put
     away his brain when the matter concerns God.
     All of this has some considerable effect on the
     child, so that when he becomes an adult, the 
     superstitions he's been taught are nearly
     impossible to remove.
     
All of this leads me to ask whether the theist can
     truly be objective when questioning God, Hell,
     Heaven, the angels, souls, and all of the rest.
     Can he, for a moment, put aside this notion that
     God *does* exist and look at everything from
     a unbiased point of view?  Obviously, most
     theists can somewhat, especially when presented
     with "mythical gods" (Homeric, Roman, Egyptian,
     & etc.).  But can they put aside the assumption
     of God's existence and question it impartially?
     
Stephen

    _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   _/       _/    * Atheist
   _/        _/    _/   _/ _/ _/ _/     * Libertarian
  _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   _/   _/  _/      * Pro-individuality
       _/  _/     _/  _/       _/       * Pro-responsibility
_/_/_/_/  _/      _/ _/       _/ Jr.    * and all that jazz...

-- 

[This is ad hominem attack of the most basic kind.  None of their
statements matter -- they believe the way they do because they were
brought up that way.  Of course there are atheists who have become
theists and theists who have become atheists.  Rather more of the
latter, which is not surprising given the statistics.  It's hard to
see how one could possibly answer a posting of this sort, since any
answer could immediately be assumed to be just part of the
brainwashing.  That is, how can anyone possibly show that they aren't
biased?  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20804
From: reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

In article <Apr.21.03.26.15.1993.1349@geneva.rutgers.edu> reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu writes:

>The basic problem with your argument is your total and complete reliance on
>the biblical text.  Luke's account is highly suspect (I would refer you to
>the hermeneia commentary on Acts).  ...

In article <Apr.23.02.56.43.1993.3174@geneva.rutgers.edu>, ata@hfsi.hfsi.com ( John Ata) writes:

> Even if there was no independent proof that Luke's account was
> valid, I find it strange that you would take the negation of it as
> truth without any direct historical evidence (at least that you've
> mentioned) to back it up.  The assertion was made, unequivocally
> that no Christian ever sufferred for their faith by believing in
> the Resurrection.  Luke's account suggests otherwise, and in the
> absence of direct eyewitnesses who can claim that Luke is mistaken,
> then I suggest that this unequivocal assertion is suspect.
> 

John,
The problem here is that you have taken one peice of my response, without
bothering to connect it with the other parts.  I have repeatedly noted that
one needs to take the problematic historcity of acts and then examine the
work of John Dominic Crossan and Burton Mack.  Once you have taken the time
to examine recent developments in biblical scholarship, I think you will 
grasp more clearly what I am saying.



> [I think the original claim may have been somewhat more limited than
> this.  It was an answer to the claim that the witnesses couldn't
> be lying because they were willign to suffer for their beliefs.
> Thus it's not necessary to show that no Christian ever suffered
> for believing in the Resurrection.  Rather the issue is whether
> those who witnessed it did.
> 
> I do agree that the posting you're responding to shows that there
> can be liberal as well as conservative dogmatism.
> 
> --clh]

Certainly this is an issue as I think the situation in Waco shows most 
clearly.  If all that is required is that people are willing to die for a
belief for it to be true, then surely David Koresh is the son of God.  No,
the spurrious arguement that the resurrection had to be true for people to be
willing to die must be put to rest.  The other problem is that it is so 
monologocentric.  Even if the resurrection was a big deal (which it doesn't
seem to have been for either Q, Thomas, or even John to a certain degree)
there are a lot of other things which the Early Christians could have been
doing together that would have been worth dying for.  It is my belief that
even the idea of a mixed race community, which brought down regional/national
boundaries in the name of koinonia could have been enough for people to be
willing to die.  Radical communties do that (e.g. Jonestown, Waco, Warsaw, etc)
But my original point was that roman persecution (which is the only persecution
we have documented proof of) was not about whether a carpenter came back from
the dead.  Such a claim was not unique nor particularly abhorent to the roman
or greek mind.  My point is that avoidance of military and civic duty (i.e.
emperor worship) would have been much more problematic -- which has nothing
to do with the resurrection at all.  When nero used christians as human 
torches to light up his dinner party it wasn't because the believe in a 
risen savior, it was because they were supposedly involved in incest and
cannablism.  The argument that christians were martyred for the resurrection
just cannot stand up to critical examination.

randy
 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20805
From: regy105@cantva.canterbury.ac.nz (James Haw)
Subject: Any good electronic Christian magazine?

Hi,
   I'd like to subscribe to Leadership Magazine but wonder if there is one on
disk instead of on paper. Having it on disk would save me retyping
illustrations, etc into a word processor. It's just cut and paste.
   If there are other good Christian magazines like Leadership on disk media,
I'd appreciate any info.

With gratitude,
James.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20806
From: shimpei@leland.Stanford.EDU (Shimpei Yamashita)
Subject: Survey: Faith vs. Reason

The following is a survey we are conducting for a term project in a philosophy
class. It is not meant to give us anything interesting statistically; we want
to hear what kind of voices there are out there. We are not asking for full-
blown essays, but please give us what you can.

As I do not read these groups often, please email all responses to me at
shimpei@leland.stanford.edu. As my mail account is not infinite, if you can
delete the questions and just have numbered answers when you write back
I would really appreciate it.

Since we would like to start analyzing the result as soon as possible, we
would like to have the answers by April 30. If you absolutely cannot make
it by then, though, we would still liken to hear your answer.

If anyone is interested in our final project please send a note to that effect
would like to have the answers by April 30. If you absolutely cannot make
it by then, though, we would still like to hear your answer.

If anyone is interested in our final project please send a note to that effect
(or better yet, include a note along with your survey response) and I'll try
to email it to you, probably in late May.

SURVEY:

Question 1)
Have you ever had trouble reconciling faith and reason? If so, what was the
trouble?
(For example: -Have you ever been unsure whether Creationism or Evolutionism
               holds more truth?
              -Do you practice tarot cards, palm readings, or divination that
               conflicts with your scientific knowledge of the world?
              -Does your religion require you to ignore physical realities that
               you have seen for yourself or makes logical sense to you?)
Basically, we would like to know if you ever _BELIEVED_ in something that your
_REASON_tells you is wrong.

Question 2)
If you have had conflict, how did/do you resolve the conflict?

Question 3)
If you haven't had trouble, why do you think you haven't? Is there a set of
guidelines you use for solving these problems?

Thank you very much for your time.




-- 
Shimpei Yamashita, Stanford University       email:shimpei@leland.stanford.edu
             "There are three kinds of mathematicians: 
              those who can count and those who can't."

[It seems to be that time of year.  Please remember that he's asked for
you to respond by email.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20807
From: jkellett@netcom.com (Joe Kellett)
Subject: Re: sex education

In article <Apr.20.03.01.57.1993.3782@geneva.rutgers.edu> bruce@liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens) writes:
>I'd be fascinated to see such evidence, please send me your article!
>On the negative side however, I suspect that any such simplistic link
>    abstinence-education => decreased pregnancy,
>    contraceptive-education => increased pregnancy
>is false.  The US, which I'd guess has one of the largest proportion of 
>"non-liberal" sex education in the western world also has one of the highest
>teenage pregnancy rates.  (Please correct me if my guess is wrong.)

I've sent the article.  In terms of the group discussion, I wanted to point
out that "non-liberal education" (head in the sand) is not the same as
"abstinence education".

We had "non-liberal education" regarding drugs when I was a kid in the 60's,
which didn't do us a lot of good.  But "abstinence education" regarding
drugs has proven effective, I think.

-- 
Joe Kellett
jkellett@netcom.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20808
From: khan0095@nova.gmi.edu (Mohammad Razi Khan)
Subject: Re: Doing the work of God??!!)

hedrick@cs.rutgers.edu writes:

>down these distinctions.  In him there is neither Jew nor Greek, there
>is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female.  If
>Moslems do not know him, we may preach to them, but we don't kill
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

As a muslim (spelled sometimes as Moslem) I must say that Muslims strong
ly believe in Jesus.  Refered in islamic text as eesau(as)

         Jesus ==>  J - esu  - s    ===> esu (pronounced eee-saw)

Yah we knew him well.  Ideally, this war should not even be.  And even in
a time of war, our goal is peace.  We should try to refrain from viloating
the peace of others as then if we do violate, we will not have peace in
ourselves.  I don't like this war eaither,  It is a conflict of territory.
Croats, Muslims, and Serbs lived together before in peace.  The rallying
point is 'race'.  And Im sure that there is a General out there who wouldn't
mind being a president.

--
Mohammad R. Khan                /    khan0095@nova.gmi.edu
After July '93, please send mail to  mkhan@nyx.cs.du.edu

[From a Christian perspective, Moslem ideas about Jesus look rather
seriously erroneous.  I've generally tried to avoid discussions of
Islam in this group, since soc.religion.islam is the right place for
that.  Thus I don't much want to go into detail.  I will simply note
that Moslems reject most of what Christians regard as the most
essential facts about Jesus.  So at least from a Christian perspective
Moslems don't know Jesus.  Again, this is no justification for
Christians to hate Moslems or to kill them.  I agree with you that
this war should never be.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20809
From: reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Q the Lost Gospel

Just finished reading Burton Mack's new book, _The Lost Gospel, Q and Christian
Origins_.  I thought it was totally cool.  Anyone else read it and want to 
talk?

Randy

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20810
From: cbc5b@virginia.edu (Charles Campbell)
Subject: Re: Was Jesus Black?


	Jesus was born a Jew.  We have biblical accounts of
both his mother's ancestry and his father's, both tracing back
to David.  It seems reasonable to assume, therefore, that Jesus
was Semitic.
	As an interesting aside, Jesus' being semitic makes him
neither "white" nor "black," and in some sense underscores the
point made earlier that his color was not important, it was his
message, his grace, and his divinity that we should concentrate
on.
	Finally, I would direct anyone interested in African
involvement in the church to the account of the conversion of
the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts chapter 9 (I think it's chapter
9).  This is one of the earliest conversions, and the eunuch,
treasurer to the queen of the Ethiopians, was definitely
African.  Because "Ethiopia" at that time indicated a region
just south of Egypt, many also speculate that this man was not
only the first African Christian, but the first black Christian
as well.  
God bless,
Charles Campbell

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20811
From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Subject: Re: Christians that are not church members

In article gchin@ssf.Eng.Sun.COM writes:

>Over the years, I have met Christians who are not associated with
>any local church and are not members of any local church. This is
>an issue that may be very personal, but is important.  What does
>the Bible say about this and how can we encourage our friends with
>regard to this issue?

This brings up an interesting subject that has not been discussed much,
and probably has not been studied much.

As some of you may be aware, I've posted a lot of articles lately on
personality typing (of which the MBTI is a test vehicle).  To come up
to speed, just read 'alt.psychology.personality' and/or ask for by
personality type summary file.

One observation is that people have significantly different personalities
(no question on this) which seem to be essentially in-born.  With respect
to church attendance and participation, some people thrive on this, while
other people have real difficulty with this because they prefer a more
solitary and contemplative lifestyle - that is, they are de-energized if
confronted with excessive closeness to outside activities and lots of
people.  Of course this is measured by extroversion/introversion.

My impression is that many churches are totally blind to this fact, and
create environments that 'scare away' many who are naturally introverted
(there are many introverted characters in the Bible, btw).  I know, I am
quite introverted in preference, and find the 'pressure' by many churches
to participate, to meet together in large groups, etc., to be very
uncomfortable.  Knowing what I know now, these churches have been overly
influenced by highly extroverted people who thrive on this sort of thing.
(BTW, there's nothing wrong with either extroversion or introversion, both
preferences have their place in the Body).

Maybe I should define extrovert/introvert more carefully since these words
are usually not used correctly in our culture.  The extrovert/introvert
scale is a measure of how a person is energized.  The following is
excerpted from my summary:

1.  Energizing - How a person is energized:

        Extroversion (E)- Preference for drawing energy from the outside
                          world of people, activities or things.

        Introversion (I)- Preference for drawing energy from one's internal
                          world of ideas, emotions, or impressions.


Hopefully this will elicit further discussion as to how churches can
structure themselves to meet the real needs of the people who comprise
the Body of Christ, instead of trying to change people's personalities
to fit them into a particular framework.  I'm sure there are other aspects
of how churches have not properly understood personality variances among
their members to the detriment of all.

Jon Noring

-- 

Charter Member --->>>  INFJ Club.

If you're dying to know what INFJ means, be brave, e-mail me, I'll send info.
=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.com        |                          |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   | FRED'S GOURMET CHOCOLATE |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | CHIPS - World's Best!    |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 417-4101   |                          |
=============================================================================
Who are you?  Read alt.psychology.personality!  That's where the action is.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20812
From: todd@nickel.laurentian.ca
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?y

In article <Apr.24.01.08.03.1993.4202@geneva.rutgers.edu>, marka@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley) writes:

> Those with Bibles on hand can give the exact chapter & verse...
> At the time Jesus told Peter that he was the "rock", He said
> whatever you hold true on earth is held true in heaven, and 
> whatever you don't hold true won't be true in heaven.
> 
> Therefore, with respect to marriage, the ceremony has to be
> done by an RC priest. No big parties required. Just the priest,
> the couple and witnesses. "Divorce" is not allowed. But anullments
> are granted upon approval by either the bishop or the Pope 
> (not sure if the Pope delegates this function).
> 
Maybe I'm a little tired but I can't seem to follow the logic here. If 
whatever is held true on earth is held true in heaven how is it that a priest
(RC only apparently) is required. 

In fact if I read the next verse correctly (Matthew 18:19) I understand that
for a marriage to take place only two are required to agree on earth touching
one thing and it shall be done.

Todd


> -- 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mark Ashley                        |DISCLAIMER: My opinions. Not Harris'
> marka@gcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com      |
> The Lost Los Angelino              |

[Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any completely precise
statements about what is needed.  (As usual, the current edition of
the Catholic Encyclopedia is frustratingly vague.)  I do know that the
priest is viewed as a witness, and thus in some sense would not be
required.  However part of the purpose of formal marriage is to avoid
any ambiguity about who has and has not taken on the commitment.  The
community provides support to marriage, and in cases of problems are
involved in helping to make sure that the people carry out as much of
their commitment as possible.  Thus marriage must be a public
commitment.  The presence of a priest is required for a regular
marriage.  Where I'm not clear is exactly where the boundaries are in
exceptional cases ("valid but irregular").  Ne Temere (1907) says that
no marriage involving a Catholic is valid without a priest (according
to the Oxford Dictionary of the Church), and they imply that the new
canon law retains this, but I'd rather see a more recent and
authoritative source.  Note that while a Catholic priest is required
for Catholics, the Catholic church does recognize marriage between
baptized non-Catholics as valid without a priest.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20813
From: aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

To what follows, our moderator has already answered the charge of 
arrogance more ably that I could have done so, so I will confine
myself to answering the charge of illogic.
 
In a previous article, Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno) says:

>>If I don't think my belief is right and everyone else's belief is wrong,
>>then I don't have a belief. This is simply what belief means.
>
>Unfortunatly, this seems to be how Christians are taught to think when
>it comes to their religion. 

This is how everyone in the western intellectual tradition is, or was,
taught to think. It is the fundamental premis "A is not not-A". If a thing
is true then its converse is necessarilly false. Without this basic 
asumption theology and science as we know them are alike impossible. We
should distinguish the strong and weak meanings of the word "believe",
however. The weak sense means I am not sure. "I believe Tom went to 
the library." (but he could have gone to the track). The strong sense
means I am so certain that I use it as a basis of thought. "I believe 
that nature operates according to certain fundamental laws." (despite 
the fact that nature *appears* capricious and unpredictable). Christian
belief is of the strong kind. (Though Christians may well hold beliefs
of the weak kind on any number of theological and ecclesiological 
topics.)
 
>Some take it to the extreme and say that
>their religion is the ONLY one and if you don't accept their teachings
>then you won't be "saved". 

Note that these are two separate ideas. Most hold the first view, but the 
majority do not hold the second. Is is again a matter of pure logic that
if Christanity is true, then Hinduism (for example) must necessarilly be
false, insofar as it contradicts or is incompatible with, Christaianity. 
(And, as a matter of *logic*, vice versa.)
 
>It takes quite a bit of arrogance to claim
>to know what God thinks/wants. 

It is arrogant to claim to know what *anyone* thinks or wants, unless 
they have told you. Christians believe God has told us what he thinks
and wants.

>Especially when it's based upon your
>interpretation of a book. 

Most Christians do not base their belief on the Bible, but on the living
tradition of the Church established by Christ and guided constantly
by the Holy Spirit. The Bible is simply the written core of that tradition.

>The logic in the above statement is faulty
>in that it assumes two people with differing beliefs can't both be
>correct. 

If depends what you mean by differing. If I believe Tom is six feet
tall and you believe he weighs 200 pounds, our beliefs differ, but we 
may both be right. If I believe Tom is six feet tall and you beleive
that he is four foot nine, one of us, at least, must be wrong.
 
>It's all about perception. No two people are exactly alike.
>No two people perceive everything in the same way. I believe that
>there is one truth. Call it God's truth, a universal truth, or call it
>what you will. I don't believe God presents this truth. I think it is
>just there and it's up to you to look for and see it, through prayer,
>meditation, inspir- ation, dreams or whatever. Just because people may
>perceive this truth differently, it doesn't mean one is wrong and the
>other is right. 

Thus you believe that there is a single truth but that no human being 
can find it. You assert that anyone who believe that we can find 
absolute truth is mistaken. In short, you believe that anyone who
does not share your belief on this point is wrong. QED.

>As an example, take the question, "Is the glass half
>empty or half full"? You can have two different answers which are
>contradictory and yet both are correct. So, for your belief to be
>true, does not require everyone else's belief to be wrong.

Here I begin to suspect that your real difficulty is not with the
knowability of truth, but simply with language. Saying that the glass 
is half empty is not a contradiction of the statement that it is half
full: it is the same fact expressed in different words. (The whole
point of this phrase is to illustrate the different ways the pessimist
and the optimist express the *same* fact.)
 
It is, of course, quite true that different people may express the 
same belief in different words. It is also true that they may fail
to understand each other's words as expressions of the same belief
and may argue bitterly and believe that they are miles apart. Great
scisms have occurred in just this way, and much ecumenical work has
been done simply in resolving differences in language which conceal
agreement in belief. This does not mean, in any sense, that all beliefs
are equally valid. Since some of the beliefs people hold contradict
some other beliefs that other people hold, after all obfuscations
of language and culture in the expression of those beliefs have
been stripped away, some of the beliefs that some people hold must,
**necessarilly** be false, and it is neither arrogant nor illogical
to say so. If I believe X and you believe Y we may both be correct, 
but if Y is equivalent to not-X then one of us is wrong and as long
as we hold our respective beliefs, we must each regard the other 
as in error.
-- 
==============================================================================
Mark Baker                  | "The task ... is not to cut down jungles, but 
aa888@Freenet.carleton.ca   | to irrigate deserts." -- C. S. Lewis
==============================================================================

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20814
From: marka@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley)
Subject: Re: Was Jesus Black?

In article <Apr.24.01.08.17.1993.4217@geneva.rutgers.edu> shd2001@andy.bgsu.edu (Sherlette Dixon) writes:
>The people who post to this particular newsgroup are either too cowardly,

<...more accusations about a worldwide conspiracy against blacks.>

Since Jesus was born in the Middle East, then I expect his human
features to be similar to Middle Easterners at that point in time.
And since the camera wasn't invented yet we can only guess what 
he looked like. For example, with all the dinosaur bones we're
digging up we still don't know if they were yellow-polka-dotted,
or purplish-orange 8-). Likewise, I don't think anybody has a 
picture of Jesus (is there ? 8-) ) So our current image of 
Jesus is our best guess.

Okay. So let's assume that Jesus is black. Would that make you
follow His techings ? Cause if you follow His teachings, skin 
color becomes a moot point, anyway. What counts more in your
life ? Your faith in Jesus or His skin color (as a human) ?

In the interest of historical accuracy, however, since Jesus
was from Israel wouldn't His skin color be like any other Jew ?
i.e. fair-skinned ? Although probably heavily tanned from the
desert sun ? Experts in this area speak up !!! cause I'm not. 8-)



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Ashley                        |DISCLAIMER: My opinions. Not Harris'
marka@gcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com      |
The Lost Los Angelino              |

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20815
From: fostma@saturn.wwc.edu (Mark Gregory Foster)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5

In article <Apr.15.00.58.33.1993.28906@athos.rutgers.edu> dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:

[FAQ and Darius' response deleted]

>Darius

>[It's not clear how much more needs to be said other than the FAQ.  I
>think Paul's comments on esteeming one day over another (Rom 14) is
>probably all that needs to be said.  I accept that Darius is doing
>what he does in honor of the Lord.  I just wish he might equally
>accept that those who "esteem all days alike" are similarly doing
>their best to honor the Lord.

I am myself an SDA and I am in total agreement with what Darius has to say.  
I also worship on Saturday to honor the Lord.  Your mention of "[esteeming] 
all days alike" IMO has to do with the fast days observed by the Jews.  But 
no matter how you interpret that passage, I do accept your worship on Sunday 
as being done in honor of the Lord, in contrast with what many of my fellow 
SDA believers may believe.  To me, though, the bible overwhelmingly points 
to Saturday as the day to be kept in honor of creation and of God's 
deliverance of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage.  To those who would 
attempt to point out that my observance of Saturday is being legalistic, 
this is simply not the case.  Rather, keeping Saturday allows me a full day 
to rest and contemplate God's goodness and grace.

>
>However I'd like to be clear that I do not think there's unambiguous
>proof that regular Christian worship was on the first day.  As I
>indicated, there are responses on both of the passages cited.

>Similarly with 1 Cor 16:2.  It says
>that on the first day they should set aside money for Paul's
>collection.  Now if you want to believe that they gathered specially
>to do this, or that they did it in their homes, I can't disprove it,
>but the obvious time for a congregation to take an offering would be
>when they normally gather for worship, and if they were expected to do
>it in their homes there would be no reason to mention a specific day.

The idea was introduced to me once that the reason Paul wanted the 
Corinthians to lay aside money for the collection on the first day of the 
week was because that was when they received their weekly wages.  Paul 
wanted them to lay aside money for the collection as first priority, before 
spending their money on other things.  I do not have any proof in front of 
me for this though, although it would explain why they would lay aside money 
in their homes instead of a meeting.  

>So I think the most obvious reading of this is that "on the first day
>of every week" simply means every time they gather for worship.  
>
>I think the reason we have only implications and not clear statements
>is that the NT authors assumed that their readers knew when Christian
>worship was.

It would seem to me that you assume that the christians in the NT regularly 
worshipped on the first day.  I assume that the christians in the NT 
regularly worshipped on the seventh day.  But I agree with you that we only 
have implications because the authors did assume the reader knew when worhip 
was.

--Mark

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20816
From: cs89mcd@brunel.ac.uk (Michael C Davis)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?

Robert Anderson (randerso@acad1.sahs.uth.tmc.edu) wrote:
: I would like to get your opinions on this: when exactly does an engaged
: couple become "married" in God's eyes?  Some say that if the two have
: publically announced their plans to marry, have made their vows to God, and
: are unswervingly committed to one another (I realize this is a subjective
: qualifier) they are married/joined in God's sight.

The way I read Scripture, a couple becomes married when they are *physically*
married, i.e. when they first have sexual intercourse.

e.g. the end of Genesis 2 (quoted from memory) ``for this reason, a man shall
leave his parents and be joined to his wife, and they will become one flesh''
(Jesus also quotes this scripture referring to marriage).

If you read through Genesis in particular, you will often come across the
phraseology: ``[man] lay with [woman], and she became his wife''. This
implies that she became his wife when they lay together, i.e. at the
point of intercourse.

Compare this with Jewish tradition: Joseph, when he heard that Mary
was pregnant, had it in mind to divorce her quietly -- but Mary and Joseph were
*betrothed*, not married. i.e., they were in a binding relationship (which
required a divorce to get out of), but *marriage* would not occur until Mary
and Joseph went to bed together.

Compare with Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5, Revelation 19): the church is
described as the ``bride'' of Christ, but the *marriage* of the Lamb takes 
place when Jesus returns. i.e., we are in a binding love-relationship with
Jesus, but we are still looking forward to the time when the marriage will
take place. I see this as the spiritual equivalent of sexual intercourse,
because it represents the most intimate fellowship possible between man and God.

In summary, engagement should be honoured as a binding relationship, but it is
not marriage. A civil ceremony is not marriage either. Marriage occurs at the
point when the betrothed couple go to bed together. (I don't mean to demean the
civil or church ceremony -- ours was great! I don't mean to be too pedantic.)
Historically, I think I am correct in stating that the civil ceremony (i.e. a
marriage recognised by the state), has only been around in the West since
Napoleon, who introduced it to keep tabs on the people (although I'm ready to be
corrected on that point!)

This view obviously raises some questions:

What about those who have had sex with one or more partners, without considering
marriage. Are those people also ``married''?

If it is true that marriage occurs at the point of intercourse, is it necessary
to be married in the eyes of the state? (I would say Yes, because this honours
the laws of our nations in the West. Although it is not illegal to sleep
together though unmarried in most Western countries, I believe that it is God-
honouring to proclaim our marriage to the state and to our friends before
actually consummating our marriage. Its to do with our being salt and light, and
also to do with how people will perceive us; i.e. it is culturally insensitive
to declare yourself married without going through a civil ceremony.)

-- 

-----
Michael Davis (cs89mcd@brunel.ac.uk)

	And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
	Come to my arms, my beamish boy!

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20817
From: alvin@spot.Colorado.EDU (Kenneth Alvin)
Subject: Re: Certainty and Arrogance

Responding to the moderator:

>In article <Apr.14.03.09.07.1993.5494@athos.rutgers.edu> alvin@spot.Colorado.EDU (Kenneth Alvin) writes:
>>
>>Choosing what to believe and rely on are important areas of personal 
>>sovereignty.  What bothers me is when others suggest that, in these 
>>matters of faith, their specific beliefs are not only true to them 
>>but are absolute and should be binding on others.  It follows from this
>>that God must give everyone the same revelation of truth, and thus 
>>anyone who comes to a different conclusion is intentionally choosing
>>the wrong path.  This is the arrogance I see; a lack of respect for the
>>honest conclusions of others on matters which are between them and God.
>
>[It is certainly reasonable to ask for some humility about our own
>ability to know the truth.  There are also different paths in some
>areas of practice.  But I'd like to see more clarification about what
>you mean when you reject the idea of saying "their specific beliefs
>are not only true to them but are absolute and should be binding on
>others."  If something is true, it is true for everyone, assuming that
>the belief is something about God, history, etc....

Yes, I agree.  What I'm trying to point out is that, in matters of faith
(i.e. tenets which are not logically persuasive), one may be convinced
of the truth of certain things through, for instance, personal
revelation.  And its certainly fine to share that revelation or those
beliefs with others.  And I don't think that its arrogant, persay, to
accepts matters of pure faith as truth for oneself.  Where I think the
conflict arises is in assuming that, where disagreements on beliefs
arise, all others *must* have been given the same truth, and that God 
must reveal His truth to everyone in such a way that all would 
honestly agree.  I think this can lead to the conclusion that anyone 
who disagrees with you are being sinful or dishonest; that they are 
rejecting something they *know* to be truth because it is inconvenient 
for them, or because they wish to spurn God.

I would say that this is equivalent to assuming that *all* truths one 
holds are universal and absolute.  And the problem I see with this is 
that it negates the individuality of humans and their relationships with
God.  This does not mean there is no absolute truth; just that some areas
of doctrinal disagreement may be areas where God has not established or 
revealed that truth.  

-- 
comments, criticism welcome...
-Ken
alvin@ucsu.colorado.edu

[I agree with you.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20818
From: shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker)
Subject: Re: Easter: what's in a name? (was Re: New Testament Double Stan

In article <Apr.14.03.09.10.1993.5497@athos.rutgers.edu> dsegard@nyx.cs.du.edu (Daniel Segard) writes:

>       That argument would be more compelling if it were not for the
>Ishtar eggs and Ishtar bunnies.  Why mix pagan fertility symbols from the
>worship of the pagan goddess of fertility with Biblical belief?  What
>would really be lost if all of you were to just drop the word "Easter" and
>replace all such occurances with "Resurrection Sunday"?  Would you not
>show up for services if they were called "Resurrection Sunday Services"
>rather than "Easter Services"?  

There is another way to view this.  The True Celebration is Easter,
the Resurrection of Our Lord.  This has been true from the foundation
of the world.  Pagan practices are then either:

1. foreshadowings of the True Celebration of the Resurrection, 
   in which dim light was shone forth so that people would
   recognize the full truth when it was manifested, OR

2. satanic counterfeits intended to deceive us so that we would not
   recognize the truth when it was manifested.

I don't believe the second argument, because I believe in the power
of the Resurrection, the fulfillment of the Incarnation, and our hope.
Earlier or parallel ideas in other religions clearly are dim images of
the truth of the Resurrection.  As Paul states, we see through a glass
darkly.  So do others.  It serves no purpose arguing about who has
the darker or lighter glass.  The foreshadowings are not perfect.
So what? Our understnding of God is today imperfect, for we are not
yet perfected.  Theosis is not a gift such that WHAM, we're perfect.

Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com)
-- 
-------
Lawrence Overacker
Shell Oil Company, Information Center    Houston, TX            (713) 245-2965
llo@shell.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20819
From: jsledd@ssdc.sas.upenn.edu (James Sledd)
Subject: intolerance - eternal life - etc

Hi Xian Netters,  God bless you

CONTENTS
1. intro
2. love your neighbor
3. reaction to posts
   a. purpose
   b. eternal life

I've been reading this news group religiously =) for about a month. 
Sometimes It really gives me what I need, spiritually.  At other times I
get a little IRATE.  

There are all kinds of people in every group and I take offense at
intolerance.  It's awfully hard to tolerate such people. =) ( OOPS! I've
gone over my smiley quota already and it's only the second paragraph =(. 
IMHO they should follow the commandment to love thy neighbor and leave
the judging up to GOD.  

SPECIFICALLY:
one's sexual orientation is part of one's self
love the sinner hate the sin DOES NOT APPLY

Pay attention fundaligionists.  Love your neighbor wether you like it
or not.  I'd be happy to get flamed endlessly and loose scripture
quotation contests galore to defend this point.  I beleive this is
correct. 

BTW Love the sinner hate the sin is a slippery slope, with hatred at the
bottom. 


INCREDIBLY CHOPPED UP POST
I won't even try to tell you where the deletions came out
> means Jayne
>> means Dan Johnson
>>> means Eric

In article 28388@athos.rutgers.edu, jayne@mmalt.guild.org 
(Jayne Kulikauskas) writes:
>gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric Molas) writes:

>No free gifts of meaning. (I never quite understood how any
>God can just "give" your life meaning, actually. If he
>says you exists to do or be X, that gives you a purpose
>if you care to accept it, but is that the same thing? But
>I digress...) 

I find that I am dissatisfied with the little purposes that we can
manufacture for ourselves.  Little in the cosmic sense.  Even the
greatest of the great pharos are long gone, the pyramids historical
oddities being worn down by the wind, eventually to be turned into dust.
Mankind itself will one day perish.  Without some interconnectedness
that transcends the physical, without God, it is all pointless in the
end.  Most people are able to live with that, and for them little
purposes (success, money, power, effecting change, helping others)
suffice.  I suppose they never  think about the cosmic scale, or are at
least able to put it out of their minds.

To me, it is comforting to know that reality is an illusion.  That the
true reality underneath the the physical is spirit.  That this world is
a school of sorts, where we learn and grow, and our souls mature.  That
gives a purpose to my little purposes, and takes some of the pressure
off.  It's not so necessary to make this life a success in human terms
if you're really just here to learn.  It's more important to progress,
grow, persist, to learn to love yourself and others and to express your
love, especially when it's dificult to do so.  Honest effort is rewarded
by God, he knows our limitations.


>> I will live forever with God.
>
>Ah, now here we begin to diverge. I will not live forever
>with anyone.
>
>(I don't think you will either, but you are welcome to your
>opinion on the matter.)

Interesting theological question.  I have a feeling that most common
perception of eternal life is WAY off base.  If I were to be imprisoned
in the limited ego/mind I am in now I doubt I would choose imortality. 
It would get awfully boring.  

TWO SERIOUS QUESTIONS/INVITATIONS TO DISCUSSION
1. What is the nature of eternal life?
2. How can we as mortals locked into space time conceive of it?

Possible answer for #2: The best we can do is Metaphor/Analogy
Question 2A  What is the best metaphor?

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20820
From: tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard)
Subject: Re: Can sin "block" our prayers?

In article <Apr.12.03.45.11.1993.18872@athos.rutgers.edu> jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas) writes:
>mike@boulder.snsc.unr.edu (Mike McCormick) writes:
>
>> Not honoring our wives can cause our prayers to be hindered:
>>         prayers may not be hindered.  I Peter 3:7
>
>One interpretation I've heard of this verse is that it refers to the sin 
>of physically abusing one's wife.  The husband is usually physically 
>stronger than his wife but is not permitted to use this to dominate her.  
>He must honor her as his sister in Christ.  This would therefore be an 
>example of a specific sin that blocks prayer.
>Jayne Kulikauskas/ jayne@mmalt.guild.org

I would be a bit more specific in looking at this verse in regard to
'blocking' prayer.  I have trouble thinking that God would allow
anything to block our access to him in prayer, especially if we have
sinned and are praying for forgivenenss.
    I can see, however, how our prayer life might be hindered by our
sin, if we are concentrating on what is causing the sin or what has
happened, we may not be thinking about prayer, thus our prayers are
'hindered' by our own actions.
    But I don't think anything can 'block' the transmission, or
reception of prayer to God.
Shalom,                                      Len Howard

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20821
From: mussack@austin.ibm.com (Chris Mussack)
Subject: Re: Atheist's views on Christianity (was: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...") - soc.religion.christian #16242

In article <Apr.13.00.08.22.1993.28397@athos.rutgers.edu>, trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:
> norris@athena.mit.edu  writes:
> > For example: why does the universe exist at all?  
> 
> Must there be a "why" to this?  I ask because of what you also
>      assume about God-- namely, that He just exists, with no "why"
>      to His existence.  So the question is reversed, "Why can't
>      we assume the universe just exists as you assume God to
>      "just exist"?  Why must there be a "why" to the universe?"

Whether there is a "why" or not we have to find it. This is Pascal's(?) wager.
If there is no why and we spend our lives searching, then we have merely
wasted our lives, which were meaningless anyway. If there is a why and we
don't search for it, then we have wasted our potentially meaningful lives.
Suppose the universe is 5 billion years old, and suppose it lasts another
5 billion years. Suppose I live to be 100. That is nothing, that is so small
that it is scary. So by searching for the "why" along with my friends here
on earth if nothing else we aren't so scared.

What if you woke up at a party, with no memory, and everyone was discussing
who the host might be? There might not be a host, you say. I say let's go
find him, the party's going to be over sometime, maybe he'll let us stay.

Because we recognize our own mortality we have to find the "why".

> ...
> Well, then, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Judaism,
>      Zoerasterism, Shintoism, and Islam should fit this bit of logic
>      quite nicely... :-)  All have depth, all have enduring values,
>      thus all must be true...

This is a good point. But more of a good point for studying religion
than ignoring it. Some Christians disagree with me, but it is worthwhile
to study different religions and philosophies and glean the truth from
them. To quote (of course out of context) "Test everything and keep what is
true."

Chris Mussack

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20822
From: aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In a previous article, mhsu@lonestar.utsa.edu (Melinda . Hsu) says:

>
>Well the argument usually stops right there.  In the end,
>aren't we all just kids, groping for the truth?  If so, do we have
>the authority to declare all other beliefs besides our own as
>false?
>

If I don't think my belief is right and everyone else's belief is wrong,
then I don't have a belief. This is simply what belief means. Where does
the authority for a belief come from? Nowhere, for a belief is itself
authoratative. If I produce authority for a belief, where will I find
authority for my belief in the legitimacy of the authority. In short, 
the mind has to start somewhere. (By the way, the majority of Christians,
i.e. Catholics, believe in the authority of the Church, and derive the
authority of the Bible from its acceptance by the Church.)
-- 
==============================================================================
Mark Baker                  | "The task ... is not to cut down jungles, but 
aa888@Freenet.carleton.ca   | to irrigate deserts." -- C. S. Lewis
==============================================================================

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20823
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Subject: Rom 9-11 article ready..requests

A section of Richard Badenas' book, "Christ The End of the Law, Romans 10.14 
in Pauline Perspective."  The section I have is on the Contextual setting and 
meaning of Romans 9-11.  In addition, there are 111 endnotes.

Since the file is so long, and because of other reasons, I will take requests
for the article personally.

Of course, I believe Badenas' insights to be true, and, quite damaging to the
traditional Augustinian/Calvinist view.

====================================          
Ted Kalivoda (tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu)
University of Georgia, Athens
UCNS/Institute of Higher Ed. 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20824
From: phs431d@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article <Apr.13.00.08.47.1993.28427@athos.rutgers.edu>, hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes) writes:
> 
> Say, for example, there are people living on a volcanic island, and a group 
> of geologists determine that a volcano is imminent. They warn the people on 
> the island that they are in danger, and should leave. A group of people on 
> the island is given the task of warning others of the danger.
> 
> They believe the danger is real, but others may not. 
> 
> Does that mean that the first group are NECESSARILY arrogant in warning 
> others of the danger? Does it mean that they are saying that their beliefs 
> are correct, and all others are false?

But what if the geologists are wrong and these people are warning of a
non-existent danger?  Analogies can only push an argument so far (on both
sides).  Both Melinda's and yours assume the premises used to set up your
respective analogies are true and thus the correct conclusion will arise.

The important point to note is the different directions both sides come from.
Christians believe they know the TRUTH and thus believe they have the right
(and duty) to tell the TRUTH to all.  

Christians can get offended if others do not believe (what is self-evidently
to them) the TRUTH. Non-christians do not believe this is the TRUTH and get
offended at them because they (christians) claim to know the TRUTH.

(BTW this argument goes for anyone, I am not just bagging christians)

Neither side can be really reconciled unless one of the parties changes their
mind.  As Melinda pointed out, there is no point in arguing along these lines
because both approach from a different premise.  A more useful line of
discussion is WHY people believe in particular faiths.

Personally, I don't mind what anyone believes as long as they allow me mine
and we can all live peacefully.

> Steve Hayes, Department of Missiology & Editorial Department

-- 
Don Lowe, Department of Physics, Monash University, 
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 3168.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20825
From: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jesus in your heart..."

I have been told that I seem to be very smug in my post.  I appoligize
if anyone felt this way. I did not at all desire to come across in
that way. I was trying to express that I didn't understand his logic
and that I wished him the best in his life.

In Christ's Love,
Bryan Whitsell

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20826
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: Watt misquoted


 heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:

 >    I realize I'm entering this discussion rather late, but I do
 > have one question. Wasn't it a Reagan appointee, James Watt, a
 > pentacostal christian (I think) who was the secretary of the
 > interior who saw no problem with deforestation since we were
 > "living in the last days" and ours would be the last generation
 > to see the redwoods anyway?

For the Record:

On February 5, 1981, at a House of Representatives
Interior Committee Meeting, Rep. James Weaver (D, Ore), asked Watt
whether "you agree that we should save some of our scenic resources
for our children, not just gobble them up all at once?" Watt's
answer was:

 < Absolutely. That is the delicate balance the Secretary of the
 < Interior must have -- to be steward for the natural resources
 < for this generation as well as future generations. I do not
 < know how many future generations we can count on before the
 < Lord returns.  Whatever it is, we have to manage with a skill
 < to have the resources needed for future generations.

My source is a column by Rowland Evans and Robert Novak on the
op-ed page of the WASHINGTON POST for Friday 21 August 1981.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20827
From: MANDTBACKA@finabo.abo.fi (Mats Andtbacka)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."

In <Apr.13.00.08.15.1993.28388@athos.rutgers.edu> jayne@mmalt.guild.org writes:
> gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric Molas) writes:
> 
>> Firstly, I am an atheist. I am not posting here as an immature flame
>> start, but rather to express an opinion to my intended audience.
>[deleted] 
>> 
>> We are _just_ animals.  We need sleep, food, and we reproduce.  And we
>> die.      
> 
> I am glad that I am not an atheist.  It seems tragic that some people 
> choose a meaningless existence.  How terrible to go on living only 
> because one fears death more than life.

      ?Huh? Okay, so I'm not Eric Molas, but even if that _is_ how he
feels about life, I disagree with it.

      Life, to me, is definitely NOT meaningless; it has precisely the
purpose and meaning I choose to give it. I go on living because I _like_
living; if I needed any further reason, I'd be free - completely free! -
to pick any reason that suited me. That freedom can be almost
intoxicating; it's probably the closest I've ever been to a 'religious'
experience. I'm *very* glad I am an atheist; I wouldn't be anything
else.

> I feel so sorry for Eric and 
> yet any attempts to share my joy in life with him would be considered as 
> further evidence of the infectious nature of Christianity.    

      Not unless, in explaining your own subjective experience, you also
try to convert him or proselytize. Merely explaining the effects you
personally experience religion as having on you, is not "infectious".
Not unless Eric is paranoid, that is. ;->

> As a Christian I am free to be a human person.  I think, love, choose, 
> and create.  I will live forever with God.

      Whatever floats your goat. You sound happy enough; that's fairly
much all that matters, right?

> Christ is not a kind of drug.  Drugs are a replacement for Christ.  

      Erh... Pardon, but it strikes me that sentence sounds reversible.

> Those who have an empty spot in the God-shaped hole in their hearts must 
> do something to ease the pain.

      "Empty spot"? "God-shaped hole"? I hear such things a lot from
theists; never quite did understand what they were talking about.
I have no such 'emptiness' or 'hole'. Maybe some others do, I wouldn't
know; but I don't, and if I did, I'd seek help about it. Doesn't sound
like a mentally healthy situation at all, walking around with a 'hole'
in oneself.

> Thank you, Eric for your post.  It has helped me to appreciate how much 
> God has blessed me.  I hope that you will someday have a more joy-filled 
> and abundant life.

      Well, not having written that original post, I don't know if it
was intended to be interpreted in such a way; but, having reread it
carefully, I somewhat doubt it. At least, that's not how he gets across
to _me_, your mileage may vary...

-- 
  Disclaimer?   "It's great to be young and insane!"

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20828
From: k053730@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Philip G. Sells)
Subject: Hebrew grammar texts--choose English or German?

Greetings,

Probably a tired old horse, but...  maybe with a slightly different
twist.  I wanted to know if there are any good English-language texts
for learning ancient Hebrew, and how these compare with German
educational texts qualitywise, if anybody has an idea.  I can't figure
out if I should buy one here for later study or wait until I get back to
the U.S.

Something I find interesting about studying theology in Germany is the
fact that the students get their ancient language-learning out of the
way early [I'm not a theology student, but I spend a lot of time with
such folks] in their careers.  They take the first two years or so to just
do Greek and Latin and Hebrew [possibly Aramaic, too--who knows].
What's it like at divinity schools or seminaries in the States?  Is
there a lot of language instruction done?  I really don't have a basis
for comparison.

Regards, Phil
-- 
Philip Sells                 Is anything too hard for the LORD?
k053730@hobbes.kzoo.edu           --Gen. 18:14

[For better of worse, we don't have the tradition of classical
education in the U.S., so generally if a seminary believes students
should know Greek, they have to teach it.  It's common for seminaries
to require at least a semester each of Hebrew and Greek, though of
course more is required for serious scholarship.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20829
From: mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server)
Subject: Re: cause

trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:
>norris@athena.mit.edu  writes:
> [some stuff deleted]
>> Fortunately for the convenience of us believers, there is a class of
>> questions that can never be reduced away by natural science.  For
>> example: why does the universe exist at all?  
> 
>Must there be a "why" to this?  I ask because of what you also
>     assume about God-- namely, that He just exists, with no "why"
>     to His existence.  So the question is reversed, "Why can't
>     we assume the universe just exists as you assume God to
>     "just exist"?  Why must there be a "why" to the universe?"
[remainder of message deleted]

Pardon me for replying to only a portion of your message :)

The reason we can say "God just exists" and can't say "The universe just 
exists" is because the universe is a natural realm and is subject to natural 
laws in general and the law of cause and effect in particular.  That is, we 
observe in nature that every cause has an effect, and every effect was produced 
by a cause.  The existence of the natural realm, as an effect itself, cannot be 
its own cause; it must therefore have a supernatural cause.

God, on the other hand, is a supernatural being, and is therefore not subject 
to such natural laws as the law of cause and effect.  As a supernatural being, 
God's eternal existence does not imply a previous cause the way the existence 
of a physical, natural cosmos does.  Thus, those who believe in the 
supernatural have a valid basis for accepting the existence of uncaused 
phenomena such as the eternal God, whereas those who deny the existence of the 
supernatural are faced with the dilemma of a physical universe whose very 
nature shows that it is not sufficient to explain its own existence.

This is, of course, an oversimplification of a complex topic, but I just wanted 
to clarify some important differences between the supernatural (God) and the 
natural (the universe), since you seem to mistake them as being 
interchangeable.

- Mark

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20830
From: rsteele@adam.ll.mit.edu (Rob Steele)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."

In article <Apr.10.05.32.36.1993.14391@athos.rutgers.edu>  
gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric Molas) writes:

> We are _just_ animals.  We need sleep, food, and we reproduce.  And 
> we die.

I agree we need sleep & etc, but I disagree we are _just_ animals.   
That statement is a categorical negative; it's like saying there are  
_no_ polkadoted elephants.  It may be true but one would have to be  
omniscient to know for sure.

------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Steele                 In coming to understand anything 
MIT Lincoln Laboratory    we are rejecting the facts as they
244 Wood St., M-203       are for us in favour of the facts
Lexington, MA  02173      as they are.    
617/981-2575                              C.S. Lewis

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20831
From: rsteele@adam.ll.mit.edu (Rob Steele)
Subject: Re: Atheist's views on Christianity (was: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")

In article <Apr.13.00.08.22.1993.28397@athos.rutgers.edu>  
trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:

> Well, then, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Judaism,
>      Zoerasterism, Shintoism, and Islam should fit this bit of logic
>      quite nicely... :-)  All have depth, all have enduring values,
>      thus all must be true...

Yep.  There's truth in all those religions, even in science.   
Christianity doesn't claim to know it all.  It does claim certain  
things are true though that contradict other religions' truth claims.   
So they can't all be true.

------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Steele                 In coming to understand anything 
MIT Lincoln Laboratory    we are rejecting the facts as they
244 Wood St., M-203       are for us in favour of the facts
Lexington, MA  02173      as they are.    
617/981-2575                              C.S. Lewis

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20832
From: rsteele@adam.ll.mit.edu (Rob Steele)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?

I think it was Lewis who said that in a wedding, it's the principals  
that marry each other; the church and the state are present merely as  
witnesses.

------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Steele                 In coming to understand anything 
MIT Lincoln Laboratory    we are rejecting the facts as they
244 Wood St., M-203       are for us in favour of the facts
Lexington, MA  02173      as they are.    
617/981-2575                              C.S. Lewis

[This is not just Lewis -- it's a summary of standard Catholic
theology.  However this doesn't mean that the presence of those
witnesses is optional, except in odd situations like the standard
desert island.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20833
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe)
Subject: Re: Some questions from a new Christian

18669@bach.udel.edu (Steven R Hoskins) writes:

> ... I realize I am very ignorant about much of the Bible and
> quite possibly about what Christians should hold as true. This I am trying
> to rectify (by reading the Bible of course), but it would be helpful
> to also read a good interpretation/commentary on the Bible or other
> relevant aspects of the Christian faith. One of my questions I would
> like to ask is - Can anyone recommend a good reading list of theological
> works intended for a lay person?

I won't even recommend books from my congregation.  What you ask sounds
attractive but it is dangerous.  As a new Christian you don't want to be
contaminated with other people's interpretation.  Steep your self in
scripture, and discuss with other christians.  Read if your must but
remember that what other people write is their interpretation.  God has
promised to give you light, so ask for it.

> I have another question I would like to ask. I am not yet affiliated
> with any one congregation. Aside from matters of taste, what criteria
> should one use in choosing a church? I don't really know the difference
> between the various Protestant denominations.


Don't wait too long before attaching yourself to church.  Just remember to
always compare what they teach you with scripture like the Bereans did.

Darius

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20834
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: When are two people married

LISTOWNER: I have sent this to Mr Anderson privately. Post it only
if you think it of general interest.

Here is a copy of something I wrote for another list. You may
find it relevant.

A listmember asks:

 > What makes common-law marriages wrong?

A common-law marriage is not necessarily wrong in itself. There is
nothing in the Bible (Old or New Testament) about getting married by
a preacher, or by a priest (Jewish or Christian). And in fact Jewish
priests have never had any connection with weddings.

There is a common notion that the marriage is performed by the
clergyman. In fact, the traditional Christian view (at least in the
West) is that the bride and groom are the ministers of the marriage,
and that the clergyman is there only as a witness.

HOWEVER!

The essential ingredient of a marriage is mutual commitment. Two
persons are considered to be married if and only if they have bound
themselves by mutual promises to live together as husband and wife,
forsaking all others, till death do them part.

      The reason why those who have reason to be concerned about who
is married to whom have always insisted on some kind of public
ceremony is in order that society, and the couple themselves, may be
clear about whether a commitment has been made.

Suppose that we do away with the public ceremony, the standard vows,
etc. Instead, we have a man and a woman settling down to live
together.
      After a year or so, the man says to the woman: Hey, honey, it
was great while it lasted, but I think it's time to move on.
      She says: What are you talking about?
      He says: I am leaving you and looking for someone prettier and
younger.
      She says: But you can't. We are married!
      He says: What are you talking about? We never got married.
      She says: I remember distinctly what you said to me the night
we first made love. You said: "My love for you is as deep as the
ocean, as eternal as the stars. As long as I live, I am yours,
utterly and completely. When I lie on my deathbed, my last feeble
breath will utter your name. My..."
      He says: Oh that! That was just rhetoric. Just poetry. When a
man is in a romantic mood, he is bound to say all kinds of silly
things like that. You mustn't take them literally.

And that is why you have an insistence on a formal ceremony that is
a matter of public record.
      The Church insists on it, because it is her duty (among other
things) to give moral advice, and you cannot give a man moral advice
about his relations with a woman if you have no idea who is married
to whom, if anybody, and vice versa.
      The State insists on it, since the state has a concern with
property rights, with child care and support, and therefore needs to
know who has made what commitments to whom.
      Prospective fathers-in-law insist on it, because they don't
want their daughters seduced and abandoned.
      Prospective spouses insist on it, because they want to make
sure they know whether what they are hearing is a real commitment,
or just "poetry."
      And persons making vows themselves insist on making them
formally and publicly, in order that they may be clear in their own
minds about what it is that they are doing, and may know themselves
that this is not just rhetoric. This is the real thing.

      Hence the insistence on a formal public explicit avowal of the
marriage commitment.  The Church goes further and insists that, when
Christians marry, a clergyman shall be present at the wedding and
record the vows on behalf of the Church, not because it is
impossible to have a valid wedding without a clergyman, but in order
to make sure that the couple understand what the Christian teaching
about marriage is, and that they are in fact promising to be married
in a Christian sense. The Church also prefers a standard marriage
vow, and is wary of letting couples Write their own vows, for much
the same reason that lawyers prefer standard terminology when they
draw up a will or a contract. Certain language has been repeatedly
used in wills, and one can be sure how the courts will interpret it.
Try to say the same thing in your own words, and you may find that
the probate judge's interpretation of them is not at all what you
intended.  Similarly, the Church prefers to avoid endless debates
about whether "You are my main squeeze" and "I am here for the long
haul" do in fact cover the same territory as "forsaking all others"
and "till death do us part."

      This topic has come up on the list before. (Is there any topic
that hasn't?) One listmember was asking, "If a couple love each
other and are living together, isn't that marriage in the eyes of
God?" Eventually someone asked, "In that case, what is their status
if they break up? Is that the moral equivalent of getting a divorce?
Are they in a relationship that God forbids either of them to walk
out on? " The original questioner said: "Good grief, I never thought
of that!" In fact, there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that
someone who says, "We don't need a piece of paper or a ceremony in
front of a judge or a preacher in order to show that we love each
other," is trying to have it both ways -- to have the advantages of
marriage plus the option of changing his mind with a minimum of
bother.

At this point someone may say, "None of this applies to me and my
mate. We are quite clear on the fact that we have assumed a lifelong
commitment, 'for better or worse, forsaking all others, till death
us do part.' So in our case, no ceremony is needed."
     To this my reply would be: The reason for requiring a driver's
license is to keep dangerous drivers off the road.  What is wrong in
itself is not the existence of unlicensed drivers, but the existence
of dangerous drivers. However, testing and licensing drivers is an
obvious and reasonable means of pursuing the goal of reducing the
number of dangerous drivers on the road. Therefore the State rightly
makes and enforces such laws, and you the citizen have a positive
moral obligation to refrain from driving without a license no matter
how much of a hotshot behind the wheel you think you are.

Back to the original question. We have a listmember who knows a
couple who have been living together for around 20 years. He asks:
At what point did they stop fornicating and start being married? I
answer: at the point, if any, where they both definitely and
explicitly accepted an obligation to be faithful to each other, for
better or worse, as long as they both lived. If they have accepted
such an obligation, what are their reasons for not being willing to
declare it in front of, say, a justice of the peace?

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20835
From: rbutera@owlnet.rice.edu (Robert John Butera)
Subject: Book Review Wanted

I'm interested if anyone out here can point me towards a review of the
following book in any scholarly Christian journal, whether it be
conservative or liberal, Protestant or Catholic.

_The_Lost_Years_of_Jesus_ (documentary evidence for Jesus' 17 year
journey to the East), by Elizabeth Clare Prophet.  Supposedly this
is a theory that was refuted in the past, and she has re-examined it.

I thought this was just another novel book, but I saw it listed as
a text for a class in religious studies here.  Also, the endorsements seem
to come from some credible sources, so I'm wondering if scholars have
reviewed it (or anyone on the net, for that matter).

-- 
Rob Butera        |
ECE Grad Student  |     "Only sick music makes money today" 
Rice University   |
Houston, TX 77054 |               - Nietzsche, 1888

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20836
From: oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE?

Frank, I got your mailing on early historical references to Christianity.
I'd like to respond, but I lost your address.  Please mail me.

-Scott Oser

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20837
From: halsall@murray.fordham.edu (Paul Halsall)
Subject: Bible Unsuitable for New Christians


	A "new Christian" wrote that he was new to the faith and 
learning about it "by reading the Bible, of course". I am not
at all sure this is the best path to follow.
	While the Bible is, for Christians, the word of God, the 
revelation of God is Jesus Christ and the chief legacy of this
revalation is the Church. I am not recommending any one
denommination, but I do recommend finding a comfortable christian
congregation in which to develop your faith, rather than just
reading the Bible.
	This does not mean that the Bible should not be read, although
I would stick to the Gospels, epistles, and Psalms and avoid the
Book of Revelation altogether [until you are with friends you are
comfortable with]. I am sure that mistakenly fervent  projects to
read the entire Bible have frequently bogged down with a remarkable
lack of fervour somewhere in the middle of Leviticus, or for the really
sturdy, somewhere in Chronicles.
	The point is that the Bible is their to illustrate the Faith
of Christians, but does not provide the totality of that faith. Vital
beliefs of virtually all Christians are simply not mentioned -
the Trinity, the duality of natures in Christ, types of Church
organization. All these beliefs and practices have developed from the
lived experience of the Christian people, an experience lived one
hopes in the Spirit. As such the Bible, I think, is better studies
in the context of a congregation, and the context of other reading.
	Following up on a suggestion of an old confessor of mine, I 
would even suggest that a good novel is a good way to reflect on the
christian life. [Most novels of any profundity are actually discussing
the nature of good and evil in the human heart]. My own induction into
the christian faith was brought about [after grace] through reading
Graham Greene: _The Power and the Glory_ and the poetry of Gerard
Manley Hopkins. I would also recommend Graham Greene's _Monsignor
Quixote_ and any novel by Iris Murdoch. The last is not even a Christian,
but such is her insistence on the need for the good life, that, frankly,
I often am more uplifted and God directed after reading her than after
reading many parts of the Bible. And that after all is what being
a Christian is all about: letting your soul and your life be, in
some way, directed towards the infinite, represented to us by
the person of Jesus Christ.

Paul Halsall
Halsall@murray.fordham.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20838
From: aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker)
Subject: Re: Nature of God (Re: Environmentalism and paganism)

In a previous article, mcovingt@aisun2.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) says:

>In article <Apr.13.00.08.44.1993.28424@athos.rutgers.edu> heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:
>That is not necessarily unorthodox.  When Christians call God 'Father', 
>we are using a metaphor.  The Bible in one place refers to God as being
>like a mother.  God is neither a father nor a mother in the literal
>sense; God has some of the attributes of both; the father metaphor is
>usually used because (for most people at most times) it is the less
>misleading of the two possibilities.

I don't know which passage you are refering to, but the passage I have
often seen cited as an example of a mother image of God is Isaiah 49:15
"Can a woman forget her sucking child / that she should have no 
compassion / on the son of her womb? / Even these may forget, / 
yet I will not forget you." 
 
This passage is *not* a mother image of God at all. The mother here
is the image of the best human constancy can show, and it is 
contrasted with the constancy of God. The mother figure here represents
mankind, not God.
-- 
==============================================================================
Mark Baker                  | "The task ... is not to cut down jungles, but 
aa888@Freenet.carleton.ca   | to irrigate deserts." -- C. S. Lewis
==============================================================================

[Luke 13:34   O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those
who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together
as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20839
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: Re: SSPX schism ?

Larry L. Overacker writes, responding to Simon:

   I may be interesting to see some brief selections posted to the
   net.  My understanding is that SSPX does not consider ITSELF in
   schism or legitimately excommunicated.  But that's really beside
   the point.  What does the Roman Catholic church say?
   Excommunication can be real apart from formal excommunication, as
   provided for in canon law.

Here's some of the theology involved for the interested.

There is confusion over this issue of the SSPX's "schism"; often the
basic problem is lack of an ability to distinguish between:

- true obedience
- false obedience
- disobedience
- schism

Take the various classifications of obedience first.  There are 2
important elements involved here for my purposes:

1) a command
2) the response made to the command

As far as the command goes, commands can be LEGITIMATE, such as the
Pope ordering Catholics to not eat meat on Fridays.  Or they can be
ILLEGITIMATE, such as the Pope ordering Catholics to worship the god
Dagon when every other full moon comes around.

As far as the response to a command goes, it can be to REFUSE to do
what is commanded, or to COMPLY.

Making a table, there are thus 4 possibilites:

command         response            name
-----------------------------------------------------
LEGITIMATE      COMPLY              true obedience
ILLEGITIMATE    REFUSE              true obedience
LEGITIMATE      REFUSE              disobedience
ILLEGITIMATE    COMPLY              false obedience

So now you see where my 3 classifications of obedience come from.

Obedience is not solely a matter of compliance/refusal.  The nature of
the commands must also be taken into account; it is not enough to
consider someone's compliance or refusal and then say whether they are
"obedient" or "disobedient".  You also have to take into consideration
whether the commands are good or bad.

In my example, if the Pope commands all Catholics to worship the god
Dagon, and they all refuse, they aren't being disobedient at all!

As far as the Society of Saint Pius X goes, they are certainly
refusing to comply with certain things the Pope desires.  But that
alone is insufficient to allow one to label them "disobedient".  You
also have to consider the nature of the Papal desires.

And there's the rub: SSPX says the Popes since Vatican II have been
commanding certain very bad things for the Church.  The Popes have of
course disagreed.

So where are we?  Are we in another Arian heresy, complete with weak
Popes?  Or are the SSPX priests modern Martin Luthers?  Well, the only
way to answer that is to examine who is saying what, and what the
traditional teaching of the Church is.

The problem here is that very few Catholics have much of an idea of
what is really going on, and what the issues are.  The religion of
American Catholics is especially defective in intellectual depth.  You
will never read about the issues being discussed in the Catholic press
in this country.  (On the other hand, one Italian Catholic magazine I
get -- 30 Days -- has had interviews with the Superior General of the
Society of Saint Pius X.)

Many Catholics will decide to side with the Pope.  There is some
soundness in this, because the Papacy is infallible, so eventually
some Pope *will* straighten all this out.  But, on the other hand,
there is also unsoundness in this, in that, in the short term, the
Popes may indeed be wrong, and such Catholics are doing nothing to
help the situation by obeying them where they're wrong.  In fact, if
the situation is grave enough, they sin in obeying him.  At the very
least, they're wasting a great opportunity, because they are failing
to love Christ in a heroic way at the very time that He needs this
badly.

Schism... let's move on to schism.  What is it?

Schism is a superset of disobedience (refusal to obey a legitimate
command).  All schismatics are disobedient.  But it's a superset, so
it doesn't work the other way around: not all disobeyers are
schismatics.  The mere fact that the SSPX priests don't comply with
the Holy Father's desires doesn't make them schismatics.

So what is it that must be added to disobedience to constitute a
schism?  Maybe this something else makes the SSPX priests schismatics.

You must add this: the rejection of the right to command.  Look in any
decent reference on Catholic theology, and that's what you'll find:
the distinguishing criterion of schism is rejection of the right to
command.

Here's what the Catholic Encyclopedia says, for example:

    ... not every disobedience is a schism; in order to possess this
    character it must include besides the trangression of the commands
    of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command.
    (from the CE article "Schism")

Is the Society of Saint Pius X then schismatic?  The answer is a clear
no: they say that the Pope is their boss.  They pray for him every
day.  And that's all that matters as far as schism goes.

What all this boils down to is this: if we leave aside the
consideration of the exact nature of their objections, their position
is a legitimate one, as far as the Catholic theology of obedience and
schism goes.  They are resisting certain Papal policies because they
think that they are clearly contrary to the traditional teaching of
the Papacy, and the best interests of the Church.  (In fact, someone
who finds himself in this situation has a *duty* to resist.)

Now, what is the stance of Rome on all this?  Well, if you read the
Holy Father's motu proprio "Ecclesia Dei", you can find out.  It's the
definitive document on the subject.  A motu proprio is a specifically
Papal act.  It's not the product of a Roman congregation, a letter
that the Pope has possibly never even read.  It's from the Pope
himself.  His boss is God... there's no one else to complain to.

In this document, the Holy Father says, among other things:

1) The episcopal consecrations performed by Archbishop Lefebvre
constituted a schismatic act.

2) Archbishop Lefebvre's problem was a misunderstanding of the nature
of Tradtion.

Both are confusing: I fail to see the logic of the Pope's points.

As far as the episcopal consecrations go, I read an interesting
article in a translation of the Italian magazine "Si Si No No".  It
all gets back to the question of jurisdiction.  If episcopal
consecrations imply rejection of the Pope's jurisdiction, then they
would truly constitute a schismatic act, justifying excommunication
under the current code of canon law.  But my problem with this is
this: according to the traditional theology of Holy Orders, episcopal
consecration does not confer jurisdiction.  It only confers the power
of Order: the ability to confect the Sacraments.  Jurisdiction must be
conferred by someone else with the power to confer it (such as the
Pope).  The Society bishops, knowing the traditional theology quite
well, take great pains to avoid any pretence of jurisdiction over
anyone.  They simply confer those Sacraments that require a bishop.

The "Si Si No No" article was interesting in that it posited that the
reason that the Pope said what he did is that he has a novel,
post-Vatican II idea of Holy Orders.  According to this idea,
episcopal consecration *does* confer jurisdiction.  I lent the article
to a friend, unfortunately, so can't tell you more.  I believe they
quoted the new code of canon law in support of this idea.

The Pope's thinking on this point remains a great puzzle to me.
There's no way there is a schism, according to traditional Catholic
theology.  So why does the Pope think this?

As far as the points regarding the nature of Tradition goes, here's
the passage in question:

    The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete
    and contradictory notion of Tradtion.  Incomplete, because it does
    not take sufficiently into the account the living character of
    Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught,

        comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the
        help of the Holy Spirit.  There is a growth in insight into
        the realities and words that are being passed on.  This comes
        about in various ways.  It comes through the contemplation and
        study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts.
        It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which
        they experience.  And it comes from the preaching of those who
        have received, along with their right of succession in the
        espiscopate, the sure charism of truth.

    But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which
    opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the
    Bishop of Rome and the body of bishops.  It is impossible to
    remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond
    with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ
    himself entrusted the ministry of unity in His Church.

    (Papal motu proprio "Ecclesia Dei", 2 July 1988)

It seems to me that the Holy Father is making two points here that can
be simplified to the following:

- Vatican Council II has happened.
- I am the Pope.

The argument being that either case is sufficient to prove that
Archbishop Lefebvre must be wrong, because he disagrees with them.
This is weak, to say the least!

It would have helped clarify things more if the Pope had addressed
Archbishop Lefebvre's concerns in detail.  What is John Paul II's
stand on the social Kingship of Christ, as taught by Gregory XVI, Pius
IX, Leo XIII, Pius XI and Pius XII, for example?  Are we supposed to
ignore what all these Popes said on the subject?

I don't know what the future will hold, but the powers that be in the
SSPX are still talking with Rome and trying to straighten things out.

--------------------------------------------------------------

[Many people would prefer to call a justified refusal to obey
"justified disobedience" or even "obeying God rather than man".
Calling a refusal to obey obedience puts us into a sort of Alice in
Wonderland world where words mean whatever we want them to mean.

Similarly, schism indicates a formal break in the church.  If the Pope
says that a schism exists, it seems to me that by definition it
exists.  It may be that the Pope is on the wrong side of the break,
that there is no good reason for the break to exist, and that it will
shortly be healed.  But how can one deny that it does in fact exist?

It seems to me that you are in grave danger of destroying the thing
you are trying to reform: the power of the papacy.  What good will it
do you if you become reconciled to the the Pope in the future, but in
the process, you have destroyed his ability to use the tools of church
discipline?  It's one thing to hold that the Pope has misused his
powers, and excommunicated someone wrongly.  It's something else to
say that his excommunication did not take effect, and the schism is
all in his imagination.  That means that acts of church discipline are
not legal tools, but acts whose validity is open to debate.  Generally
it has been liberal Catholics who have had problems with the Pope.
While they have often objected to church sanctions, generally they
have admitted that the sanctions exist.  You are now opening the door
to people simply ignoring papal decisions, claiming to be truly
obeying by disobeying, and to be in communion while excommunicated.
This would seem to be precisely the denial of Divine right to command
that you say defines schism.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20840
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: Re: quality of Catholic liturgy

Tim Rolfe writes:

   without active participation.  If you know the Latin, one really
   beautiful way to hear the Passion is it's being chanted by three
   deacons:  the Narrator chants in the middle baritone range, Jesus chants
   in the bass, and others directly quoted are handled by a high tenor.

I heard the Gregorian chant of the Passion on Good Friday.  In this
liturgy, our Lord is definitely *very* sad.  It's as if He has
resigned Himself to die for these poor pitiful creatures who are
killing Him.

The chant is *quite* beautiful.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20841
From: news@cbnewsk.att.com
Subject: Re: anger

>Paul Conditt writes:
>>In case you couldn't tell, I get *extremely* angry and upset when
>>I see things like this.  Instead of rationalizing our own fears and
>>phobias, we need to be reaching out to people with AIDS and other
>>socially unacceptable diseases.  Whether they got the disease through
>>their own actions or not is irrelevant.  They still need Jesus...

Aaron Bryce Cardenas) writes:
>The first issue you bring up is your anger.  It is "obvious"ly wrong to
>be angry (Gal 5:19-20) for any reason, especially *extremely* angry
>which is on par with hatred.  Jesus has every reason to be angry at us
>for putting him on the cross with our sin, yet his prayer was "forgive
>them Father, they know not what they do."  ...

I don't know why it is so obvious.  We are not speaking of acts of the 
flesh.  We are just speaking of emotions.  Emotions are not of themselves
moral or immoral, good or bad.  Emotions just are.  The first step is
not to label his emotion as good or bad or to numb ourselves so that
we hide our true feelings, it is to accept ourselves as we are, as God
accepts us.  It seems that Paul's anger he has accepted and channeled
it to a plea to all of us to refrain from passing judgement on those
afflicted with a disease and to reach out to others.  Give in?  Calling
his arguments foolish, belittling them to only quarrels, avoiding action
because of fear to give others a bad feeling, he's not forgiving?

Re-think it, Aaron.  Don't be quick to judge.  He has forgiven those with
AIDS, he has dealt with and taken responsibility for his feelings and made
appropriate choices for action on such feelings.  He has not given in to
his anger.

Joe Moore

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20842
From: abigail@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Shawn Abigail)
Subject: Re: ONLINE BIBLE as bible study

In <Apr.15.00.58.10.1993.28876@athos.rutgers.edu> eng10205@nusunix1.nus.sg (LING SIEW WEE) writes:

>Hello, I am about to embark on a bible study on ACTS. I have online
>bible software with me. I would like to know the the background of the
>authors of its various topics articles and about the author of the
>People's New Testament. I need to know how realible is the articles in
>the Online Bible software. Specifically (for your convenience) I want to
>know about the :


>               1. Darby Translation ( I have never heard of this one)

J.N. Darby was one of the founders of the "Plymouth Brethren" and an
early supporter of dispensationalism.  F.F. Bruce highly approved
of his translation.  He also translated the Bible into several other
languages.

>               2. Young's Literal Translation (I have also never heard
>of)

This was from the same fellow who did Young's Concordance, which was
a standard reference work, similar to Strong's concordance.

>               3. The realiability of the Hebrew/Greek Lexicon

I believe that these just follow standard reference works.

>               4. The authors (from which denomination etc) of the
>articles in the TOPICS modules.

Some are by Larry Pierce ("Brethren"), some are by Baptists, and I
think that Thompson (of chain reference fame) was Presbyterian)

>               5. The realiability of the Treasury of Scripture
>Knowlege ( as I have never heard of too) 

Another standard reference work that has been around for decades.
A new version was just released and is available through Christian
Book Distributers.

>               6. Who are the commentators, Scofield and B.W. Johnson
>who wrote the Scofield Reference Bible and the People's New Testament respectively 

C.I. Scofield was the creator of the Scofield Reference Bible.  For many
people (but not me), this is THE STUDY BIBLE.  The notes are strongly
dispensational.

>               7. The realiability of the Strong numbers.

These are probably the most accurate Strong's numbers available.


Shawn Abigail
abigail@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20843
From: cox@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (Sherman Cox)
Subject: Re: SDA Doctrinal Distinctives

healta@saturn.wwc.edu (TAMMY R HEALY) writes:

>In article <Mar.17.02.04.45.1993.23612@athos.rutgers.edu> jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher) writes:

>|There is a book provided by the SDA which is entitled "The Seventh Day
>|Adventist Church believes", or something like that. 

>The book is called "27 basic fundamental beliefs" or something very close to 
>that.  the number *IS* 27, not 30.  I have a copy at home (i'm away at 
>school.)

Actually the book is called "Seventh Day Adventists believe..."  And there
are 27 basica beliefs.  I believe it is printed by the Reveiew and
Herald Publishing Association.

--

"Competition is the law of the jungle.
 Cooperation is the law of civilization." -- Eldridge Cleaver

Sherman Cox, II		scox@uahcs2.cs.uah.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20844
From: stovall@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Steven Stovall)
Subject: Re: Rebuilding the Temple (was Re: Anybody out there?)

tcsteven@iaserv.b1.ingr.com (Todd Stevens) writes:

>Chuck Petch writes:

>>Now it appears that nothing stands in the way of rebuilding and resuming
>>sacrifices, as the Scriptures indicate will happen in the last days.
>>Although the Israeli government will give the permission to start, I think
>>it is the hand of God holding the project until He is ready to let it
>>happen. Brothers and sisters, the time is at hand. Our redemption is
>>drawing near. Look up!

>How is a scriptural Levitical priesthood resumed?  Are there any Jews who 
>can legitimately prove their Levite bloodline?

If I am not mistaken, the Jewish family names Cohen, Kahn, etc.
are considered to be legitimate indicators of descent from Aaron.
The family names Levi, Levene, etc. are considered to be legitimate
indicators of descent from Levi. The main legal issue is the purification
of the priesthood, which is supposed to involve finding the ashes of
of the red heifer last used for this purpose 2000 years ago.
_______________________________________________________________________________

steven stovall
stovall@exeter.cs.ucla.edu
(310) 825-7307

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20845
From: mdbs@ms.uky.edu (no name)
Subject: tuff to be a Christian?

bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:

>	I don't think most people understand what a Christian is.  It 
>is certainly not what I see a lot in churches.  Rather I think it 
>should be a way of life, and a total sacrafice of everything for God's 
>sake.  He loved us enough to die and save us so we should do the 

	Typical statement from an irrational and brainwashed person.
The bible was written by some male chavnist thousands of years ago
(as were all of the "holy" books). Follow the parts that you think are
suitable for modern life. Ignore the others. For heaven's (!) sake don't
take it literally.

>same.  Hey we can't do it, God himself inspires us to turn our lives 
>over to him.  That's tuff and most people don't want to do it, to be a 
				^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>real Christian would be something for the strong to persevere at.  But 

	So you think it is easy to be a Muslim? Or be a Buddhist?
The Buddha's commandments are 500 yrs older than Christ's and in
my opinion tougher to follow. Moreover the Buddha says that we are 
intrinsically good (as against Christ's "we are all sinners").
 Only we allow ourselves to be distracted. By meditating we can awaken 
ourselves (etc etc). Also there is no concept of God in Buddhism. 
(In my opinion you can be an Atheist and a Buddhist).
But to "awaken" yourself is no easy task. Can you stay away from eating meat?
Can you sit still and think of nothing (meditate) for sometime everyday?
Buddhists do (or are supposed to). Can you pray five times a day? 
Can you fast for a month every year (Ramzan). Are you willing
to give 1/6 th of your income as tithe? Muslims do. In fact I think 
Jesus was an ordinary man (just as Buddha and Mohamed) probably with a 
philosopy ahead of the times (where he lived). 
Considering the fact that Christianity is a young religion
(compared to Hindiusm, Judaism, Zorasterism, Buddihsm) it is also very
probable that the Bible is merely a collection of borrowed ideas.
(There was a good deal of trade between the eastern lands and the
middle east at the time of Christ).
And perhaps some more. But leave the crap in it out ("woman was created
after man, to be his helper" etc).
aras

	

>just like weight lifting or guitar playing, drums, whatever it takes 
>time.  We don't rush it in one day, Christianity is your whole life.  
>It is not going to church once a week, or helping poor people once in 
>a while.  We box everything into time units.  Such as work at this 
>time, sports, Tv, social life.  God is above these boxes and should be 

	When ever I turn on my TV there is this Pat Robertson and
other brain washers (Oh boy, what an act they put on!) with an
1-800 number to turn in your pledges.
God it seems is alive and well inside these boxes.

>carried with us into all these boxes that we have created for 
>ourselves.  	  


	Parting Question:
		Would you have become a Christian if you had not
been indoctrinated by your parents? You probably never learned about
any other religion to make a comparative study. And therefore I claim
you are brain washed.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20846
From:  (Phil Bowermaster)
Subject: C. S. Lewis is OK (was Ancient Books)

In article <Apr.14.03.07.58.1993.5438@athos.rutgers.edu>,
mayne@ds3.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne) wrote:

> 
> The last sentence is ironic, since so many readers of
> soc.religion.christian seem to not be embarrassed by apologists such as
> Josh McDowell and C.S. Lewis. The above also expresses a rather odd sense
> of history. What makes you think the masses in Aquinas' day, who were
> mostly illiterate, knew any more about rhetoric and logic than most people
> today? If writings from the period seem elevated consider that only the
> cream of the crop, so to speak, could read and write. If everyone in
> the medieval period "knew the rules" it was a matter of uncritically
> accepting what they were told.
> 
> Bill Mayne
> 
> [This may be unfair to Lewis.  The most prominent fallacy attributed
> to him is the "liar, lunatic, and lord".  As quoted by many
> Christians, this is a logical fallacy.  In its original context, it
> was not.  --clh]


Exactly. 

C. S. Lewis has taken a couple of pretty severe hits in this group lately.
First somebody was accusing him of being self-righteous and unconvincing.
Now we are told that we Christians should be embarrassed by him. (As well
as by Josh McDowell, about whom I have no comment, having never read his
work.)

Anyone who thinks that C. S. Lewis was self-righteous ought to read his
introduction to The Problem of Pain, which is his theodicy. In it, he
explains that he wanted to publish the book anonymously. Why? Although he
believed in the argument he was presenting, he did not want to seem to
presume to tell others how brave they should be in the face of their own
suffering. He did not want people to think that he was presenting himself
as some kind of model of fortitude, or that he was anything other than what
he considered himself to be -- "a great coward." 

OFM has adequately handled the question of whether we ought to be
embarrassed by Lewis' liar/lunatic/lord argument (which, by the way, is
part of a *much* bigger discourse.) I would just like to add that, far from
being embarrassed by Lewis, I am in a state of continual amazement at the
soundness and clarity of the arguments he presents. 

- Phil -

Hey, we're talking about the PHONE COMPANY, here. The Phone Company doesn't
have opinions on this kind of stuff. This is all me.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20847
From: brownli@ohsu.edu@ohsu.edu (Liane Brown)
Subject: DOCTRINE OF GOD

This is being posted as a general outline for your personal study of this 
doctrine:


                        THE DOCTRINE OF GOD


I.   THE PERSONS OF THE GODHEAD
     Of all of the doctrines of Scripture, this is the most
     important.  The Bible is pre-eminently a revelation of God. 
     Therefore, our first objective in studying the Bible should
     be to know God.
     I believe that the Bible teaches that there are Three
     Persons in the Godhead (Trinity):  God, the Father; God the
     Son--the Lord Jesus Christ; and God, the Holy Spirit.  I
     believe that they are individual Persons who are one in
     nature, meaning that They are identical in nature, each
     possessing the same divine attributes.  They are also
     equally worthy of our worship, our trust, and our obedience.
     Cf. Matt.28:19, 2 Cor.13:14; John 14:8,9,16,17.

II.  THE ATTRIBUTES, or CHARACTERISTICS, OF THE GODHEAD.
     A.  God's nature is revealed in the Name He has taken for
         Himself: Jehovah.  He is the living God, eternal, and
         unchanging.  He is without beginning, and without
         ending.  Cf. Isa.42:8.
     B.  God is a spirit.  Cf. John 4:24.
     C.  God is love.  Cf. 1 John 4:8,16.
         As such, He is gracious, merciful, good, faithful,
         patient, and full of lovingkindness.  Cf. Psa 89:1,2;
         Psa 103:8; Nahum 1:7.
     D.  But God is also holy and righteous.  He is absolutely
         without sin in His nature, and so is incapable of
         sinning in though, word, or action.  Cf. Ex. 15:11; Isa.
         6:3.
     E.  God is omnipresent (everywhere present at the same time
         in the completeness of His Person), omniscient (all
         knowing, knowing all things--the end from the beginning,
         infinitely wise), omnipotent (almighty, sovereign, with
         unlimited power over all creation).
         God is infinite in His presence, wisdom, and power.  It
         is my conviction that the work of the Lord in our day
         has become very man-centered, and that the people in our
         churches know very little about God.  I believe that the
         Lord's work needs to be God-centered, and that the
         people of God need to understand that God is sovereign
         in all things:  in the affairs of nations, in the lives
         of all people, and in the carrying out of His purposes
         regarding salvation.

III.     THE WORKS OF THE GODHEAD.
     A.  In creation
          All Three Persons of the Godhead were active in
          creating, and all Three are active in sustaining
          creation, and in ordering the course of human affairs
          (for nations as well as individual people) to the end
          of time.  Cf. Gen. 1:1,2; John 1:1-3; Col. 1:16-17;
          Heb. 1:3.
     B.  In salvation
         In order to understand salvation I believe that it is
         absolutely necessary to begin with God, not with man. 
         All three Persons of the Godhead have been, and are,
         active in salvation.
         1.  God, the Father
             Salvation originated with God.  The Members of the
             Godhead determined in eternity past that there would
             be salvation, the conditions under which people
             could and would be saved, and even who would be
             saved.  Election to salvation is recognized in
             Scripture as the work of  God, the Father.  Cf. Eph
             1:3-4; 2 Thess 2:13-14.
         2.  Christ, the Son of God
             The Lord Jesus Christ, through His birth by the
             virgin Mary, came to the earth to accomplish two
             important works:
             a.   He came as the final and complete revelation of
                  God, the Father.  Cf. Col 1:15; heb 1:1-3.
             b.   He came to provide salvation for all whom the
                  Father had chosen.  He did this by His death on
                  the Cross, by His bodily resurrection, and by
                  His present intercessory work in heaven.  The
                  work of salvation will be completed for us when
                  the Lord returns.  Cf. Rom 5:8-10; 1 Cor 15:3-
                  4; Heb 7:25, 1 John 3:2.
         3.  The Holy Spirit
             As the Author of Scripture, the theme of which is
             Christ and His redemptive work, the Holy Spirit is
             carrying out the redemptive plan of God in the
             following ways:
             a.   He convicts of sin. Cf. John 16:7-11
             b.   He regenerates (known in the Bible as the new
                  birth).  Cf. John 3:5-8.
             c.   He indwells each believer to fulfill the work
                  of sanctification.  Cf. John 14-16-17.
             d.   He seals every believer in Christ, thus making 
                  salvation secure.  Cf. Eph 1:13-14.
             e.   He baptizes every believer into the body of
                  Christ.  Cf. Cor. 12:13
             f.   He teaches every believer the truth of
                  Scripture. Cf. John 14:26.
             g.   He bestows spiritual gifts on the people of 
                  God for ministry.  (Cf. 1 Cor 12
             h.   He restrains sin.  Cf Gal 5:16-26.
             i.   He empowers for living and for service.  
                  Cf. Acts 1:8


----------------------------------
Liane Brown
(Internet) brownli@ohsu.edu
Portland Oregon

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20848
From: coffey@cptc2.neep.wisc.edu (Robert L. Coffey)
Subject: Re: Questions...

>4. Who exactly is "The Lord"?  "God" or Jesus Christ?

John 1:1 says (NKJV - the little green gideon someone forced on me one day)
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was 
God."  The Word refers to Jesus Christ so from this John declares that God
and Jesus are one.  Therefore, "The Lord" refers to both.  Also, David in the
Psalms refers to both God in heaven and the coming messiah as his Lord.  Once
again this refers to God and Jesus.

>5. What is the definition of a "Truly religious" person? Should he/she not 
   swear/curse?  Does it say anything about this in the bible?

Some of the most "truly religious" people I've known have not been Christians
and some of the greatest Christians I've known have been truly irreligious.
However, to answer your question:
The bible speaks of this in many places, A previous post to James is a good
one.  Another is Psalm 15:
"Lord, who may abide in your tabernacle?  Who may dwell in your holy hill?  He
who walks uprightly, and works righteousness, and speaks the truth in his heart
He who does not backbite with his tongue, nor does evil to his neighbor, nor
does he take up a reproach against his friend; I whose eyes a vile person is
despised, but he honors those who fear the Lord; he who swears to his own hurt
and does not change; He who does not put out money at usury, nor does he take
a bribe aginst the innocent.  He who does these things shall never be moved."

------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Coffey                    "Indeed the safest road to 
coffey@cptc1.neep.wisc.edu     Hell is the gradual one- the
(if you send mail to cptc2     gentle slope, soft underfoot,
 I'll never read it)           without sudden turnings, 
                               without milestones, without
                               signposts."  -- Screwtape
------------------------------------------------------------
The day Techwood meets the wrecking ball the world shall rejoice.
But I'll have lost a former home.  

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20849
From: Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca (Desiree Bradley)
Subject: Being right about messiahs

I must have missed the postings about Waco, David Koresh, and the Second
Coming.  How does one tell if a Second Coming is the real thing, unless the
person claiming to be IT is obviously insane?

I'm not saying that David Koresh is the Second Coming of Christ.  How could
somebody who breaks his word be the Second Coming?  Koresh did promise that
he would come out of his compound if only he was allowed to give a radio
broadcast.  He didn't.  Still it seems to me that he did fool some people.

And, from my meagre knowledge of the Bible, it seems that Christians have
been hard on the Jews of Christ's day for being cautious about accepting
somebody that their religious authorities didn't accept as the Messiah.

So I was surprised that nobody had discussed the difficulty of wanting to be
early to recognize the Second Coming while, at the same time, not wanting to
be credulously believing just anybody who claims to be God.

[Mark 13:21   And then if any one says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' 
or 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it. 
Mark 13:22   False Christs and false prophets will arise and show signs and 
wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. 
Mark 13:23   But take heed; I have told you all things beforehand. 
Mark 13:24    "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be 
darkened, and the moon will not give its light, 
Mark 13:25   and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in 
the heavens will be shaken. 
Mark 13:26   And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with 
great power and glory. 

My understanding of Jesus' answer is that, unlike his first coming,
which was veiled, the second coming will be quite unmistakeable.  He's
telling us not to be misled by the other things that have to happen
before his second coming -- the actual second coming will make his
power openly visible.

By the way, from Koresh's public statement it's not so clear to me
that he is claiming to be Christ.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20850
From: jdt@voodoo.ca.boeing.com (Jim Tomlinson (jimt II))
Subject: An agnostic's question

Pardon me if this is the wrong newsgroup.  I would describe myself as
an agnostic, in so far as I'm sure there is no single, universal
supreme being, but if there is one and it is just, we will surely be
judged on whether we lived good lives, striving to achieve that
goodness that is within the power of each of us.  Now, the
complication is that one of my best friends has become very
fundamentalist.  That would normally be a non-issue with me, but he
feels it is his responsibility to proselytize me (which I guess it is,
according to his faith).  This is a great strain to our friendship.  I
would have no problem if the subject didn't come up, but when it does,
the discussion quickly begins to offend both of us: he is offended
because I call into question his bedrock beliefs; I am offended by
what I feel is a subscription to superstition, rationalized by such
circular arguments as 'the Bible is God's word because He tells us in
the Bible that it is so.'  So my question is, how can I convince him
that this is a subject better left undiscussed, so we can preserve
what is (in all areas other than religious beliefs) a great
friendship?  How do I convince him that I am 'beyond saving' so he
won't try?  Thanks for any advice.

-- 
Jim Tomlinson                          206-865-6578  \  "falling snow
BoGART Project              jdt@voodoo.ca.boeing.com  \  excellent snow"
Boeing Computer Services   ...uunet!bcstec!voodoo!jdt  \  - Anderson/Gabriel

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20851
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Subject: Re: phone number of wycliffe translators UK


  I'm concerned about a recent posting about WBT/SIL.  I thought they'd
pretty much been denounced as a right-wing organization involved in
ideological manipulation and cultural interference, including Vietnam
and South America. A commission from Mexican Academia denounced them in
1979 as " a covert political and ideological institution used by the
U.S. govt as an instrument of control, regulation, penetration, espionage and
repression."
  My concern is that this group may be seen as acceptable and even
praiseworthy by readers of soc.religion.christian. It's important that
Christians don't immediately accept every "Christian" organization as
automatically above reproach.

                                                                  mp

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20852
From: ide!twelker@uunet.uu.net (Steve Twelker)
Subject: Esotericism

I'm compiling a bibliography on religious perspectives on esotericism,
hermeticism, gnosticism, mysticism, occultism, alchemy and magic, and
am interested in sources that others have found particularly interesting
and insightful.  I'm especially interested in medieval works, such as
_The Chemical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreutz_ and Arthurian legends.

Please feel free, too, to send personal opinions on any of the above,
pro or con or anywhere in between.  Thanks much.

Stephen Twelker
twelker@ide.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20853
From: kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Re: Certainty and Arrogance

In an earlier article, I explained that what many people find arrogant about
Christians is that some Christians profess absolute certianty about their
beliefs and doctrines.  That is, many Christians insist that they CANNOT have
made any mistakes when discovering their beliefs, which amounts to saying
that they are infallible.

Impicitly claiming to be infallible is pretty arrogant, most of us will
probably agree.

In short, the problem is that no matter how good your sources are, if any
part of your doctrines or beliefs rest on your own thinking and reasoning,
then those doctrines are suspect.  So long as your own brain is involved,
there is a possibility for error.  I summarised the problem by writing "There
is no way out of the loop."


Someone called `REXLEX' has claimed that there IS a way out of the loop, but
he did not bother to explain what it was, preferring instead to paraphrase
Sartre, ramble about Wittgenstein, and say that the conclusion of my argument
leads to relativism.

As I have explained to him before, you cannot reject an argument as false
because you dislike where it leads: the facts do not change just because
you dislike them.  `REXLEX' wrote:

>  I disagree with Dr Nancy's Sweetie's conclusion because if it is
> taken to fruition it leads to relativism which leads to dispair.

However, as any first-year philosophy student can explain, what `REXLEX' has
written does not constitute a refutation.  All he has said is that he does
not like what I wrote -- he has done nothing at all to dispute it.

 *

There were two sentences in `REXLEX's post that seemed relevant to the
point at hand:

>  There is such a thing as true truth and it is real, it can be
> experienced and it is verifiable.

I do not dispute that some truths can be verified through experience.  I
have, for example, direct experience of adding numbers.  I don't claim to
be infallible at it -- in fact I remember doing sums incorrectly -- but I
do claim that I have direct experience of reasoning about numbers.

However, once we go past experiencing things and start reasoning about
them, we are on much shakier ground.  That was the point of the earlier
article.  Human brains are infested with sin, and they can only be trusted
in very limited circumstances.


>  It is only because of God's own revelation that we can be absolute
> about a thing.

But how far does that get you?  Once God's revelation stops, and your own
reasoning begins, possibility for error appears.

For example, let's suppose that our modern Bible translations include a
perfect rendering of Jesus words at the Last Supper, and that Jesus said,
exactly, "This is my body."

We'll presume that what he said was totally without error and absolutely
true.  What can we be certain of?  Not much.

At the moment he stops speaking, and people start interpreting, the
possibility of error appears.  Did he mean that literally or not?  We do
not have any record that he elaborated on the words.  Was he thinking of
Tran- or Con- substatiation?   He didn't say.  We interpret this passage
using our brains; we think and reason and draw conclusions.  But we know
that our brains are not perfect: our thinking often leads us wrong.  (This
is something that most of us have direct experience of.  8-)

Why should anyone believe that his reasoning -- which he knows to be
fallible -- can lead him to perfect conclusions?

So, given the assumptions in this example, what we can be certain of is
that Jesus said "This is my body."  Beyond that, once we start making up
doctrines and using our brains to reason about what Christ revealed, we
get into trouble.

Unless you are infallible, there are very few things you can be certain
of.  To the extent that doctrines rely on fallible human thinking, they
cannot be certain.



That is the problem of seeming arrogant.  The non-Christians around us know
that human beings make mistakes, just as surely as we know it.  They do not
believe we are infallible, any more than we do.

When Christians speak as if they believe their own reasoning can never lead
them astray -- when we implicitly claim that we are infallible -- the non-
Christians around us rarely believe that implicit claim.  Witnessing is
hardly going to work when the person you are talking to believes that you
are either too foolish to recognise your own limits, or intentionally trying
to cover them up.

I think it would be far better to say what things we are certain of and what
things we are only "very confident" of.  For example, we might say that we
know our sin, for recognising sin is something we directly experience.  But
other things, whether based on reasoning from Scripture or extra-Biblical
thinking, should not be labled as infallible: we should say that we are
very confident of them, and be ready to explain our reasoning.

But, so far as I am aware, none of us is infallible -- speaking or acting
as if our thinking is flawless is ridiculous.

 *

`REXLEX' suggested that people read _He is There and He is Not Silent_, by
Francis Schaeffer.  I didn't think very highly of it, but I think that
Mr Schaeffer is grossly overrated by many Evangelical Christians.  Somebody
else might like it, though, so don't let my opinion stop you from reading it.

If someone is interested in my opinion, I'd suggest _On Certainty_, by
Ludwig Wittgenstein.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu
"If any substantial number of  [ talk.religion.misc ]  readers read some
 Wittgenstein, 60% of the postings would disappear.  (If they *understood*
 some Wittgenstein, 98% would disappear. :-))" -- Michael L Siemon

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20854
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5

All of the arguments concerning the Sabbath ought to make the point
pretty clear - anyone outside of the Catholic or Orthodox orAnglican or
Monophysite churches ourght to worship on Saturday if they are really
sola scriptura.  Otherwise, they are following a law put into effect by
the Church, and only the above Chruches really recognize any power of
the Chruch to do so.

Andy Byler

[You will note that nothing in the FAQ said anything about the Church
establishing or changing a law.  The argument against the Sabbath is
that it is part of the ceremonial law, and like the rest of the
ceremonial law is not binding on Christians.  This argument is based
on Paul's letters, Acts, and in a more general sense, Jesus'
teachings.  Further, most people argue that Scripture shows worship
occuring on Sunday, and Paul endorsing it.  I understand that these
points are disputed, and do not want to go around the dispute one more
time.  The point I'm making here is not that these arguments are
right, but that the backing they claim is Scripture.

Accepting the principle of "sola scriptura" does not commit us to
obeying the entire Jewish Law.  Acts 15 and Paul's letters are quite
clear on that.  I think even the SDA's accept it.  The disagreement is
on where the Bible would have us place the line.

By the way, Protestants do give authority to the church, in matters
that are not dictated by God.  That's why churches are free to
determine their own liturgies, church polity, etc.  If you accept that
the Sabbath is not binding on Christians, then the day of worship
falls into the category of items on which individual Christians or
(since worship is by its nature a group activity) churches are free to
decide.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20855
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: Thinking about heaven

James Sledd asks:

 1. What is the nature of eternal life?
 2. How can we as mortals locked into space-time conceive of it?
 2a. If the best we can do is metaphor/analogy, then what is the
 best metaphor?

C S Lewis's essay THE WEIGHT OF GLORY deals with this question. I
recommend it enthusiastically. You might also read the chapter on
"Heaven" in his book THE PROBLEM OF PAIN. He gives a fictional
treatment in his book THE GREAT DIVORCE. I have found all of these
very helpful.

You might also be helped by the treatment in Dante's DIVINE COMEDY.
Heaven occupies the last third of the poem, but I cannot imagine
reading it other than from the beginning. I urge you to use the
translation by Dorothy L Sayers, available from Penguin Paperbacks.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20856
From: jemurray@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John E Murray)
Subject: quality of Catholic liturgy

I appreciated the follow-ups and replies to my earlier query.  One reply, which
I have lost, suggested several parishes in New York that have good Masses, one 
of which was Corpus Christi in downtown Manhattan.  By coincidence, last week's
_America_, the national Jesuit magazine, carried an interview with Fr. Myles 
Bourke, Corpus Christi's pastor emeritus.  Fr. Bourke also directed the NT 
translation in the New American Bible.  He noted "...certain practices have 
been introduced into the Mass in such a manner that an atmosphere of banality, 
and sometimes of hilarity, has trivialized the liturgy."  I note that at my 
parents' parish on Easter, helium filled balloons were distributed at the 
offertory, apparently to aid in understanding the word "risen".  This was not a 
kiddie mass, either, but the well-attended 11:00 Mass.

I wanted to note the generous spirit behind the replies.  This newsgroup as a
whole offers generally moderate (perhaps because it's moderated) conversation
on topics that often lead people to extreme behavior (including myself).
Sometimes people do go over the top, but the remarkable thing is how that is
the exception, I think.  Benefits of the doubt are generally granted.  It seems
so...Christian?

John Murray

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20857
From: ata@hfsi.hfsi.com ( John Ata)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

In article <Apr.21.03.26.43.1993.1373@geneva.rutgers.edu> parkin@Eng.Sun.COM writes:

>desperately wanted the Jewish people to accept him as the Messiah.  If
>the crucification was the will of God how could Jesus pray that this
>cup pass from him.  Was this out of weakness.  NEVER.  Many men and
>women have given their lives for their country or other noble causes.
>Is Jesus less than these.  No he is not.  He knew the crucification
>was NOT the will of GOD.  God's will was that the Jewish people accept
>Jesus as the Messiah and that the kingdom of Heaven be established on
>the earth with Jesus as it's head. (Just like the Jewish people
>expected). If this had happened 2000 years ago can you imagine what
	.
	.
	.

Why do you assume that Jesus's plea to His Father "to let this cup
pass from Him", was merely a plea to escape death?  When I look at
Jesus in the garden, I see a Man-God, who all His life had had the
presense of His Father with Him.  As a result, He knew every
detail about His death long before the Agony in the Garden.  But
as that hour approached, He felt abandoned by His Father, His
presense diminishing with each passing minute.  In addition, it
was brought more and more to Jesus's attention (the betrayal of
Judas was probably a big impact) that His suffering would be to no
avail for many people, especially those who would reject Him, not
only then but in the future.  I truly believe that the majority of
Jesus's suffering was mental and spiritual, while the physical
portion was only the tip of the iceburg.

BTW, we know from John's account that Jesus *shunned* becomming an earthly
king.  From John:

JOH 6:14    After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did, they
            began to say, "Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the
            world."
JOH 6:15    Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by
            force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.

This does not seem like a man who would regret not becoming an
earthly king.  No, Jesus knew His mission was to redeem all (Jew &
Gentile) people and establish His kingdom in the hearts of those
who would believe.  This was utterly mistaken, much to Jesus's
dismay, as an aspiration to some earthly kingdom.  But He knew
what His Father's will was and followed it obediently even in the
darkness of His Passion.

-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20858
From: salaris@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrabbits)
Subject: Re: Hell_2:  Black Sabbath

In article <Apr.22.00.57.03.1993.2118@geneva.rutgers.edu>, jprzybyl@skidmore.edu (jennifer przybylinski) writes:
> Hey...
> 
> I may be wrong, but wasn't Jeff Fenholt part of Black Sabbath?  He's a
> MAJOR brother in Christ now.  He totally changed his life around, and
> he and his wife go on tours singing, witnessing, and spreading the
> gospel for Christ.  I may be wrong about Black Sabbath, but I know he
> was in a similar band if it wasn't that particular group...
> 

Jeff Fenholt claims to have once been a roadie for Black Sabbath.
He was never ever a musician in the band.  He was in St. Louis several
months back.  The poster I saw at the Christian bookstore I frequent
really turned me off.  It was addressed to all "Homosexuals, prostitutes,
drug addicts, alcoholics, and headbangers..." or something like that.

Well, if I showed up with my long hair and black leather jacket I
would have felt a little pre-judged.  As a Orthodox Christian, and
a "headbanger" I was slightly insulted at being lumped together with
drug addicts and alcoholics.  Oh yes, I suppose since I drink a good
German beer now and then that makes me an alcoholic.  NOT!


--
Steven C. Salaris                We're...a lot more dangerous than 2 Live Crew
salaris@carcs1.wustl.edu         and their stupid use of foul language because
				 we have ideas.  We have a philosophy.
					      Geoff Tate -- Queensryche

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20859
From: rayssd!esther@uunet.uu.net (Esther A. Paris)
Subject: harrassed at work, could use some prayers

My news feed is broken and I haven't received any new news in 243 hours
(more than 10 days).  So, if you reply to this, please send private
email to the address esther@demand.ed.ray.com -- I have set the
Reply-To line to have that address but I don't know if it will work.

[It depends upon the software, but generally I wouldn't expect
reply-to to cause an email cc to be sent in addition to a posting.
You'll probably need to do something specific, which will vary
depending upon your news software.  --clh]

At any rate, I need some support.  (Much thanks to Jayne K who is
already supporting me with kind words and prayers!)

I've been working at this company for eight years in various
engineering jobs.  I'm female.  Yesterday I counted and realized that
on seven different occasions I've been sexually harrassed at this
company.  Seven times. Eight years. Yesterday was the most recent one;
someone left an X-rated photo of a nude woman in my desk drawer.

I'm really upset by this.  I suppose it could have been worse -- it
could have been a man having sex with a sheep or something.

There was no note.  I do not know if it was:

	- someone's idea of an innocent joke, that went awry
	- someone's sick idea of flirting
	- an act of emotional terrorism (that worked!)

I dreaded coming back to work today.  What if my boss comes in to ask
me some kind of question, I don't know the answer so I take a military
specification down off from my shelf to look up the answer, and out
falls a picture of a man having sex with a sheep?  I generally have a
Bible on my desk for occasional inspiration; what if I open it up to
Corinthians and find a picture a la the North American Man Boy Love
Association?  I want to throw up just thinking about this stuff.

I can lock up my desk, but I can't lock up every book I have in the
office.  I can't trust that someone won't shove something into my
briefcase or my coat pocket when I'm not looking so that I go home to
find such a picture, or a threat, or a raunchy note about what someone
wants to do to my body.

To make it worse, the entire department went out to lunch yesterday to
treat our marvelous secretary to lunch.  The appointed hour for
leaving was 11:30.  I was working in another building but wanted to go
to the lunch.  So I returned at 11:25, only to find that ever single
person had already left for lunch.  They left at 11:15 or so.  No one
could be bothered to call me at the other building, even though my
number was posted.  So, I came back to a department that looked like a
neutron bomb had gone off and I was the sole survivor.  This, despite
the fact that everyone knew how bad I felt about this naked woman being
left in my desk drawer.

I need some prayers --- I can't stop crying. I am so deeply wounded
that it's ridiculous.

I feel like I'm some kind of sub-human piece of garbage for people to
reduce me and my sisters to simply sex organs and the sex act.  I feel
like I'm a sub-human piece of garbage that's not worthy of a simple
phone call saying "We're leaving for Mary's lunch a little early so
that Bob can get back for a big 1:00 meeting..."

Please pray that my resentments will either go away, or be miraculously
turned into something positive.  Please pray that whoever is torturing
me so will stop, and find some healing for him- or herself. Please pray
for my being healed from this latest wound (which falls on top of a
whole slew of other wounds...).  Please pray that I can find a new job
in a place where the corporate culture does its best to prevent such
harrassment from happening in the first place, and swiftly acts
appropriately when something occurs despite its best precautions. (This
company, in my opinion, has pretty words about how sexual harrassment
isn't tolerated but when you get right down to it, how is it that one
female engineer can be touched inappropriately, left obsene or
threatening notes, left obscene pictures, spoken to lewdly, etc, seven
times in eight years in the same place?  Pretty words from the company
do me no good when I'm terrified or healing from the latest assault.)

And please pray that I don't turn into an automaton because of this.
That's my bad habit: "ignore it and it will go away", "you're not worth
anyone's time so don't go talking to anyone about this", "you're right,
you are a sub-human piece of garbage and deserve to be treated this
way", "you are just an object", "you prostitute your mind to this
company so why can't others expect you to prostitute your body there as
well?", "what makes you think women aren't just possessions, and
nothing more than sex organs and their ability to perform the sex act?"
This is the kind of thinking that can catapault one into a major
depressive episode; please pray that these thoughts don't come into
my head and stay there, triggering depression.

Please pray that this latest trauma doesn't come between me and God.
In a way, a wound like this is an invitation to a deeper connection to
God, and it's also a possible trigger for a spiritual crisis that can
separate one mentally from God.  (I know God doesn't drop me from his
loving hand, but it's awfully easy for me to walk to the edge of the
hand, look down, think I'm falling and forget that God's still holding
on to me.)

Although this probably isn't entirely appropriate for this newsgroup,
I really can use the kind of loving support you all provide.  For this
reason I hope good Mr. Moderator allows me this latest indulgence.  After
all, he's allowed me the thermometer note, and a few other off-the-wall
topics.

Thanks in advance to everyone for your support and prayers.  Peace to you,
Esther

-- 
Esther Paris, Raytheon Equipment Div., Marlboro, MA   esther@demand.ed.ray.com
"In his esteem, nothing that was large enough to please, was too small
for the fingers." -- John Kitto, "The Lost Senses", 1848

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20860
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: Re: SSPX schism ?

In article <Apr.20.03.03.06.1993.3836@geneva.rutgers.edu> shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker) writes:

   You ask where we are.  I would echo that question.  I'm not trying to be
   contentious.  But assuming that the Pope has universal jurisdiction
   and authority, what authority do you rely upon for your decisions?
   What prevents me from choosing ANY doctrine I like and saying that
   Papal disagreement is an error that will be resolved in time?
   This is especially true, since Councils of Bishops have basically
   stood by the Pope.

The ultimate question is the traditional theology of the Church.  This
is the *only* thing that it is possible to resist a Pope for: his
departure from the traditional doctrine of the Church.  If commands
from *any* authority conflict with Tradition, the commands must be
disobeyed.

My own view on this is that this conflict could only happen in a major
way.  God would never allow a hair-splitting situation to develop; it
would be too complex for people to figure out.  I don't view the
present situation in the Church as anything extremely complicated.
Run through a list of what has happened in the last 30 years in the
Catholic Church, and any impartial observer will be aghast.

   It appears that much of what lies at the heart of this matter is
   disagreements over what is tradition and Tradition, and also over
   authority and discipline.  

The problems stem from a general widespread ignorance of the Catholic
Faith, in my opinion.  Most Catholics know about zilch about the
Catholic Faith; this leaves them wide open for destruction by erring
bishops.  It's basically the Reformation part II.

There is not even a question in my mind that in some respects the
shards of the Catholic Church are currently being trampled upon by the
Catholic hierarchy.  I could go on listing shocking things for an
hour, probably.

Take the situation in Campos, Brazil, for example.  I'm reading a book
on what happened there after Vatican Council II.  The bishop, Antonio
de Castro-Mayer, never introduced all the changes that followed in the
wake of Vatican II.  He kept the traditional Mass, the same old
catechisms, etc.  He made sure the people knew their faith, the
Catholic theology of obedience, what Modernism was, etc.  He
innoculated the people against what was coming.

Well, one day the order came from Rome for his retirement.  It came
when the Pope was sick.  Bishop de Castro-Mayer waited until the Pope
recovered, then inquired whether this command was what the Pope really
wanted, or something that some Liberal had commanded in his absence.
The Pope confirmed the decision.  So the good bishop retired.

The injustice that followed was completely incredible.  A new bishop
was installed.  He proceeded to expel most of bishop de Castro-Mayer's
clergy from their churches, because they refused to celebrate the New
Mass.  The new bishop would visit a parish, and celebrate a New Mass.
The people would promptly walk out of the church en masse.  The bishop
was *enraged* by this.  He usually resorted to enlisting the help of
the secular authorities to eject the priest from the church.  The
priests would just start building new churches; the people were
completely behind them.  The old parishes had the New Mass, as the
bishop desired -- and virtually no parishioners.

The prime motivation for all this was completely illegal, according to
canon law.  No priest can be penalized in any way for saying the
traditional Mass, because of legislation enacted by Pope Saint Pius V.
Nor is there any obligation to say the New Mass.

During all this process, the people of Campos, not just private
individuals, but including civil authorities, were constantly sending
petitions and letters to Rome to do something about the new Modernist
bishop.  NOTHING was ever done; no help ever arrived from Rome.
Eventually 37 priests were kicked out, and about 40,000 people.

   My question to the supporters of SSPX is this:

	 Is there ANY way that your positions with respect to church reforms
	 could change and be conformed to those of the Pope? (assuming that
	 the Pope's position does not change and that the leaders of SSPX
	 don't jointly make such  choice.)

   If not, this appears to be claiming infallible teaching authority.
   If I adopt the view that "I'm NOT wrong, I CAN'T be wrong, and
   there's NO WAY I'll change my mind, YOU must change yours", that
   I've either left the Catholic Church or it has left me.

If the Pope defines certain things ex cathedra, that would be the end
of the controversy.  That process is all very well understood in
Catholic theology, and anyone who doesn't go along with it is an
instant non-Catholic.

The problem here is that people do not appreciate what is going on in
the Catholic world.  If they knew the Faith, and what our bishops are
doing, they would be shocked!

   We sould argue from now until the Second Coming about what the "real"
   traditional teaching of the Church is.  If this were a simple matter
   East and West would not have been separated for over 900 years.

This isn't the case in the Catholic Church.  There is a massive body
of traditional teaching.  The Popes of the last 150 years are
especially relevant.  There is no question at all what the traditional
doctrine is.

   I thought that the teaching magisterieum of the church did not allow
   error in teachings regarding faith and morals even in the short term.`
   I may be wrong here, I'm not Roman Catholic. :-)

That's heresy, more or less.  Although they have done a great job
since the Reformation, the last 30 years have seen so many errors
spread that it's pitiful.

Infallibility rests in the Pope, and in the Church as a whole.  In the
short term, a Pope, or large sections of the Church can go astray.  In
fact, that's what usually happens during a major heresy: large
sections of the Church go astray.  (The Pope historically has been
much more reliable.)  Everything will always come back in the long
run.

   What would be the effect of a Pope making an ex cathedra statement
   regarding the SSPX situation?  Would it be honored?  If not, how
   do you get around the formal doctrine of infallibility?
   Again, I'm not trying to be contentions, I'm trying to understand.
   Since I'm Orthodox, I've got no real vested interest in the outcome,
   one way or the other.

Yes, it would be honored.  Infallibility is infallibility.  But what
is he going to define?  That the New Mass is a better expression of
the Catholic Faith than the old?  That sex education in the Catholic
schools is wonderful?  That all religions are wonderful except for
that professed by the Popes prior to Vatican II?

   It does if the command was legitimate.  SSPX does not view the
   Pope's commands as legitimate.  Why?  This is a VERY slippery slope.

Not really; start studying the major Catholic theologians of the last
300 years.  Everything is very well spelled out.  The West excels at
critical thought, remember?  That's what Catholic theologians have
been busy at for centuries.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20861
From: news@cbnewsk.att.com
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?

In article <Apr.16.23.15.03.1993.1820@geneva.rutgers.edu> mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:
>In article <Apr.14.03.07.21.1993.5402@athos.rutgers.edu> randerso@acad1.sahs.uth.tmc.edu (Robert Anderson) writes:
>>I would like to get your opinions on this: when exactly does an engaged
>>couple become "married" in God's eyes? 
>
>Not if they are unwilling to go through a public marriage ceremony,
>nor if they say they are willing but have not actually done so.
>
>Let's distinguish _real_ logistical problems (like being stranded on a
>desert island) from _excuses_ (such as waiting for so-and-so's brother
>to come back from being in the army so he can be in the ceremony)...

I disagree.  People marry each other.  When they commit fully to each
other as life partners, they are married.  The ceremony may assist in
emphasizing the depth of such a commitment, but is of itself nothing.
God knows our hearts.  He knows when two have committed themselves to
be one, he knows the fears and delusions we have that keep us from fully
giving ourselves to another.  The way I see it, you'd have to be living
together in a marriage for somewhere between 10 and 100 years before anyone
knew if a marriage really existed, but God knows.  I don't think God keeps
a scorebook.

Joe Moore

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20862
From: wagner@grace.math.uh.edu (David Wagner)
Subject: Re: Certainty and Arrogance

"Darren" == Dr Nancy's Sweetie <kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu> writes:

Darren> In an earlier article, I explained that what many people find
Darren> arrogant about Christians is that some Christians profess
Darren> absolute certainty about their beliefs and doctrines.

and

Darren> In short, the problem is that no matter how good your sources
Darren> are, if any part of your doctrines or beliefs rest on your own
Darren> thinking and reasoning, then those doctrines are suspect.

The point that Darren raises is a very Lutheran viewpoint.  
While reason is a gift from God, it is also infected by sin.
Yet we do not reject reason entirely--and neither, I think, 
does Darren.  We need reason, as Darren himself has pointed
out, to comprehend God's revelation of himself in the Bible.
But reason alone is not sufficient to comprehend and believe
the Word.  We need, first and foremost, faith.  For "the sinful
mind is hostile to God.  It does not submit to God's law,
*nor can it do so*"  (Romans 8:7).

Luther accepted Scripture as the sole means of revelation
("Sola Scriptura"), but accepted the necessity of the use
of reason (with faith) in comprehending that revelation.
Yet Luther also said, regarding baptism, "But mad reason
rushes forth, and, because Baptism is not dazzling like
the works which we do, regards it as worthless." (Large
Catechism, Fourth part, Baptism).  To make matters more
complicated, Luther was the sort of theologian that many 
people would describe as an `absolutist'.  I've seen him 
described as a `take no prisoners' theologian.

We might conclude, given these observations, that Luther
was inconsistent or mad.  And surely at least some have
come to that conclusion.  But it might be useful to
recall that Jesus was also called mad.  And Peter felt
compelled to defend himself and the apostles against
a charge of drunkenness on Pentecost.  So we as Christians
ought to be careful about rejecting Luther (or others) 
as mad.  Rather, we should imitate the Bereans, who
examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul
said was true (Acts 17:11).

The basis for the confidence with which Luther, Peter, Paul, and many
others preached the gospel was not just reason, but faith and the Holy
Spirit.  This is not faith divorced from reason, but a faith that
guides, informs, and uses reason.  The Spirit enables us to know the
truth and to proclaim it boldly.  God does not want us to preach the
message that "I think that Jesus might have risen from the dead" but
rather "I know that my redeemer lives!"  (Job 19:25).  The Christian
does not side with Pilate in saying "What is truth?" but rather
follows Christ, who said, "In fact, for this reason I was born, and
for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth.  Everyone on
the side of truth listens to me" (John 18:37).

We can know the truth because God has promised us that we can
know the truth.  Jesus said, "If you hold to my teachings,
you are really my disciples.  Then you will know the truth,
and the truth will set you free" (John 8:31,32).  The Proverbs
urge us "Buy the truth, and do not sell it." (Pr 23:23).
The Psalmist prayed "Do not snatch to word of truth from my mouth"
(Ps 119:43).  Evidently he believed that the word of truth
was in fact `in his mouth'.  

Yet we do indeed appear arrogant if our claim to the truth
is motivated by self-glorification.  But if we present the
truth as the teachings of Scripture, revealed by the 
Spirit, and not our own invention, and if we stand ready
to be proved wrong on the basis of Scripture, as Luther
did, then we are not arrogant, but humble.  We should humbly
trust in God's promise of truth, just as we trust in his
promise of forgiveness.

REXLEX> It is only because of God's own revelation that we can be 
REXLEX> absolute about a thing.

Darren> But how far does that get you?  Once God's revelation stops,
Darren> and your own reasoning begins, possibility for error appears.

I agree that we must make a distinction between the clear teachings
of Scripture, and the products of our own reason--even when such
reasoning is based on Scripture.  However I think I would draw
the line of distinction more `reasonably'  :-)  and less `academically'
than you would.

Darren> For example, let's suppose that our modern Bible translations
Darren> include a perfect rendering of Jesus words at the Last Supper,
Darren> and that Jesus said, exactly, "This is my body."

Darren> We'll presume that what he said was totally without error and
Darren> absolutely true.  What can we be certain of?  Not much.

Darren> At the moment he stops speaking, and people start
Darren> interpreting, the possibility of error appears.  Did he mean
Darren> that literally or not?  We do not have any record that he
Darren> elaborated on the words.  Was he thinking of Tran- or Con-
Darren> substantiation?  He didn't say. 

Darren is almost at the point of making a very Lutheran statement
about the Lord's supper.  The Lutheran approach is to say
that if Jesus said, "This is my body," then that is what we
should believe.  Other interpretations are rejected simply because
they are not taught in Scripture.

Recall that Jesus' words do not stand alone on this subject.  We also
have Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34,--in which he passed on to
us, what he received from the Lord.  In particular he said, "For
whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the
Lord's death until he comes."  By these words we should believe that
the bread that we eat in the Lord's Supper really is bread (as well as
the Lord's body)--as our senses in fact tell us.  Does this *prove*
that tran-substantiation is false?  I suppose someone could say that
Paul spoke metaphorically of the Lord's body as bread, simply because
that is the way the body appears when we eat it.  But this thought is
found nowhere in Scripture.  So we reject it.  Thus the primary
reason for rejecting tran-substantiation is not that we can
prove it false, but that it is simply not found in Scripture.

[side remark]
I've been told that the Lutheran doctrine on real presence is
con-substantiation.  But it has been non-Lutherans who have told
me this.  We tend not to use the word.  I almost think that this
is used more by professors of comparative religion, who need labels
to compare Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed teachings on the Lord's
Supper.  But almost every church wants to call their own teaching
"real presence" because that was the traditional teaching of 
the church.
[end side remark]

Darren> When Christians speak as if they believe their own reasoning
Darren> can never lead them astray -- when we implicitly claim that we
Darren> are infallible -- the non- Christians around us rarely believe
Darren> that implicit claim.  Witnessing is hardly going to work when
Darren> the person you are talking to believes that you are either too
Darren> foolish to recognise your own limits, or intentionally trying
Darren> to cover them up.

This is precisely why Christians should not rely on rationalizations
in their witnessing.  It is far better to take the approach,
"I'd like to show you what Scripture says.  You decide for 
yourself whether to believe it or not."

Darren> `REXLEX' suggested that people read _He is There and He is Not
Darren> Silent_, by Francis Schaeffer.  I didn't think very highly of
Darren> it, but I think that Mr Schaeffer is grossly overrated by many
Darren> Evangelical Christians.  Somebody else might like it, though,
Darren> so don't let my opinion stop you from reading it.

Darren> If someone is interested in my opinion, I'd suggest _On
Darren> Certainty_, by Ludwig Wittgenstein.

As long as we're trading references, I'd like to suggest Dr. Siegbert
Becker's paperback, "The Foolishness of God: The place of reason
in Lutheran theology," published by Northwestern Publishing House.
This book was based on Becker's doctoral thesis at the University
of Chicago.

David Wagner			"Not by might, nor by power,
a confessional Lutheran		    but by my Spirit,"
					says the LORD Almighty.
				Zechariah 4:6.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20863
From: drt@athena.mit.edu (David R Tucker)
Subject: Re: Question: Jesus alone, Oneness

In article <Apr.21.03.26.22.1993.1355@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
Bjorn.B.Larsen@delab.sintef.no (A 369) writes:
|> Can anybody tell me the basic reasons for holding a belief that there
|> is only Jesus? And vice versa: The foundations for the Trinity?
|> 
|> Bjorn

I'd love to know how "Jesus only" proponents would answer questions like:

-Who is this "Father" Jesus keeps referring to? Why does He call Himself "the
Son"?

-Why does He pray to the Father, and not to himself?

-Why does He emphasize that he does his Father's will, and not his own?  If He
 was doing his own will, what kind of example is that?  Should we follow it?

-When He says he has to return to the Father, who is He going to?

-When He says he does this in order that the Comforter, the Holy Spirit might
 come, who might that be?

-If He claims that the coming of the Holy Spirit is such a blessing that it's
 worth His leaving us and returning to the Father, what can that mean if there
 is no Holy Spirit?

-Why doesn't the best known Christian prayer begin "Our Saviour, who art in
 heaven," rather than "Our Father?"

Do they have answers to these questions that are even plausible?

(Further entertaining queries are left as an exercise to the reader.)

-drt

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|David R. Tucker		KG2S		     drt@athena.mit.edu|
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[There may be some misunderstanding over terms here.  I believe "Jesus
only" originally was in the context of baptism.  These are folks who
believe that baptism should be done with a formula mentioning only
Jesus, rather than Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  This may have
doctrinal implications, but as far as I know it does not mean that
these folks deny the existence or divinity of the Father.  I'm not the
right one to describe this theology, and in fact I think there may be
several, including what would classically be called monophysite or
Arian (two rather different views), as well as some who have beliefs
that are probably consistent with Trinitarian standards, but who won't
use Trinitarian language because they misunderstand it or simply
because it is not Biblical.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20864
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse

For the Lord Himself will descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice
of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will
rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together
to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20865
From: mchamberland@violet.uwaterloo.ca (Marc Chamberland)
Subject: Re: God-shaped hole (was Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")

In article <Apr.20.03.03.15.1993.3845@geneva.rutgers.edu>, fraseraj@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Andrew J Fraser) writes:
> [Several people were involved in trying to figure out who first used
> the phrase "God-shaped hole".  --clh]
> 
> "There is a God shaped vacuum in all of us" (or something to that effect) is
> generally attributed to Blaise Pascal.

I believe this is a just another of way of expressing the basic truth
"All things were created by him and FOR him." (emphasis mine) 
Col. 1:16 , Rev. 4:11. If you and I have been created for God, naturally
there will be a vacuum if God is not our all and all. In fact,
the first chapter of Collosians brings out this status of Christ, that
He should have the preeminence. When you life is alligned with Him,
and you do His will, then the vacuum is filled.

Marc Chamberland
mchamberland@violet.uwaterloo.ca

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20866
From: MNHCC@cunyvm.bitnet (Marty Helgesen)
Subject: RADIO FREE THULCANDRA  (was Dungeons & Dragons: An author's view

There was a recent discussion of Dungeons and Dragons and other role
playing games.  Since there is a lot of crossover between gamers and
science fiction and fantasy fans, I will mention that I am the editor
and publisher of RADIO FREE THULCANRA, a Christian-oriented science
fiction fanzine.  It is not a Christian magazine with a special
interest in science fiction.  It is a science fiction fanzine with a
special interest in Christianity.  Gaming is not a major topic of
discussion but it has come up in some letters.  (No, there are no
arguments about whether D&D is satanic.  People who think it is are
not likely to be reading RFT.)  Anyway, I am now working on the April
issue.  I will send a sample copy to any reader of
soc.religion.christian who requests it.  It is printed on paper, so
requests should include a snail-mail address.
-------
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm   Internet: mnhcc@cunyvm.cuny.edu

"What if there were no such thing as a hypothetical situation?"

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20867
From: sfp@lemur.cit.cornell.edu (Sheila Patterson)
Subject: Re: Being right about messiahs

Jesus isn't God ? When Jesus returns some people may miss Him ?  What version of
the Bible do you read Mike ?

Jesus is God incarnate (in flesh) . Jesus said, 'I and the Father are one.' 
Jesus was taken up to heaven after His 40 day post-resurrection stint and the
angels who were there assured the apostles that Jesus would return the same way
and that everyone will see the coming. That's why Jesus warned that many would
come claiming to be Him but that we would know when Jesus actually returns. 

These are two very large parts of my faith and you definitely hit a nerve :-)

-Sheila Patterson, CIT CR-Technical Support 
 Cornell University
 Ithaca, NY

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20868
From: littlejs@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Jeffrey S Little)
Subject: Re: Revelations - BABYLON?

In article <Apr.21.03.25.41.1993.1322@geneva.rutgers.edu>  
JBUDDENBERG@vax.cns.muskingum.edu (Jimmy Buddenberg) writes:
> 
> Hello all.  We are doing a bible study (at my college) on Revelations.  We
> have been doing pretty good as far as getting some sort of reasonable
> interpretation.  We are now on chapters 17 and 18 which talk about the
> woman on the beast and the fall of Babylon.  I believe the beast is the
> Antichrist (some may differ but it seems obvious) and the woman represents
> Babylon which stands for Rome or the Roman Catholic Church.  What are some
> views on this interpretation?  Is the falling Babylon in chapter 18 the same
> Babylon in as in chapter 17?  The Catholic church?
> Hate to step on toes.
> thanks

An interesting interpretation of Revelation 17 and 18 has been given by  
evangelist David Wilkerson.  I am not saying that I totally agree with his  
interpretation, but it is certainly believable and good food for thought.  He  
interprets the Babylon of Revelation 17-18 as being none other than the good  
old U. S. of A.  That's right, America.  He supports his claim in several ways.   
The Babylon of Revelation is THE world leader in trade and commerce, and the  
WHOLE WORLD wept when Babylon fell.  The American dollar, despite the Japanese  
success of the 20th century, is STILL the most sought after currency in the  
world.  If the U.S. were destroyed, wouldn't the whole world mourn?  The bible  
also talks about Babylon being a home of harlots, sin, and adultery (I am  
paraphrasing, of course).  Babylon's sin affected, or should I say, infected,  
the whole world.  It doesn't take much looking to see that the U.S. is in a  
state of moral decay.  Hasn't the American culture and Hollywood spread the "do  
it if it feels good" mentality all over the world.  I think, though, that what  
Mr. Wilkerson uses as his strongest argument is the fact that Revelation calls  
Babylon "Babylon the Great" and portrays it as the most powerful nation on  
earth.  No matter how dissatisfied you are with the state of our country, I  
don't think you would have too much trouble agreeing that the U.S. is STILL the  
most powerful nation on earth.

Again, this interpretation is not NECESSARILY my own, but I do find it worthy  
of consideration.

Jeffrey Little

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20869
From: jsledd@ssdc.sas.upenn.edu (James Sledd)
Subject: Afterlife

Here is another way of looking at it.

When we die we are released from the arc of time, and able
to comprehend our lives in toto.  To visit each moment in
time sequentially or all at once, but not able to alter the
actions thoughts or feelings we had/have/will have in this 
life.

From that perspective, I posit that all will have direct knowledge
of God, and be able to recognize at each moment of time wether
we were doing what we ought.  That the experience of having
lived a life far from God will be an eternal torment.  That 
having lived a life of grace, will be an eternal joy.  That the 
resurrection of the body comes not from any physical reconstitution
of our present forms, but knowledge of our present forms by our
fully cognizant souls.

As an Aside:  If we were to be restricted for all time to
our present form, would you opt for immortality?

James Sledd

think in n dimensions & listen for the voice of God

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20870
From: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Subject: HELPHELP Part2

Hello, I'm back..

I would first like to thank each and every person who sent me a response (be
it a positive or negative one). I read EVERY letter and thought about 
each one!! 

I got all sorts of responses, from "marry her" to "have nothing ever to 
do with her again"

Through reading the Bible and through a lot of prayer, here is what I have
decided to do.

I sent her a letter today. First, i told her that if she was really serious
about moving away from home to another state that "I would do anything to 
get you here in NC." I told her that I tried to find out if there were 
any new stores planning to be built---but they wouldn't tell me.

About her marraige comment (I'm not gonna call it a proposal, cause
I still don't know if it was a total joke or not) I more or less said
that "Marry me?? Well, get transferred to NC first and then we'll talk :) :)"

Hopefully, what i said could be interpreted either way.

Needless to say, there has been a lot of praying over this...I 
have done a lot of reading about marraige from the Bible. If
she was dead serious about getting married---I wouldn't do it
yet simply b/c she is not (as far as I know to this point) a Christian.
It just wouldn't work w/o God in the marraige as well. I figure
that if God wanrs this to go through--he's kept us in touch for 10 
years now---he can handle one more. If God wants it to happen, it
will happen!

She will be in NC in June meetinf some relatives so I'll get to 
see her...and I'll get a letter from her befoe then so I know
more of what to look forward to.

I guess all I can do now is wait and pray. I have decided not to tell
my folks until I'm totally sure what is going on.

I do ask that everyone that wrote me to please keep this situation
in your prayers..

Finally, I would like to thank EVERYONE who wrote in...

If you have anything else for me...I will be at this email address
for one week. Please tell me anyhting you want...I'm curious
how folks think about what i did.


Thanx

Chris

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20871
From: news@cbnewsk.att.com
Subject: Re: An agnostic's question

In article <Apr.17.01.11.16.1993.2265@geneva.rutgers.edu> jdt@voodoo.ca.boeing.com (Jim Tomlinson (jimt II)) writes:
>Pardon me if this is the wrong newsgroup.  I would describe myself as
>an agnostic, in so far as I'm sure there is no single, universal
>supreme being, but if there is one and it is just, we will surely be
>judged on whether we lived good lives, striving to achieve that
>goodness that is within the power of each of us.  Now, the
>complication is that one of my best friends has become very
>fundamentalist.  That would normally be a non-issue with me, but he
>feels it is his responsibility to proselytize me (which I guess it is,
>according to his faith).  This is a great strain to our friendship...

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm afraid your friendship is in danger.  
Perhaps you should examine in yourself why as such a good friend, you 
are unwilling to accept this imortant part of your friends life?  Why 
do you call into question his faith?  Your friend has changed, he has 
found something that fills a need in his life.  You need to decide if 
you are still his friend, whether you can accommodate his new life.  
It sounds as if you are criticizing him for a fundamental belief in 
the Bible, yet you are quick to reveal that your fundamental belief 
that it is superstition.  Perhaps if he knew you at least took him 
seriously, that you at least took an interest in the light he has found, 
that you at least tried to understand what has become a special part of 
his life, you could together decide to become fundamentalists, respect 
each others differences and remain friends, or part ways.  Maybe even if 
you stuck it out with him, you could help him to un-convert.  Of course, 
if you go in with that attitude he will surely see through your intentions 
and begin to resent you.

I happen to be a person very tolerant of fundamentalists, because I know
that the idea of a simple black and white approach to life is appealing.
I don't happen to share the beliefs of fundamentalists, but I am not
offended by their prosyletizing.  I had a few good conversations with
some Witnesses who came to my door.  I didn't switch my beliefs, but for
those at home who maybe need a friendly face to invite them somewhere,
the Witnesses provide a wonderful service.  You may have been conditioned
to believe that religion is unimportant and witnessing is obnoxious, but
why?  Are you afraid you might be converted and become one of them, that
you will be swept up in fundamentalism, that you will become a weirdo.
Friendship's a two-way street.  You must respect your friend, ALL of him,
including his beliefs, if you want the friendship to continue.

Joe Moore

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20872
From: news@cbnewsk.att.com
Subject: Re: Bible Unsuitable for New Christians

True.

Also read 2 Peter 3:16

Peter warns that the scriptures are often hard to understand by those who
are not learned on the subject.

Joe Moore

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20873
From: HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com
Subject: Re: Need a book

In article <Apr.14.03.08.18.1993.5458@athos.rutgers.edu>
bassili@cs.arizona.edu (Amgad Z. Bassili) writes:
 
>
>I appreciate if anyone can point out some good books about the dead sea
>scrolls of Qumran. Thanks in advance.
>
>Please reply by e-mail at <bassili@cs.arizona.edu>
 
Ok boys & girls, hang on; here we go!
 
   Christ's Eternal Gospel               Robinson & Robinson
   The Dead Sea Scrolls & the NT         WS LaSor
   James the Just in Habakkuk Pesher     RH Eisenman
   Maccabees ... Quamran                 RH Eisenman
   Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered            Eisenman & Wise
   Dead Sea Scrolls Deception            Baigent & Leigh
   Jesus & Riddle of Dead Sea Scrolls    B Thiering
   Jesus Scroll                          D Joyce
 
Happy Reading & welcome aboard
 
 
A poor Wayfaring Stranger [some say, a Strange One] in a strange land,
 
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Disclaimer: Not my employer's opinion; probably                     |
 |             not your's either; and                                  |
 |             only mine, when authorized!                             |
 |                                                                     |
 |                                   Try: Roger_Holfeltz@stortek.com   |
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
 
[Note that this list covers quite a variety of views.  As such it's
probably a good one.  But if you want to read just one book, beware
that a couple of the books on that list represent views that are,
shall we say, unusual.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20874
From: simon@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au
Subject: Saint Story St. Aloysius Gonzaga

Heres a story of a Saint that people might like to read. I got it from
a The Morning Star, and am posting it with the permission of the
editor.


    Saint Aloysius Gonzaga

    The Patron of Youth


    The marquis Gonzaga had high aspirations for his son, the  Prince
    Gonzage.  He  wanted  him  to become a famous, brave and honoured
    soldier. After all, he must carry on the  great  family  name  of
    Gonzaga.  Of  course, he was to become far more famous, brave and
    honoured than his father could ever have imagined; though not  in
    the manner expected.

    Saint Aloysius' mother was a woman who received immense joy  from
    praying  to  God  and  meditating on the divine mysteries and the
    life of Our Lord. She had little time for the pleasures  of  this
    life.  As  Saint  Aloysius	grew, he began to resemble his mother
    more than his father.

    Saint Aloysius had learned numerous expressions from his father's
    soldiers,  but the moment he discovered that they were vulgar, he
    fainted from shock. This shows his immense hatred of sin (What an
    example for us of the contempt we must have for sin).

    About the time of his First Holy  Communion  (which  he  received
    from  the  Archbishop  of  Milan,  Charles Borromeo, whom himself
    became a great Saint), he con-secrated  his  purity  to  God  and
    asked the Blessed Virgin to protect his innocence for life.

    He wanted to share Our Lord's suffering to	show  his  reciprocal
    love.  He  started by denying his passions; he avoided eating the
    finest foods, wearing the best clothes, and would put  pieces  of
    wood  in his bed in order to mortify himself for the love of God.
    While he was in his early teens his  father  sent  him  (and  his
    younger  brother)  to  the court of the Spanish King, Phillip 11.
    Obediently, he set out to make the best of it. He mixed  in  well
    with  the people of the royal court, for he was handsome, polite,
    intelligent and always had something interesting to say.


    Not long before this time, the great soldier-saint,  Saint	Igna-
    tius  of  Loyola,  had founded the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits)
    towards which Saint Aloysius


				  -12-







    began to have a yearning. When he finally told  his  father,  the
    marquis flew into a rage and forbade his son to become a priest.

    After a short time, his father sent him to the  great  cities  in
    order that he be tempted away from the priesthood, but even

    through these trials, Saint Aloysius grew in his desire  for  the
    religious life and was strengthened in the virtue of purity.

    The Marquis' plans were obviously failing, so he con-fronted  his
    son:  "Will  you or will you not obey me and forget this foolish-
    ness?" "I will not, father," was the  in-evitable  reply.	"Then
    leave from my sight and don't return until you change your mind!"
    With tears clouding his eyes, the Saint left the  room  to	pray:
    "Tell  me Lord, what am I to do? Tell me! Tell me!" He knelt down
    to flagellate himself as he had done several  times  before,  but
    this  time	he was seen. The onlooker rushed to the marquis. This
    at last brought the proud man to his senses. "The Lord wants him,
    the Lord can have him." He gave his consent for his son to become
    a Jesuit.

    After some years (at the end of the sixteenth century), a  terri-
    ble  epidemic  broke out in Rome. All the hospitals were full and
    could house no more, so the Jesuits opened their own. Saint Aloy-
    sius  did  all he could in the hospitals, particularly to prepare
    the dying for a holy death.

    Saint Aloysius himself contracted the plague  from	carrying  and
    nursing  the  sick.  For three months he lay with a burning fever
    and finally, on June 21st, 1591, he gave his  soul	to  the  Lord
    while gazing at a crucifix.

    Let us invoke Saint Aloysius as our patron and imitate him in his
    humility, purity and confidence in prayer.

    Saint Aloysius Gonzaga, pray for us.

    - Brendan Arthur






    Prayer is as necessary to a person consecrated to the service  of
    others as a sword is to a soldier

God Bless

From Simon
Lines:  106
-- 
/----------------------------------------------------------------|-------\
|  Simon P. Shields Programmer           Viva Cristo Rey !!  ----|----   |
|  MONASH UNIVERSITY COLLEGE GIPPSLAND Ph:+61 51 226 357       .JHS.     |
|  Switchback Rd. Churchill.          Fax:+61 51 226 300       |\|/|     |

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20875
From: rjs2@po.cwru.edu (Richard J. Szanto)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?

In a previous article, randerso@acad1.sahs.uth.tmc.edu (Robert Anderson) says:

>I would like to get your opinions on this: when exactly does an engaged
>couple become "married" in God's eyes?  Some say that if the two have
>publically announced their plans to marry, have made their vows to God, and
>are unswervingly committed to one another (I realize this is a subjective
>qualifier) they are married/joined in God's sight.

I have discussed this with my girlfriend often.  I consider myself married,
though legally I am not.  Neither of us have been with other people sexually,
although we have been with each other.  We did not have sexual relations
until we decided to marry eventually.  For financial and distance reasons,
we will not be legally married for another year and a half.  Until then,
I consider myself married for life in God's eyes.  I have faith that we
have a strong relationship, and have had for over 4 years, and will be
full of joy when we marry in a church.  First, however, we must find a
church( we will be living in a new area when we marry, and will need to
find a new church community).

Anyway, I feel that if two people commit to marriage before God, they are
married and are bound by that commitment.

-- 
						-Rick Szanto
-Polk Speakers Rock				-Computer Engineer
-Mac's Suck (Nothing Personal)			-Case Western
-Zeta Psi Rules					-Reserve University

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20876
From: Rick_Granberry@pts.mot.com (Rick Granberry)
Subject: Pastoral Authority

There is some controversy in my denomination as to what authority is vested 
in the pastor.  I am still forming my opinion.  I am solicing opinions, and 
references for what that is, how much, and how it should be used.

   As a general reference, I would not exclude responses from different 
denominations based on Biblical teachings, but you have to understand our 
church is independent, protestant and likely to be much different from those 
that follow ecclesiastical authority in the church.  We may need to discuss 
the roles of deacons and elders.

Thanks for your replies.



| "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." |
| "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."  |
| (proverbs 26:4&5)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20877
From: tbrent@ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent)
Subject: Am I going to Hell?

I have stated before that I do not consider myself an atheist, but 
definitely do not believe in the christian god.  The recent discussion
about atheists and hell, combined with a post to another group (to the
effect of 'you will all go to hell') has me interested in the consensus 
as to how a god might judge men.  As a catholic, I was told that a jew,
buddhist, etc. might go to heaven, but obviously some people do not
believe this.  Even more see atheists and pagans (I assume I would be 
lumped into this category) to be hellbound.  I know you believe only
god can judge, and I do not ask you to, just for your opinions.

Thanks,
-Tim

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20878
From: kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu
Subject: Re: Certainty and Arrogance

My last article included this quote:

 "If any substantial number of  [ talk.religion.misc ]  readers read some
  Wittgenstein, 60% of the postings would disappear.  (If they *understood*
  some Wittgenstein, 98% would disappear. :-))" -- Michael L Siemon

Someone called `boundary' wrote:
 
> This quote seems a little arrogant, don't you think?

There is a convention called a `smiley', which looks like this:   :-)  .
It is supposed to look like a sideways smiley-face, and indicates that the
preceding comment is supposed to be funny.


And, I'll note that I have participated on talk.religion.misc for over
five years -- I'd say Mr Siemon was not too far off.  8^)

 *

In the meat of his reply, Mr Boundary serves up an excellent example of what
I meant by "There is no way out of the loop".  I wrote that human brains "are
infested with sin", and can be trusted only in limited circumstances.

In reply, Mr Boundary wrote:

> I would beg to differ with you here.  The properly-formed conscience
> can be trusted virtually ALL the time.

Which just moves the problem back one level: how do you tell if your
conscience is properly formed?

The only way to tell is to presuppose that you are capable of judging the
formed-ness of your own conscience.  In other words, you can only be sure
that your conscience is `properly formed' if you assume that your evaluation
can be trusted.  Assuming your conclusions saves you a lot of time, I'll
grant, but it's not a valid way of reasoning.

Unless you are infallible, your judgements about your own thinking cannot be
certain.  Therefore, it is not possible to be certain your conscience is
`properly formed'.  (Whatever that is supposed to mean.)


Mr Boundary then gives another paradigm example of the problem:

> Now you have hit on the purpose of the Church.  It is by necessity the
> infallible interpreter of divine revelation.  Without the Church,          
> Christianity would be nothing more than a bunch of little divisive sects.

The Church is `by necessity' the infallible interpreter of divine revelation?
How do you know?  Presumably, you believe this because of some argument or
another -- how do you know that the argument contains no mistakes?

You write:

> Therefore, although our minds are finite and susceptible to error, our
> competence in arriving at inductive insights gives confidence in our
> ability to distinguish what is true from what is not true, even in areas
> not subject to the experimental method. 

But there is a huge difference between `confidence in our ability to
distinguish what is true from what is not true' and `infallible'.  I am
confident about a lot of things, but absolute certainty is a very long way
from `confident'.

This discussion is about the arrogance of claiming to be absolutely certain
(really, go check the subject line).  Saying you are absolutely certain is
significantly different than saying you are confident.  When you say that
you are confident, that invites people to ask why.

Except in very limited circumstances, when you say that you are absolutely
certain, it invites people to dismiss you as someone who does not have any
idea of his own fallibility.


I have yet to meet anyone who believed in a knowably-infallible source of
truth who would admit the possibility of errors in his reasoning.  All of
them -- every last one -- has claimed that he was himself infallible.
The result has been to convince me that they had no idea what was going on.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu

[This particular discussion may not be entirely relevant to the
original criticism.  I get the feeling that the original poster
regarded as arrogant the very idea that there are right and wrong
answers in religion, and that the difference can have eternal
consequences.  When I say that I think there is a hell and that he is
at least in significant danger of ending up there, I will admit that
-- as you say -- the reasoning processes I used to reach this are
fallible.  Thus at least in principle I could be wrong.  But these
basic facts are clearly enough taught in the Bible that I think it's
unlikely that I'm misinterpreting it.  (In order to get this level of
confidence, I've tried to frame my statement sufficiently carefully as
to sidestep a number of the more controversial issues.  I haven't, for
example said that all non-Christians will definitely end up in hell,
and I haven't attempted to describe hell in any detail.)  I have a
feeling that my view is going to be regarded as arrogant and
intolerant even though I acknowledge that I'm fallible and so there's
some chance I'm wrong.

Don't get me wrong -- I think there are a lot of genuinely arrogant
Christians, and often criticism of us is justified.  But in at least
some cases I think the criticisms constitute blaming the messenger.
If the universe is set up so that there are eternal consequences for
certain decisions, it's not my fault -- I'm just telling it the way I
think it is.  You may think God is immoral for setting things up that
way.  It's one of the critiques of Christianity that I find it most
difficult to respond to.  But it's not arrogance for me to tell what
I think is the truth.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20879
From: stephen@mont.cs.missouri.edu (Stephen Montgomery-Smith)
Subject: Re: Latest on Branch Davidians

In <Apr.22.00.55.06.1993.2048@geneva.rutgers.edu> aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron) writes:

>In article <Apr.20.03.02.42.1993.3815@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
>conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt) wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think it's really sad that so many people put their faith in a mere
>> man, even if he did claim to be the son of God, and/or a prophet.

>I'll pose a question here that's got me thinking:  what distinguishes
>"true" religion from cults (I'm speaking generally here, not specifially
>about Christianity)?  Jerry Falwell was on Good Morning America on 
>Tuesday ostensibly to answer this question.  Basically, he said that
>true religion follows a message whereas a cult follows a person.
>But, then, Christianity is a cult because the message of Christianity
>IS the person of Jesus.  So what distinguishes, for example, the
>Branch Davidian "cult" from the Presbyterian "church"?  Doctrinal
>differences don't answer the question, IMHO, so don't use them as
>an answer.


As far as I can see, one of the big differences between Davidians and
Christians is in who they follow.  I have sometimes tried to put myself
in the feet of one of Jesus's disciples.  Basically, they gave up a
lot --- career, possibly family, and well, a whole bunch, to follow
Jesus.

So what is the difference?  It is quite plain.  Jesus was good and
David Koresh was not.

The problem is, I think, is that we try to legislate what is good
and what is bad in terms of principles.  For instance, there are thousands of 
laws in the U.S. governing what is legal and what is not.  Often, it is hard
to bring people to justice, because it is not possible to find
a legal way to do it.  If only we could trust judges to be just,
then we could tell them to administer justice fairly, and justice
would be followed.  But since judges don't always get it right,
we have a complicated system involving precedent and bunches
of other stuff which attempt to make the imperfect (the justice
of man) into something perfect.  But what I hear about the justice
system in the U.S. tells me that quite the opposite is true.

There is also a problem that we tend to judge the presentation
more than the material being presented.  So we might consider 
a ranting Christian to be bad, but an eloquent person from another
religion to be good.  This goes along with the American desire
to protect the Constitution at all costs, even if it allows
people to do bad things. 

I think that it is the message that is important.  If a man is
presenting a false message, even if he is ever ever so mild mannered,
then that man is performing a tremendous disservice.

I know that I am rambling here.  I guess that what I am trying to
say is that we shouldn't be looking for principles that tell us
why the Davidians got it wrong.  It is not wrong to follow and
worship a person.  But it is important to choose the right person.
It is simple.  Choose Jesus, and you got it right.  Choose
anyone else, and you got it wrong.  Why?  Because Jesus is the
begotten son of God, and nobody else is.  Jesus was without sin, and
nobody else was.

Stephen

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20880
From: jsledd@ssdc.sas.upenn.edu (James Sledd)
Subject: Serbian genocide Work of God?

Are the Serbs doing the work of God?  Hmm...

I've been wondering if anyone would ever ask the question,

Are the governments of the United States and Europe not moving
to end the ethnic cleansing by the Serbs because the targets are
muslims?

Can/Does God use those who are not following him to accomplish
tasks for him?  Esp those tasks that are punative?

James Sledd
no cute sig....  but I'm working on it.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20881
From: conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt)
Subject: Goodbye, but not forever

Praise God!  I'm writing everyone to inform you that I have been
accepted to the Doctor of Psychology program at Fuller Theological
Seminary in Pasadena, CA.  I've been working long and hard to try to
get in there and have said many hours of prayer.  I'm very excited for
this opportunity, but also very nervous about it.

I'd appreciate the prayers of the readers of this group for my preparation
for school this summer and for my career as a graduate student.  I'd also
appreciate any information any of the readers of this group might have 
about Fuller, Pasadena, or California in general, like good places to
have fun, good churches to check out, or anything else that might be
good for me to know.  Also, if anyone knows of any foundations that 
might have funding or scholarship money available, please let me know!
Of course, if you wish to make a personal contribution.....:)

The contract for my current job is over at the end of April.  I'll be
taking a couple classes at UT this summer and then I'll be moving to
Pasadena.  Hopefully, I'll be able to get net.access next fall, although
Fuller doesn't have it itself.

I've enjoyed the interesting discussions and I commend everyone for their
earnest search to please God.  Thanks to our moderator for providing
such a wonderful service and in doing a great job of running this news
group.

May God bless you all.  Vaya con Dios, mi amigas y amigos.

Paul


===============================================================================
Paul Conditt		Internet: conditt@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu
Applied Research	Phone:	  (512) 835-3422   FAX: (512) 835-3416/3259
  Laboratories		Fedex:	  10000 Burnet Road, Austin, Texas 78758-4423
University of Texas	Postal:	  P.O. Box 8029, Austin, Texas 78713-8029
Austin, Texas <----- the most wonderful place in Texas to live


  TTTTTTTTTTTTTTT              
  TTT   TTT   TTT                 
        TTT                    
   TTTTTTTTTTTTT                  Texas Tech Lady Raiders
   TT   TTT   TT                   1992-93 SWC Champions
        TTT                    1992-93 NCAA National Champions
        TTT
      TTTTTTT

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20882
From: reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

In article <Apr.21.03.24.13.1993.1268@geneva.rutgers.edu>, gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (boundary) writes:
>[Anecedotal material which ultimately shows that...]

> but from my experience,
> the modern Jew is not known for his proselytism.

A Rabbi once told me that theres is a talmudic tradition that someone who
wanted to convert to Judaism was to be turned away three times. If they
continue then they were accepted.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20883
From: jcj@tellabs.com (jcj)
Subject: Re: Losing your temper is not a Christian trait

Sheila Patterson writes:
>         
>I always suspected that I was human too :-)  It is the desire to be like
>Christ that often causes christians to be very critical of themselves and
>other christians. ...

I'd like to remind people of the withering of the fig tree and Jesus
driving the money changers et. al. out of the temple.  I think those
were two instances of Christ showing anger (as part of His human side).

Jeff Johnson
jcj@tellabs.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20884
From: revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille)
Subject: Re: Maybe?????

: [I have some qualms about postings like this.  You might want to
: engage in a bit more conversation with Joel before deluging 
: someone who doesn't expect it with cards.  --clh]

I'd suggest that more than _some_ qualms are in order.  Without knowing
anything about the situation, it is impossible to evaluate the
appropriateness of writing.  Some folks will check, others with more
zeal than time may not.

IMHO, requests of this nature should be made only for oneself or for someone
who knows and approves of the idea.  Otherwise, it is intrusive and
disrespectful of the individual.

revdak@netcom.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20885
From: jerryb@eskimo.com (Jerry Kaufman)
Subject: Re: prayers and advice requested on family problem

Cloak yourself in God's sustaining and abiding love. Pray, pray, pray.
Pray for your brother, that he will assume the Godly role that is his.
Pray for your sister-in-law, the what ever is driving her to separate
your brother and herself from the the rest of the family will be healed.
Pray for God to give you the peace in the knowledge that you may not be
able to 'fix' it. From your description it would appear that it will
require devine intervention, and the realization by your brother as to
what his responsibilities are. Seek Godly counsel from your pastor, or
other spiritually mature believer. Know always that He is akways there
as a conforter, and will give you wisdon and direction as you call on
Him.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20886
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Help

In a prior article, lmvec@westminster.ac.uk (William Hargreaves) writes:
>
> Now I am of the opinion that you a saved through faith alone (not what you do)
> as taught in Romans, but how can I square up in my mind the teachings of James
> in conjunction with the lukewarm Christian being 'spat-out'

If you agree that good works have a role somewhere, you will 
generally find yourself in one of two camps: 

   (1) Faith + Works --> Salvation
or (2) Faith --> Salvation + Works

Either (1) works are required for salvation, or (2) faith will 
inevitably result in good works. 

I am also of the opinion that salvation is by faith alone, based on
Ephesians 2 and Romans 3:21-31.  I also conclude that James 2, when 
read in context, is teaching bullet (2) above. When James speaks of 
justification, I would claim that he is not speaking of God declaring
the believing sinner innocent in His sight (Paul's use of the word). 
Instead he is speaking of the sinner's profession of faith being 
"justified" or "proven" by the display of good works. Also according 
to James 2, the abscence of such works is evidence for a "dead" or 
"useless" faith which fails to save.

James 2 is not a problem for the doctrine of salvation by faith if it
is teaching (2).  Works would have their place, not as merit toward 
salvation, but as evidence of true faith. 

Regards,

---
Dave Weaver               | "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to
weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com|  gain what he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot (1949)

[There are of course a number of other possibilities.  The Reformers
believed

  salvation --> faith --> works

Some of us suspect that the three things are tied up together in such a way
that no diagram of this form can do it justice.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20887
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's e

|In article <Apr.14.03.07.21.1993.5402@athos.rutgers.edu> >randerso@acad1.sahs.uth.tmc.edu (Robert Anderson) writes:
|>I would like to get your opinions on this: when exactly does an engaged
|>couple become "married" in God's eyes? 

|Not if they are unwilling to go through a public marriage ceremony,
|nor if they say they are willing but have not actually done so.

  How do you know this?

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20888
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

>If I don't think my belief is right and everyone else's belief is wrong,
>then I don't have a belief. This is simply what belief means.

Unfortunatly, this seems to be how Christians are taught to think when
it comes to their religion. Some take it to the extreme and say that
their religion is the ONLY one and if you don't accept their teachings
then you won't be "saved". It takes quite a bit of arrogance to claim
to know what God thinks/wants. Especially when it's based upon your
interpretation of a book. The logic in the above statement is faulty
in that it assumes two people with differing beliefs can't both be
correct. It's all about perception. No two people are exactly alike.
No two people perceive everything in the same way. I believe that
there is one truth. Call it God's truth, a universal truth, or call it
what you will. I don't believe God presents this truth. I think it is
just there and it's up to you to look for and see it, through prayer,
meditation, inspir- ation, dreams or whatever. Just because people may
perceive this truth differently, it doesn't mean one is wrong and the
other is right. As an example, take the question, "Is the glass half
empty or half full"? You can have two different answers which are
contradictory and yet both are correct. So, for your belief to be
true, does not require everyone else's belief to be wrong.

[If a person has what they believe is convincing evidence that God
will save only Christians, it's hard to see how you can criticize them
for arrogance for saying so.  It could be that they're wrong.  But I
hardly see that it's arrogance.  Let's look at this a bit closer.
Suppose we had some combination of prophets and messiahs that taught
us things, but didn't say anything about exclusivity.  If we believe
them, and then add "and anybody who believes anything else is damned",
then you could well criticize us for arrogance.  But in this case the
exclusivity is in the message as it comes from the prophets, etc.  So
we could be wrong in believing it, but I don't see how we can be
called arrogant.  Maybe the world isn't a soft place.  Maybe certain
choices actually do have eternal consequences.  I can see calling the
Christian message arrogant, in a certain sense (though only in the
same sense as calling the law of gravitation arrogant because it
doesn't give us any option over whether we fall if we jump off a
building).  But not Christians for passing it on, given that they
believe it.  The complaints I can see making are (1) that Christians
are wrong, or (2) that God is arrogant.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20889
From: mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Subject: Re: proof of resurection

In article <Apr.21.03.26.18.1993.1352@geneva.rutgers.edu> reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu writes:
>following Christ.  From Captialist who have polluted the enviorment in strict
>obedience to the Gensis command to subdue the earth, to Nazi's who have
>"justly" punished the Jews for the killing Christ

It is funny how this one little quote from Genesis is treated
by certain anti-Christians as if Christians have been given a
firm command to destroy the earth. You could prove almost
anything by taking little quotes out of context from the Bible
- it's a big book, you know. I doubt you could find a single
case of a anti-ecological action taking place specifically
because teh perpetrator was motivated by a Christian belief.

As for the Nazis, they were motivated by German Nationalism,
not by Christianity. In fact they despised Christianity as a
weak pacifist religion, and were much more keen on pagan
glorification of strength and warfare. They killed the Jews
because they were not Germans, not because they were
"Christ-killers" - they were just as keen on killing the other
non-German ethnic minority, the Romanies or Gypsies.

Matthew Huntbach

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20890
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: Re: SSPX schism ?

Bob Van Cleef writes:

   If the Papacy is infallible, and this is a matter of faith, then the 
   Pope cannot "be wrong!"  If, on the other hand, this is not a matter 
   of faith, but a matter of Church law, then we should still obey as the
   Pope is the legal head of the church.

   In other words, given the doctrine of infallibility, we have no choice
   but to obey.

This is a primary problem in the Church today.  What you are saying is
more or less heresy.  You might call it "infallibilism".  It's the
idea that the Pope is always right in everything he says or does.
This is virtually all over the place, especially in this country.

The Pope is only infallible under certain very specific and
well-defined conditions.  When these conditions are not met, he can
make mistakes.  He can make *big* mistakes.

A couple historical examples come to mind.

Bishop Robert Grosseteste was perhaps the greatest product of the
English Catholic Church.  At one point during his career, the reigning
Pope decided to install one of his nephews in an English see.  Bishop
Grosseteste said that this would happen over his dead body (though
maybe not in so many words; you have to treat Popes with respect, even
when they are wrong).  The problem was that this nephew would just
collect the income of the see, and probably never set foot there.
This would deprive the people of the see of a shepherd.  Bishop
Grosseteste was quite right in what he did!

Another example is that of Pope John XXII, a Pope of the Middle Ages.
He decided that souls that were saved did not enjoy the Beatific
Vision until the Last Judgement.  He decided that this should be a
defined doctrine of the Church.  Though he didn't quite get around to
defining it.  Now there's no way this is compatible with Catholic
doctrine.  The Pope's doctrine was criticised by many in the Church.
He went so far as to put a number of his opponents in jail, even.  In
the end, he had to admit his mistake.  Shortly before he died, he
recanted.  His successor made the exact *opposite* idea a dogma of the
Church.

If you consult any of the great Catholic theologians who treat of such
subjects, such as St. Robert Bellarmine (a Doctor of the Church), you
will find detailed discussions of whether the Pope can personally fall
into heresy or schism.

The teaching of all such theologians is that the commands of a Pope
must be resisted if they are to the detriment of the Catholic Faith.
A Pope's authority is given for the purpose of building up the
Catholic Church.  Commands in conflict with this purpose have no
legal *or* moral force.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20891
From: vbv@lor.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article <Apr.22.00.56.15.1993.2073@geneva.rutgers.edu> hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes) writes:

>A similar analogy might be a medical doctor who believes that a blood 
>transfusion is necessary to save the life of a child whose parents are 
>Jehovah's Witnesses and so have conscientious objections to blood 
>transfusion. The doctor's efforts to persuade them to agree to a blood 
>transfusion could be perceived to be arrogant in precisely the same way as 
>Christians could be perceived to be arrogant.

>The truth or otherwise of the belief that a blood transfusion is necessary 
>to save the life of the child is irrelevant here. What matters is that the 
>doctor BELIEVES it to be true, and could be seen to be trying to foce his 
>beliefs on the parents, and this could well be perceived as arrogance.

Let me carry that a step further.  Most doctors would not claim to be 
infallible.  Indeed, they would generally admit that they could conceivably
be wrong, e.g. that in this case, a blood tranfusion might not turn out to 
be necessary after all.  However, the doctors would have enough confidence
and conviction to claim, out of genuine concern, that is IS necessary.  As
fallible human beings, they must acknowledge the possibility that they are
wrong.  However, they would also say that such doubts are not reasonable,
and stand by their convictions.

-- 
Virgilio "Dean" Velasco Jr, Department of Electrical Eng'g and Applied Physics 
	 CWRU graduate student, roboticist-in-training and Q wannabee
    "Bullwinkle, that man's intimidating a referee!"   |    My boss is a 
   "Not very well.  He doesn't look like one at all!"  |  Jewish carpenter.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20892
From: Rick_Granberry@pts.mot.com (Rick Granberry)
Subject: Re: Help

In article <Apr.21.03.26.51.1993.1379@geneva.rutgers.edu>, 
lmvec@westminster.ac.uk (William Hargreaves) writes:
> Hi everyone, 
> 	   I'm a commited Christian that is battling with a problem.  I 
> know that romans talks about how we are saved by our faith not our 
> deeds, yet hebrews and james say that faith without deeds is useless, 
> saying' You fools, do you still think that just believing is enough?' 
> 
> Now if someone is fully believing but there life is totally lead by 
> themselves and not by God, according to Romans that person is still 
> saved by there faith.

my $.02 - Yes and No.  I do not believe the above scenario is not possible.  
Either they are believing and living (in at least some part) led by God, else 
they are not.  Believing (intellectually, but waiting(?)) is not enough.
   Especially important to remember is that no one can judge whether you are 
so committed, nor can you judge someone else.  I guess the closest we can 
come to know someone's situation is listening to their own statements.  This 
can be fallible, as is our sense of communion one with another.

> But then there is the bit which says that God 
> preferes someone who is cold to him (i.e. doesn't know him - condemned) 
> so a lukewarm Christian someone who knows and believes in God but doesn'
> t make any attempt to live by the bible. 

Regarding this passage, we need to remember that this is a letter to a church 
(at Laodicea), people who are Of the Body of Christ. (Rev.3:14-16)  He talks 
about their works.  A translation could say that he says their lack of 
concern makes him sick (to the point of throwing up).

> Now I am of the opinion that you a saved through faith alone (not what 
> you do) as taught in Romans, but how can I square up in my mind the 
> teachings of James in conjunction with the lukewarm Christian being '
> spat-out'
   Right, saving is by faith alone, except that faith does not come alone, if 
you catch the two meanings.
   I can offer the explanation that Jesus would that we were either "on fire 
for Him" or so cold we knew we were not in His will and thus could be made 
aware of our separation.  This is admonishment for His children, not eternal 
damnation.



| "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." |
| "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."  |
| (proverbs 26:4&5)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20893
From: reid@cs.uiuc.edu (Jon Reid)
Subject: Re: Cell Church discussion group

jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher) writes:

>Please, define cell church.  I missed it somewhere in the past when this
>was brought up before.

In a cell church, the fundamental building block is the "cell group" -- a
small group of no more than 15 believers.  The small groups are responsible
for the ministry of the church: evangelism and discipleship.  The emphasis
is on relationships, not on programs, and both the evangelism and the
discipling are relationship-based.

This will probably raise more questions than it answered, but that's it in
a nutshell.
-- 
******************************************************************
*     Jon Reid     * He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep *
* reid@cs.uiuc.edu * to gain what he cannot lose.   - Jim Elliot *
******************************************************************

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20894
From: andrew@srsune.shlrc.mq.edu.au (Andrew McVeigh)
Subject: Re: proof of resurection

In article <Apr.21.03.26.18.1993.1352@geneva.rutgers.edu> reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu writes:

>  We also cannot fail to note the intense suffering a devastation which has been
>  wrecked on our world because of Christians -- who were certain they were
>  following Christ.  From Captialist who have polluted the enviorment in strict
>  obedience to the Gensis command to subdue the earth, to Nazi's who have
>  "justly"
>  punished the Jews for the killing Christ (as well as the other progroms), the
>  innocent women who were burned alive in accordance with "you shall not allow a
>  witch to live", the Moslems who were killed in the Crusades, the god-fearing
>  men destroyed by the inquistion.  The religious wars in Spain, France, England,
>  etc.  Christianity has undoubtedly caused the most suffering and needless loss
>  of life by individuals whose certainity that they were following the
>  instructions therein, was unquestionable.  There is much to grieve.
>
>  randy


Very interesting, but I also believe that you have presented a
misleading argument.  Christianity is not the cause of the massacres
and horrific injustices that you relate, rather they are the fault
of people who misunderstand Jesus Christ's message, and modify
it to suit their own beliefs and aims, rather than alter their
ambitions to be more in line with those presented as desirable in
the New Testament.  With every truthful and good message that
carries authority or implied authority, comes the inevitable
fact that some (many?) people will understand it in a distorted
way, with inevitable consequences.

The Bible's message is that we are to love all people, and
that all people are redeemable.  It preaches a message of
repentance, and of giving.  Unfortunately, all people have
deceitful hearts, and are capable of turning this message
around and contorting it in sometimes unbelievable ways.
This is also a fundamental Christian doctrine.

One of the problems is that you look at the world through
the eyes of Western history.  I think that you will find
many, many cases of massacres that were instigated by
people who never claimed they were Christian.  I am not saying
this to justify the massacres that were, but I am merely
pointing you to a tendency which is present in humans already.

Consider the world without Christianity.  I doubt that we
would have the same freedoms in the countries in which we
live, if it wasn't for the peaceful doctrines of Jesus Christ.
Perhaps we would even be confronted by a very harsh religion
(I won't name any here, though one comes to mind) which
would not even allow us the freedom of speech to debate such
subjects.

Point the blame at inherent human tendencies of thirst for
power, greed and hatred.  Please don't point the blame at
a message which preaches fundamental giving and denial, in
love for others.

Yours in Christ,

Andrew McVeigh


p.s. I believe that a line of questioning like you presented
is, strangely enough, compatible with becoming a Christian.
Certainly Christianity encourages one to question the behaviour
of the world, and especially Christians.  I praise God for
Jesus Christ, and the fact that we can doubt our beliefs
and still come back to God and be forgiven, time and time
again.

--
*****


Andrew McVeigh

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20895
From: lmh@juliet.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.)
Subject: Re: catholic church poland

In article <Apr.20.03.01.44.1993.3772@geneva.rutgers.edu>, s0612596@let.rug.nl (M.M. Zwart) writes...
>I'm writing a paper on the role of the catholic church in Poland after 1989. 
>church concerning the abortion-law, religious education at schools,

 There was an article on clari.news.religion in the last few days about a
Polish tribunal decision. It said that crucifixes and religious classes in
public schools were okay; and that children who did not want to take religion
class could not be forced to take an ethics class as a substitute.

 larry henling  lmh@shakes.caltech.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20896
From: ata@hfsi.hfsi.com ( John Ata)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

In article <Apr.21.03.26.15.1993.1349@geneva.rutgers.edu> reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu writes:

>The basic problem with your argument is your total and complete reliance on
>the biblical text.  Luke's account is highly suspect (I would refer you to
>the hermeneia commentary on Acts).  Moreover Luke's account is written at
>least 90 years after the fact.  In the meantime everyone he mentions has died
>and attempts to find actual written sources behind the text have come up
>with only the we section of the later portion of acts as firmly established.
>Moreover, Pauls account of some of the events in Acts (as recorded in 
>Galatians) fail to establish the acts accounts. 

Even if there was no independent proof that Luke's account was
valid, I find it strange that you would take the negation of it as
truth without any direct historical evidence (at least that you've
mentioned) to back it up.  The assertion was made, unequivocally
that no Christian ever sufferred for their faith by believing in
the Resurrection.  Luke's account suggests otherwise, and in the
absence of direct eyewitnesses who can claim that Luke is mistaken,
then I suggest that this unequivocal assertion is suspect.

>randy


-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729

[I think the original claim may have been somewhat more limited than
this.  It was an answer to the claim that the witnesses couldn't
be lying because they were willign to suffer for their beliefs.
Thus it's not necessary to show that no Christian ever suffered
for believing in the Resurrection.  Rather the issue is whether
those who witnessed it did.

I do agree that the posting you're responding to shows that there
can be liberal as well as conservative dogmatism.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20897
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5

I have been following this thread on talk.religion,
soc.religion.christian.bible-study and here with interest.  I am amazed at
the different non-biblical argument those who oppose the Sabbath present. 

One question comes to mind, especially since my last one was not answered
from Scripture.  Maybe clh may wish to provide the first response.

There is a lot of talk about the Sabbath of the TC being ceremonial. 
Answer this:

Since the TC commandments is one law with ten parts on what biblical
basis have you decided that only the Sabbath portion is ceremonial?
OR You say that the seventh-day is the Sabbath but not applicable to
Gentile Christians.  Does that mean the Sabbath commandment has been
annulled?  References please.

If God did not intend His requirements on the Jews to be applicable to
Gentile Christians why did He make it plain that the Gentiles were now
grafted into the commonwealth of Israel?

Darius

[Acts 15, Rom 14:5, Col 2:16, Gal 4:10.  I believe we've gotten into
a loop at this point.  This is one of those classic situations where
both sides think they have clear Scriptural support, and there's no
obvious argument that is going to change anybody's mind.  I don't think
we're going anything but repeating ourselves.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20898
From: dohertyl@dcs.gla.ac.uk (dohertyl)
Subject: (none)

I AM Satan!


Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20899
From: Gene.Gross@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Gene Gross)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

In article <Apr.15.00.58.18.1993.28885@athos.rutgers.edu> oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser) writes:
>
>And the two simplest refutations are these:
>
>(1)  What impact?  The only record of impact comes from the New Testament.
>I have no guarantee that its books are in the least accurate, and that
>the recorded "impact" actually happened.  I find it interesting that no other
>contemporary source records an eclipse, an earthquake, a temple curtain
>being torn, etc.  The earliest written claim we have of Jesus' resurrection
>is from the Pauline epistles, none of which were written sooner than 20 years
>after the supposed event.

First, off I'd say that the impact if right before your eyes! 8-) That we are
even discussing this is a major impact in and of itself. Further, the early
church bears testimony to the impact.

>(2)  It seems probable that no one displayed the body of Jesus because no
>one knew where it was.  I personally believe that the most likely
>explanation was that the body was stolen (by disciples, or by graverobbers).
>Don't bother with the point about the guards ... it only appears in one
>gospel, and seems like exactly the sort of thing early Christians might make
>up in order to counter the grave-robbing charge.  The New Testament does
>record that Jews believed the body had been stolen.  If there were really
>guards, they could not have effectively made this claim, as they did.

Of course they knew where it was. Don't forget that Jesus was seen by both
the Jews and the Romans as a troublemaker. Pilate was no fool and didn't 
need the additional headaches of some fishermen stealing Jesus' body to 
make it appear He had arisen. Since Jesus was buried in the grave of a 
man well know to the Sanhedrin, to say that they didn't know where He was
buried begs the question.

Now, you say that you think that the disciples stole the body. But think on
this a moment. Would you die to maintain something you KNEW to be a 
deliberate lie!? If not, then why do you think the disciples would!? Now, I'm
not talking about dying for something you firmly believe to be the truth, 
but unbeknown to you, it is a lie. Many have done this. No, I'm talking about
dying, by beheading, stoning, crucifixion, etc., for something you know to
be a lie! Thus, you position with regards to the disciples stealing the 
body seems rather lightweight to me.

As for graverobbers, why risk the severe penalties for grave robbing over 
the body of Jesus? He wasn't buried with great riches. So, again, this is
an argument that can be discounted.

That leaves you back on square one. What happened to the body!?

IHL, Gene

--
   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:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

[Again, let me comment that the most plausible non-Christian scenario,
and the one typically suggested by sceptics who are knowledgeable
about the NT, is that the resurrection was a subjective event, and the
empty tomb stories are a result of accounts growing in the telling.
--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20900
From: ata@hfsi.hfsi.com ( John Ata)
Subject: Re: -= Hell =-

In article <Apr.12.03.44.24.1993.18836@athos.rutgers.edu> dmn@kepler.unh.edu (There's a seeker born every minute.) writes:

>    That would depend on what Heaven is like. If God is a King, and 
>an eternity in heaven consists of giving thanks and praise to the King,
>I might opt for Hell. I read a lovely account of a missionary trying to

But then, on the other hand, if you really loved that King more
than you did yourself, and He loved you to the point of assuring
you that the eternal time spent with him would be eternal ecstasy,
would you really opt for that choice?

>    Dana


-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20901
From: ata@hfsi.hfsi.com ( John Ata)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

In article <Apr.12.03.44.39.1993.18842@athos.rutgers.edu> reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu writes:
>In article <Apr.10.05.31.46.1993.14368@athos.rutgers.edu>, luomat@alleg.edu (Timothy J. Luoma) writes:
>> In article <Apr.9.01.11.16.1993.16937@athos.rutgers.edu>  
>> 
>> "Suppose you were part of the `Christian consipracy' which was going to  
>> tell people that Christ had risen.  Never mind the stoning, the being  
>> burned alive, the possible crucifixion ... let's just talk about a  
>> scourging.  The whip that would be used would have broken pottery, metal,  

>No one was ever flogged, beaten, burned, fed to the lions, or killed in any
>other way because of a belief in the resurrection - sorry to disappoint you.

I think you are vastly oversimplifying things. We know that early Christians
suffered totures because of their witness to Christ.  For example:

ACT 5:40    His speech persuaded them. They called the apostles in and had
            them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of
            Jesus, and let them go.

ACT 5:41    The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been
            counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name.

It appears that the Jewish rulers of that time had a particular aversion
to even hearing Jesus's name.
ACT 5:28    "We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said.
            "Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are
            determined to make us guilty of this man's blood."

Finally, the first apostle's death, James of Zebedee was certainly
not by Rome's hand any more than the first martyr Stephen. 


>The idea of resurrection is one which can be found in a host of different
>forms in the religions of antiquity.  The problem was not the resurrection
>which was a mediorce issue for a tiny fragment of the Jewish population 

The problem was that if one believed in the Resurrection, then one
must believe in Jesus as truly being the Son of God and what He
stood for and preached during His ministry on Earth.  That would
have been extremely difficult for some people, especially those
that had plotted to kill Him. 

>randy

-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20902
From: aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In a previous article, phs431d@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au () says:

>In article <Apr.13.00.08.07.1993.28379@athos.rutgers.edu>, aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker) writes:
>> To demand scintific or rational proof of God's existence, is to deny
>> God's existence, since neither science, nor reason, can, in their very
>> nature, prove anything.
>
>Are you asking us to believe blindly?  You are trying to deny that part of
>us that makes us ask the question "Does God exist?" i.e. self-awareness and
>reason.  If we do not use our ability to reason we become as ignorant
>as the other animals on this earth.  Does God want us to be like that?
>
I am asking you to believe in things not visible. I don't know if this is
believeing blindly or not. I'm not sure how blindness comes into it. I do
not deny reason, indeed I insist upon it, but reason only draws conclusions
from evidence. If you decide in advance that your reason will act only on
the evidence of the five physical senses, then you cut reason off from any
possibility of reaching a conclusion outside the physical sphere (beyond the
rather provocative, if inconclusive, conclusion that the physical sphere
is not self explanatory). 

Christians claim that they have received a different kind of evidence, 
which they call faith, and which is a gift of God. That is, this evidence
is the evidence of a thing which chooses to reveal or hide itself. The 
evidence of the senses cannot tell you is such a ting exists. Reasoning
on the evidence of the senses won't help either. But Christians do reason
of the evidence of faith, and do claim that this evidence is wholly
consistent with the evidence of the other senses, and indeed, that the
evidence of these other senses is part of God's revelation of himself
to us.

It is not necessarilly the case however that knowledge of a God must come
through this route. There may be other senses than the physical ones
providing evidence of non-physical realities. (There may, of course, be
physical realities of a type for which we have no corresponding senses, for
all we know.) These senses, if they exist, may provide valid evidence for
reason to work on. And, as with all senses, these senses may be impaired
in some people, that is, they may be spiritually blind. In this sense,
belief in God becomes an act of sight, and it is disbelief which is blind.

>You are right that science and reason cannot PROVE anything.  However, if
>we do not use them we can only then believe on FAITH alone.  And since
>we can only use faith, why is one picture of "God" (e.g. Hinduism) any less
>valid than another (e.g. Christianity)?
>
Faith, as I have said, is not opposed to reason, it is simply a new source 
of evidence on which reason may operate. It is clear that human beings
have many systems for explaining the evidence of the physical senses, and
similarly there are many systems for explaining the evidence provided by
faith. Religious believers in general, and Christians in particular, use
reason to help sift through the evidence to come to a clearer understanding
of the evidence provided by faith. Science claims, with good reason, to be
the most valid system for explaining the physical universe, and Christianity
claims, also with good reason, to be the most valid system, possessed of the
best evidence, for explaining Gods revelations of himself to man.

If you doubt that Christians use reason, read this newsgroup for a while
and you will see rational debate aplenty.
-- 
==============================================================================
Mark Baker                  | "The task ... is not to cut down jungles, but 
aa888@Freenet.carleton.ca   | to irrigate deserts." -- C. S. Lewis
==============================================================================

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20903
From: wjhovi01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: tuff to be a Christian?

Someone writing anonymously asks:

> Would you have become a Christian if you had not
> been indoctrinated by your parents? You probably never learned about
> any other religion to make a comparative study. And therefore I claim
> you are brain washed.

I *did* become a Christian without having been indoctrinated by my parents, and
having studied Buddhism fairly carefully and other religions to a lesser
degree.  I made a decision to accept the truth-claims of Christianity after
having given it a lot of thought.  (I have to point out that the process was not
purely a cold, rational one: there was a powerful experiential element as well.
Also, my Calvinist should rest assured that I don't lay any of the
responsibility for the outcome [my conversion] on anyone but God.)

It took me years and years for this all to happen, because I had many of the
objections that this poster puts forward.  I grew up in the shadow of [generic
authoritarian conservative denomination], and I *knew* that that wasn't a way
of life that I could adopt.  But I gradually learned not to tar all of
Christianity with the same brush, and realized quite suddenly one cold winter
night that I accepted what I had heretofore rejected.  I am quite certain that
I was not "brain-washed".

bill hovingh

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20904
From: wjhovi01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Hebrew grammar texts--choose English or German?

Phil Sells writes:

> Probably a tired old horse, but...  maybe with a slightly different
> twist.  I wanted to know if there are any good English-language texts
> for learning ancient Hebrew, and how these compare with German
> educational texts qualitywise, if anybody has an idea.  I can't figure
> out if I should buy one here for later study or wait until I get back to
> the U.S.

My impression is that *for advanced work* you will be much better off with
German reference works (lexicons, concordances especially).  For a first-time
encounter, my *personal* preference would be to deal with a textbook written in
my native language.  But if you know German and are in Germany, pick up all the
reference books you think you can handle.  (I only know these works by
reputation, since my German is most rusty, but I'd look at the following books:
Koehler's lexicon, Mandeldern's concordance, the Jenni & Westermann theological
dictionary of the OT.)

> What's it like at divinity schools or seminaries in the States?  Is
> there a lot of language instruction done?  I really don't have a basis
> for comparison.

The amount of language instruction available at US seminaries varies widely,
mostly depending on the denominational heritage of the school.  Presbyterian
and Reformed seminaries probably place a lot more emphasis on the biblical
languages than others.  (Of course, any divinity school that has a doctoral
program in biblical studies is going to have extensive language resources!  But
there are quite a few masters-degree-granting seminaries here at which the
attitude seems to be more, "Well, if you're *really* interested we'll give you
a semester-long course, but we don't understand why . . .")

The pattern here at the Louisville Presbyterian Seminary is for first-year
students to take intensive five-week introductory language courses in each
language, followed by semester-long exegesis courses.  (That is: Hebrew in
August, OT exegesis in the fall; Greek in January, NT exegesis in the spring.) 
These courses are required for graduation, a third or a half of the students,
I'd say, take advanced biblical work that requires language work.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20905
From: wquinnan@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Malcusco)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?

In article <Apr.16.23.18.04.1993.1876@geneva.rutgers.edu> rob@ll.mit.edu writes:
>I think it was Lewis who said that in a wedding, it's the principals  
>that marry each other; the church and the state are present merely as  
>witnesses.
>
>[This is not just Lewis -- it's a summary of standard Catholic
>theology.  However this doesn't mean that the presence of those
>witnesses is optional, except in odd situations like the standard
>desert island.  --clh]

	I originally wrote to the person who asked this question
personally, but decided to post the information I had on the topic.

	I spoke to the pastor of my parish (Catholic) recently, 
by coincidence, on this subject.  His explaination was that 
while it is possible for a couple to marry without the presence
of a priest, it is important to have it recognized by the 
Church as soon as it is possible.  Because the Church 
recoginizes itself as a community of believers, members
of the church, to some degree, are to be held accountable
to each other.  To be less hypothetical than that mythical
couple on the desert island, there are many places in the
world that do not have priests availible for marriages
on a regular basis.  Therefore, couples get married without
the priest being present, but get the priest to testify to
their marriage when one comes through the area.  

	I remember a religion teacher in high school saying
that the marriage ceremony is not for the benefit of the couple
as much as it is for the benefit of the community.  Thus,
married couples have some responsibility to the community
to stay married, as divorce sets a bad example for the
community.  Also, the couple has vowed to become one with
one another--the community should be able to rely on that 
couple to be as one.

	While couples may marry without witnesses, they 
may NOT get anulments without a priest present.  An 
anulment is simply an admission of the church that what
they had declared a marriage was not, in fact, a marriage
at all, for whatever reason.  So don't start getting married
in the back seat of a station wagon and giving yourselves
anulments a half-hour later!!

	I tend to agree with the response back there that
said couples become married as soon as they consumate their
marriage, but I would add that couples should consider their
marriage consumated if they have sex, whether or not they
intended to be married, assuming they were both willing
partners to the sexual act.  The couple must be prepared
to raise any children they may have as a result of that
sexual act with the benefit of both parents.  Sex IS a
commitment, I believe, in God's eyes.

	But I'm digressing....

			God be with you,
					
				Malcusco

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20906
From: shredder@telerama.pgh.pa.us (Ed Sayre)
Subject: Orthodox List

I recently had to move and forgot to update my address to the Orthodox
mailing list. Can anyone e-mail me the address for changes and what
exactly I have to put in caps, etc? (please send the original
subscription address also). Thanks ahead of time! -Ed.
-- 
Ed "Shredder" Sayre              internet: shredder@telerama.pgh.pa.us
Unemployment Studies major

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20907
From: mauaf@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr P D Simmons)
Subject: Why religion and which religion?


        My family has never been particularly religious - singing Christmas
carols is about the limit for them. Thus I've never really believed in God and
heaven, although I don't actually believe that they don't exist either -
I'm sort of undecided, probably like a lot of people I guess.
        Lately I've been thinking about it all a lot more, and I wondered how
religious people can be so convinced that there is a God. I feel as though
I want to believe, but I'm not used to believing things without proof -
just as I can't believe that there definitely isn't a God, so I can't
definitely believe that there is. I wondered if most of you were brought up by
religious families and never believed any different. Can anyone help me to
understand how your belief and faith in God can be so strong.

        Another question that frequently crosses my mind is which religion is
correct?? How do you choose a religion, and how do you know that the Christian
God exists and the Gods of other religions don't?? How do you feel about
people who follow other religions?? How about atheists?? And people like me -
agnostics I suppose. Do you respect their religion, and accept their
beliefs as just as valid as your own?? Isn't there contradiction between
the religions?? How can your religion be more valid than any others?? Do
you have less respect for someone if they're not religious, or if they follow
a different religion than you would if they were Christian??

        Also, how much of the scriptures are correct?? Are all events in
the bible really supposed to have happened, or are they just supposed to be
stories with morals showing a true Christian how to behave??

        I generally follow most of the Christian ideas, which I suppose are
fairly universal throughout all religions - not killing, stealing, etc, and
'Loving my neighbour' for want of a better expression. The only part I find
hard is the actual belief in God.

        Finally, what is God's attitude to people like me, who don't quite
believe in Him, but are generally fairly 'good' people. Surely not
believing doesn't make me a worse person?? If not, I find myself wondering why
I so strongly want to really believe, and to find a religion.

        Sorry if I waffled on a bit - I was just writing ideas as they came
into my head. I'm sure I probably repeated myself a bit too.

                        Thanks for the help,
                                Paul Simmons

[There's been enough discussion about evidence for Christianity
recently that you may prefer to respond to this via email rather than
as a posting.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20908
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5

I wrote in response to dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe):

>[It's not clear how much more needs to be said other than the FAQ.  I
>think Paul's comments on esteeming one day over another (Rom 14) is
>probably all that needs to be said.

Was Paul a God too? Is an interpretation of the words of Paul of higher
priority than the direct word of Jesus in Matt5:14-19? Paul begins
Romans 14 with "If someone is weak in the faith ..." Do you count
yourself as one who is weak in the faith?

>I accept that Darius is doing
>what he does in honor of the Lord.  I just wish he might equally
>accept that those who "esteem all days alike" are similarly doing
>their best to honor the Lord.

Yes, but what does the Bible have to say? What did Jesus say? Paul
closes Romans 14 with, "On the other hand, the person with doubts about
something who eats it anyway is guilty, because he isn't acting on his
faith, and any failure to act on faith is a sin." Gaus, ISBN:0-933999-99-2
Have you read the Ten Commandments which are a portion of the Law? Have
you read Jesus' word in Matt5:14-19? Is there any doubt in your mind
about what is right and what is sin (Greek hamartia = missing the mark)?

>However I'd like to be clear that I do not think there's unambiguous
>proof that regular Christian worship was on the first day.  As I
>indicated, there are responses on both of the passages cited.

Whereas, the Ten Commandments and Jesus' words in Matt5:14-19 are fairly
clear, are they not?

>The difficulty with both of these passages is that they are actually
>about something else.  They both look like they are talking about
>nnregular Christian meetings, but neither explicitly says "and they
>gathered every Sunday for worship".  We get various pieces of
>information, but nothing aimed at answering this question.  

Matt5:14-19 doesn't answer your question?

>what day Christians met in their houses.  Acts 20:7, despite Darius'
>confusion, is described by Acts as occuring on Sunday.  ... It doesn't
>say they gathered to
>see Paul off, but that when they were gathered for breaking bread,

Breaking bread - roughly synonymous with eating.

>So I think the most obvious reading of this is that "on the first day
>of every week" simply means every time they gather for worship.  

How do you unite this concept of yours with the Ten Commandments and
Jesus's word in Matt5:14-19?

>I think the reason we have only implications and not clear statements
>is that the NT authors assumed that their readers knew when Christian
>worship was.
>--clh]

Or, they assumed that the Ten Commandments and Jesus' word in
Matt5:14-19 actually stood for something? Perhaps they were "strong in
the faith?"

---------------------------

[No, I don't believe that Paul can overrule God.  However Paul was
writing for a largely Gentile audience.  The Law was regarded by Jews
at the time (and now) as binding on Jews, but not on Gentiles.  There
are rules that were binding on all human beings (the so-called Noachic
laws), but they are quite minimal.  The issue that the Church had to
face after Jesus' death was what to do about Gentiles who wanted to
follow Christ.  The decision not to impose the Law on them didn't say
that the Law was abolished.  It simply acknowledged that fact that it
didn't apply to Gentiles.  Thus there is no contradiction with Mat 5.
As far as I can tell, both Paul and other Jewish Christians did
continue to participate in Jewish worship on the Sabbath.  Thus they
continued to obey the Law.  The issue was (and is) with Gentile
Christians, who are not covered by the Law (or at least not by the
ceremonial aspects of it).

Jesus dealt mostly with Jews.  I think we can reasonably assume that
Mat 5 was directed to a Jewish audience.  He did interact with
Gentiles a few times (e.g. the centurion whose slave was healed and a
couple of others).  The terms used to describe the centurion (see Luke
7) suggest that he was a "God-fearer", i.e. a Gentile who followed
God, but had not adopted the whole Jewish Law.  He was commended by
Jewish elders as a worthy person, and Jesus accepted him as such.
This seems to me to indicate that Jesus accepted the prevailing view
that Gentiles need not accept the Law.

However there's more involved if you want to compare Jesus and Paul on
the Law.  In order to get a full picture of the role of the Law, we
have to come to grips with Paul's apparent rejection of the Law, and
how that relates to Jesus' commendation of the Law.  At least as I
read Paul, he says that the Law serves a purpose that has been in a
certain sense superceded.  Again, this issue isn't one of the
abolition of the Law.  In the middle of his discussion, Paul notes
that he might be understood this way, and assures us that that's not
what he intends to say.  Rather, he sees the Law as primarily being
present to convict people of their sinfulness.  But ultimately it's an
impossible standard, and one that has been superceded by Christ.
Paul's comments are not the world's clearest here, and not everyone
agrees with my reading.  But the interesting thing to notice is that
even this radical position does not entail an abolition of the Law.
It still remains as an uncompromising standard, from which not an iota
or dot may be removed.  For its purpose of convicting of sin, it's
important that it not be relaxed.  However for Christians, it's not
the end -- ultimately we live in faith, not Law.

While the theoretical categories they use are rather different, in the
end I think Jesus and Paul come to a rather similar conclusion.  The
quoted passage from Mat 5 should be taken in the context of the rest
of the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus shows us how he interprets the
Law.  The "not an iota or dot" would suggest a rather literal reading,
but in fact that's not Jesus' approach.  Jesus' interpretations
emphasize the intent of the Law, and stay away from the ceremonial
details.  Indeed he is well known for taking a rather free attitude
towards the Sabbath and kosher laws.  Some scholars claim that Mat
5:17-20 needs to be taken in the context of 1st Cent. Jewish
discussions.  Jesus accuses his opponents of caring about giving a
tenth of even the most minor herbs, but neglecting the things that
really matter: justice, mercy and faith, and caring about how cups and
plates are cleaned, but not about the fact that inside the people who
use them are full of extortion and rapacity.  (Mat 23:23-25) This, and
the discussion later in Mat 5, suggest that Jesus has a very specific
view of the Law in mind, and that when he talks about maintaining the
Law in its full strength, he is thinking of these aspects of it.
Paul's conclusion is similar.  While he talks about the Law being
superceded, all of the specific examples he gives involve the
"ceremonial law", such as circumcision and the Sabbath.  He is quite
concerned about maintaining moral standards.

The net result of this is that when Paul talks about the Law being
superceded, and Jesus talks about the Law being maintained, I believe
they are talking about different aspects of the Law.  Paul is
embroiled in arguments about circumcision.  As is natural in letters
responding to specific situations, he's looking at the aspect of the
Law that is currently causing trouble: the Law as specifically Jewish
ceremonies.  He certainly does not intend to abolish divine standards
of conduct.  On the other hand, when Jesus commends the Law, he seems
to be talking the Law in its broadest implications for morals and
human relationships, and deemphasizing those aspects that were later
to give Paul so much trouble.

It's unfortunate that people use the same terms in different ways, but
we should be familiar with that from current conflicts.  Look at the
way terms like "family values" take on special meaning from the
current context.  Imagine some poor historian of the future trying to
figure out why "family values" should be used as a code word for
opposition to homosexuality in one specific period in the U.S.  I
think Law had taken on a similar role in the arguments Paul was
involved in.  Paul was clearly not rejecting all of the Jewish values
that go along with the term "Law", any more than people who concerned
about the "family values" movement are really opposed to family
values.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20909
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?

In article <Apr.16.23.15.27.1993.1836@geneva.rutgers.edu> cs89mcd@brunel.ac.uk (Michael C Davis) writes:

[it has to do with honoring the laws of the state, and]
>also to do with how people will perceive us; i.e. it is culturally insensitive
>to declare yourself married without going through a civil ceremony.)

I would go further: if a couple are unwilling to have their commitment
publicly witnessed and recorded, that's prima facie evidence that the
commitment isn't really there.



-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20910
From: armstrng@cs.dal.ca (Stan Armstrong)
Subject: Immaterial afterlife (was Is Hell Real)

In article <C4zAyM.M9u@spss.com> goer@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>I thought everyone who died simply went to Sheol.  The notion of going to
>heaven is a Christianization based on those parts of the NT that speak of
>an immaterial afterlife.
>
>   -Richard L. Goerwitz              goer%midway@uchicago.bitnet
>   goer@midway.uchicago.edu          rutgers!oddjob!ellis!goer
>
Where in the Bible is there *any* teaching about an immaterial afterlife?
I was always taught that both the O.T. Jews and the N.T. Christians would
have found the notion incomprehensible--as do I.

Don't we christians believe in the resurrection of the body?

Or do you mean by material simply the stuff made of the 100+ elements
that we know and love too much?

-- 
Stan Armstrong. Religious Studies Dept, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, N.S.
Armstrong@husky1.stmarys.ca | att!clyde!watmath!water!dalcs!armstrng

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20911
From: revc@garg.campbell.ca.us (Bob Van Cleef)
Subject: Re: SSPX schism ?

>From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)


>Many Catholics will decide to side with the Pope.  There is some
>soundness in this, because the Papacy is infallible, so eventually
>some Pope *will* straighten all this out.  But, on the other hand,
>there is also unsoundness in this, in that, in the short term, the
>Popes may indeed be wrong, and such Catholics are doing nothing to
>help the situation by obeying them where they're wrong.  In fact, if
>the situation is grave enough, they sin in obeying him.  At the very
>least, they're wasting a great opportunity, because they are failing
>to love Christ in a heroic way at the very time that He needs this
>badly.

Joe;

Your logic excapes me. 

If the Papacy is infallible, and this is a matter of faith, then the 
Pope cannot "be wrong!"  If, on the other hand, this is not a matter 
of faith, but a matter of Church law, then we should still obey as the
Pope is the legal head of the church.

In other words, given the doctrine of infallibility, we have no choice
but to obey.

Bob

-- 
><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>     \|/     <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><
Bob Van Cleef              Peace -0- be      revc@garg.Campbell.CA.US
The Land of Garg BBS        unto /|\ you           BBS (408) 378-5108
><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>      |      <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><


[You might want to look at the FAQ on infallibility.  The doctrine on
infallibility does not say that the pope is always right.  All
Catholic theologians acknowledge that there have been a number of
occasions when the pope was wrong.  There appear to be two aspects to
infallibility.  One is a general concept that in the long run the
Church is protected from serious error.  However this does not mean
that it's impossible for it to take wrong turns at one time or
another.  The more specific concept of papal infallibility is that in
very specific circumstances a papal statement can be known to be
infallible.  However a relatively small fraction of statements meet
those criteria.  This does not absolve Catholics from the duty to obey
even "ordinary" teachings of the pope.  However only a few teachings
are made in a way that is explicitly infallible.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20912
From: lmh@juliet.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.)
Subject: Christian's need for Christianity (was ...)

In article <Apr.16.23.17.40.1993.1861@geneva.rutgers.edu<, mussack@austin.ibm.com writes...
<< < For example: why does the universe exist at all?  

<Whether there is a "why" or not we have to find it. This is Pascal's(?) wager.
<If there is no why and we spend our lives searching, then we have merely
<wasted our lives, which were meaningless anyway. If there is a why and we
..
<Suppose the universe is 5 billion years old, and suppose it lasts another
<5 billion years. Suppose I live to be 100. That is nothing, that is so small
<that it is scary. So by searching for the "why" along with my friends here
<on earth if nothing else we aren't so scared.

 I find this view of Christianity to be quite disheartening and sad.
The idea that life only has meaning or importance if there is a Creator
does not seem like much of a basis for belief.

 And the logic is also appalling: "God must exist because I want Him to."

 I have heard this line of "reasoning" before and wonder how prevalent
it is. Certainly in modern society many people are convinced life is
hopeless (or so the pollsters and newscasts state), but I don't see
where this is a good reason to become religious. If you want 'meaning'
why not just join a cult, such as in Waco? The leaders will give you
the security blanket you desire.

larry henling   lmh@shakes.caltech.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20913
From: uad1126@tdc.dircon.co.uk (Robert Palmer)
Subject: Christian Parenting

Hi I am a Sociology student and I am currently researching into 
young offenders.  I am looking at the way various groups of 
children are raised at home.  At the moment I am formlulating 
information on discipline within the Christian home.

Please, if you are a parent in this catagory can you email me 
your response to the following questionaire.  All responses 
will be treated confidentially and will only be used to prepare 
stats.

1.  Ages & sexes of children

2.  Do you spank your kids?

3.  If so how often?

4.  Do you use an implement to spank with? 


5. If you do not spank, what method of discipline do you use?

6.  Your age?

7.  Your location

8.  While under the age of 16 did you ever commit a criminal 
offence?

9.  How ere you disciplined as a kid


Thank you in advance for any reply you can make.  Please e-mail 
your replies rather than post them on the newsgroup

[I hope it is obvious that responses to this question are likely to
have serious problems when used for research purposes.  Our readers
are not likely to be a random sample of Christians, and this form does
not contain enough information to act as a stratified sample.  Perhaps
someone who is familiar with research methods might want to correspond
with him.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20914
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: anger

In article <Apr.17.01.10.44.1993.2232@geneva.rutgers.edu> news@cbnewsk.att.com writes:
>>Paul Conditt writes:
[insert deletion of Paul's and Aaron's discourse on anger, ref Galatians
5:19-20]
>
>I don't know why it is so obvious.  We are not speaking of acts of the 
>flesh.  We are just speaking of emotions.  Emotions are not of themselves
>moral or immoral, good or bad.  Emotions just are.  The first step is
>not to label his emotion as good or bad or to numb ourselves so that
>we hide our true feelings, it is to accept ourselves as we are, as God
>accepts us.  

Oh, but they definitely can be.  Please look at Colossians 3:5-10 and
Ephesians 4:25-27.  Emotions can be controlled and God puts very strong
emphasis on self-control, otherwise, why would he have Paul write to
Timothy so much about making sure to teach self-control? 

[insert deletion of remainder of paragraph]

>
>Re-think it, Aaron.  Don't be quick to judge.  He has forgiven those with
>AIDS, he has dealt with and taken responsibility for his feelings and made
>appropriate choices for action on such feelings.  He has not given in to
>his anger.

Please, re-think and re-read for yourself, Joe.  Again, the issue is
self-control especially over feelings and actions, for our actions stem
from our feelings in many instances.  As for God giving in to his anger,
that comes very soon.

>
>Joe Moore

Joe Fisher

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20915
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: tuff to be a Christian?

In article <Apr.17.01.10.58.1993.2246@geneva.rutgers.edu> mdbs@ms.uky.edu (no name) writes:
>bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:
>
>>	I don't think most people understand what a Christian is.  It 
>>is certainly not what I see a lot in churches.  Rather I think it 
>>should be a way of life, and a total sacrafice of everything for God's 
>>sake.  He loved us enough to die and save us so we should do the 
>
>	Typical statement from an irrational and brainwashed person.
>The bible was written by some male chavnist thousands of years ago
>(as were all of the "holy" books). Follow the parts that you think are
>suitable for modern life. Ignore the others. For heaven's (!) sake don't
>take it literally.

Please, leave heaven out of it.  For his own sake, I pray that Dan does
take it literally because that's how God intended it to be taken.  Dan,
your view of many groups appears correct from my point of view.
However, I have found a group which is truly meeting requirements laid
down by the Bible on what it means to be a disciple of Jesus.  I have no
clue where wwc is, but please mail me.  I'd really like to get you in
touch with them.

>
>>same.  Hey we can't do it, God himself inspires us to turn our lives 
>>over to him.  That's tuff and most people don't want to do it, to be a 
>				^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>real Christian would be something for the strong to persevere at.  But 
>
[insert deletion of ranting about other religions which obviously has
gone off-center of Dan's original context]

Dan, I'm familiar with this one.  You've got a point, though.  There are
some who don't want to turn over everything and be a disciple, some have
no clue about it because they've not been taught, some have done exactly
that and turned over everything to follow Jesus, some are blocked by
difficult doctrine taught by uncaring Pharisees and teachers of the law.
However, Jesus pointed out what it takes to follow him and to be his
disciple in Luke 9:23-26 and Luke 14:25-33.  My question is:  why do
people ignore the command and treat it as optional?  I certainly don't
have an answer to this.

[insert deletion]

>	Parting Question:
>		Would you have become a Christian if you had not
>been indoctrinated by your parents? You probably never learned about
>any other religion to make a comparative study. And therefore I claim
>you are brain washed.

My parents had nothing to do with it.  God had and has everything to do
with it.  As for these attacking responses, I must say that I disagree
with your tone and what appears to be some very judgmental statements
(possibly to the point of slander) when talking about people, not what
they do.  Please, if you have a response, state it instead of flying off
the handle on some discourse which may have nothing truly to do with
what is being discussed.  I'm sure both Dan and I would have a much
happier time with your responses.

Joe

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20916
From: chips@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Charlie Mathew)
Subject: Interdisc. Bible Research Inst.


 
Hi!

	Anyone know anything about the Interdisciplinary Bible Research
Institute, operating out of Hatfield, Pa?

	I'm really interested in their theories on old-earth
(as opposed to young earth) and what they believe about evolution.

	Thanks,
		In the Master,

		Charley.


--
       Seek God and you will find, among other things,
                          piercing pleasure.
       
       Seek pleasure and you will find boredom, disillusionment        
                      and enslavement.
       
                               John White (Eros Defiled).	

[Note that I do not accept discussions of evolution here, as there
is a dedicated group for that, talk.origins.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20917
From: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Subject: HELPHLPHELPHELP

*******
*******  This is somewhat long, but pleas read it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*******



Boy am i glad you decided to read this. I've got a problem that 
I need as many people's help from as possible.

Before I go in to the details of this, let me go ahead and tell
you that (though it may sound it) this is not one of those boy
meets girl problem...at least not totally like that to me....Anyway...

OK, I am a 19 year old Sophmore at NCSU. About 10 years ago, my family
and I were vacationing at the coast in a cottage we rented. Across the
street, was ths girl who would whistle at me whenever she saw me...
her name in Erin. Well, we became friends that week at the beach and have
been writing each other for about 10 years....there was a period of about
2 years we lost contact..but that was a while ago. 

By the way...Erin lives in Kansas and me in NC.

OK, last year in one of her letters, she says that she is coming
back to NC to see some of her family who are gonna be there. So I
drove about 4 hours to see her. This is where it begins....I spent
the whole day with Erin....one of the best days of my life. Even though
we had been writing each other, we still had to get used to being
in person....she has got to be the most incredible woman I ever met.
(She's one year older than me BTW). I mean, no person in the world could
ask for a better person. Not only was she incredibly beautiful (not to 
mention WAY out of my league...although I'm  not unattractive mind you), but
she had a great personality and a great sence of humor. Her family
is one of those families who goes to church but that is about the
extent of their Christianity...you know the kind of people. But she
knows I am a Christian. 

Well, you get the idea of what I think of her. If there is ever such
a thing as love at first sight....I found it. That was last year...I kid
you not when I say that I have thought about her EVERY day since then.

In out letters, Erin and I always kid each other about not finding
dates..(which is true for me, but I know it can't be for her).
She has had some problems at home, her folks split up and she ended
up leaving school....Now we are at the present...

Let me give you part of the letter I got from her last week....


"Okay, now I'm going to try to explain my life to you. I'm not
going to KU anymore because something just isn't right. College
just wasn't clicking with me here. Greek life is really big here and
that just isn't my way. I wasn't taking any classes that truly interested
me & i really have no idea of what i want to do with my life. I was
interested in something medical (Physical Therpy) & I love working with 
kids, but 'it' just didn't work for me at this university. And my parents
could tell.

"So I'm working full time at the Bass Store [Bass shoes that is] and now
I have a part-time job at a local daycare. I work in the infant room
M-W-F. I've really enjoyed it so far. It spices up my week a little bit and 
it's great experience.

"As of now, I'm not planning on going back to school in the very
near future. The main reason being my indecision on what I want to
study. But I definatley plan on going back within the next couple of
years. Where? I have no idea--except for one thing, it won't be
to Kansas.

"Right noew I'm discussing a promotion with my boss and district 
manager. It looks like I'll train at the store I work at now for
about 4-6 months as Assistant Manager and when that's done, I'll 
basically be given a list of stores (newly or soon to be built) to 
chose where i would like to manage. I've pretty much decided on either
one of the Carolinas (hopeully close to the beach) Wouldn't it
be fun to actually see each other more than once every few years??
What do you think abou that? I would like to know your opinion.

"This job would pretty much be temporary. But it is VERY GOOD pay
and any thye of management experience would look good on an application
or resume. The company is solid and treats it employees very well. Good
benefits, bonuses & medical plans. Plus- after 1 year of full-time
service, they will reimburse tuition. I do have school money waitng
for me, but this will help, especially since I will probably end up 
paying out of state tuition wherever I go.

"Chris, i really would like to know what you think of my decision. I 
respect your opinion. I've been completely lost for what to do for 
soooo long that when the opportunity came along it sounded really 
good. I do like my job although I'm about 99.9% sure that i want
to do more with my life than reatil management..but it IS something.
I don't think earning about $20,000 a year for a 20 year old female
is too bad. 

"Anyway, onto your career decisions. I'll solve your problem right now,
MARRY ME...

"You can do your pilot thing-- I like to be by myself sometimes! Seriously
(or not as seriously)- do what will make you the happiest, worry about the
home life later."

***********

OK, well I'm sure you see what has got me so uptight. What do you
think she meant about the marraige thing?? 

I dream at night about marrying her, and then she mentions it in her
letter!!! I don't know what to think??

Since she wants to move to the Carolina's should i search out a 
Bass store near here and aske her to come to Carolina???

I always pick on those people who graduate from high school and
get married....but what does she mean??? 

I've had a lot of stress lately with exams and also the fact that 
I don't date beacause 1) No time  2) Not that much $$ 3) that
most college women are wrapped up in the social scene with  the
Greeks whic as a Christian I can't support-----and here
she says she doesn't like the Greek thing either!!

Maybe I'm so stunned because there is actually a girl that I am
so attracted to paying some real attention to me.

I mean, what if she did move to NC...what would I do??? I'm
only 19 and she 20....I'm only a Sophmore struggling through
classes..

I have prayed about this over the past year from time to time..
saying, "God if she is the right one, let the situation open up.."

Could this be my sign???

I would do ANYTHING to get her to NC...here is some moree that makes 
it worse..

Should I call her?? I'm terrible over the phone. I don't even like
to talk to my friends here for longer than 3 minutes.

I mean, what would a girl as perfect as her want with a very
average guy like me??

I'm really confused....I would really appreciate any help i can get.

Thanx 

Chris

[I have a feeling that it might be more appropriate to talk with
Chris directly via email.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20918
From: jkellett@netcom.com (Joe Kellett)
Subject: Re: sex education

In article <Apr.8.00.57.31.1993.28227@athos.rutgers.edu> jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:
>It seems I spend a significant amount of my time correcting errors about
>the reliability tests for condoms and abstinence.  A few years ago I saw
>that famous study that showed a "10% failure rate" for condoms.  The
>same study showed a 20% failure rate for abstinence!!  That is, adult
>couples who relied on abstinence to prevent pregnancy got pregnant in
>alarming numbers--they didn't have the willpower to abstain.  And we're
>thinking that this will work with high school kids?!?

I am told that Planned Parenthood/SIECUS-style "values-free" methods, that
teach contraceptive technology and advise kids how to make "choices",
actually _increase_ pregnancy rates. I posted a long article on this a while
back and will be happy to email a copy to any who are interested.  The
article included sources to contact for information on research verifying
these statements, and an outstanding source for info on acquiring
abstinence-related curricula even in single-copy quantities for home use.

The same research produced the results that abstinence-related curricula
were found to _decrease_ pregnancy rates in teens.  I assume that it is
reasonable to assume that the AIDS rate will fluctuate with the pregnancy
rate.

The difference is not in "contraceptive technology" but in the values taught
to the children.  The PP/SIECUS curricula taught the kids that they have
legitimate choices, while the abstinence related curricula taught them that
they did _not_ have _legitimate_ choices other than abstinence.  It is the
values system that is the strongest determinent of the behavior behavior of
these kids.

Despite the better track record of abstinence-related curricula, they are
suppressed in favor of curricula that produce an effect contrary to that
desired.  

Question for further discussion (as they say in the textbooks):  Why don't
we teach "safe drug use" to kids, instead of drug abstinence?  Isn't it
because we know that a class in "how to use drugs safely if you _choose_ to
use drugs" would increase drug use?  Why isn't "drug abstinence education"
barred from schools because it teaches "religion"?  Aren't we abandoning
those children who will use drugs anyway, and need instruction in their safe
use?


-- 
Joe Kellett
jkellett@netcom.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20919
From: seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."

In article <Apr.14.03.07.38.1993.5420@athos.rutgers.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
>In article 28388@athos.rutgers.edu, jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas) writes:
>
>> Drugs are a replacement for Christ.
>>Those who have an empty spot in the God-shaped hole in their hearts must 
>>do something to ease the pain.
>
>I have heard this claim quite a few times. Does anybody here know
>who first came up with the "God-shaped hole" business?
>
>>  This is why the most effective 
>>substance-abuse recovery programs involve meeting peoples' spiritual 
>>needs.
>
>You might want to provide some evidence next time you make a claim
>like this.
>
In 12-step programs (like Alcoholics Anonymous), one of the steps
involves acknowleding a "higher power".  AA and other 12-step abuse-
recovery programs are acknowledged as being among the most effective.

Unfortunately, as evidence for God, this can be dismissed by stating
that the same defect of personality makes substance abusers as makes 
people 'religious', and the debunker could perhaps acknowledge that
being religious is a better crutch than being a drug addict, but
still maintain that both are escapism.  (And I suspect that there
are some atheists who would find the substance abuse preferable to
Christianity.)

I think that an essential problem with communication between Christ-
ians and atheists is that as Christians we necessarily see ourselves
as incomplete, and needing God (the 'God-shaped hole'), while atheists
necessarily see themselves as self-sufficient.  If the atheists are
right, Christians are guilty of being morally weak, and too cowardly
to stand up for themselves; if the Christians are right, the atheists
are guilty of considerable arrogance.  (I use the term atheist to
refer to a person who has a definite conviction that there is no God,
as opposed to one who does not know and/or does not care about God.)
==
Seanna Watson   Bell-Northern Research,       | Pray that at the end of living,
(seanna@bnr.ca) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada       | Of philosophies and creeds,
                                              | God will find his people busy
Opinion, what opinions? Oh *these* opinions.  | Planting trees and sowing seeds.
No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.          |
I knew I'd left them somewhere.               |  --Fred Kaan

(let's see...I spelled 'sowing' right; I got the author's name right--maybe
my 3rd iteration .sig will be a keeper.)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20920
From: armstrng@cs.dal.ca (Stan Armstrong)
Subject: Re: So far so good

In article <C4z5u3.Jxo@spss.com> luomat@alleg.edu writes:
>
>This may be a really dumb one, but I'll ask it anyways:
>	Christians know that they can never live up to the requirements of  
>God, right? (I may be wrong, but that is my understanding)  But they still  
>try to do it.  Doesn't it seem like we are spending all of our lives  
>trying to reach a goal we can never achieve?  I know that we are saved by  
>faith and not by works, but does that mean that once we are saved we don't  
>have to do anything?  I think James tells us that Faith without works is  
>dead (paraphrase).  How does this work?
>
So long as we think that good things are what we *have* to do rather than
what we come to *want* to do, we miss the point. The more we love God; the
more we come to love what and whom He loves.

When I find that what I am doing is not good, it is not a sign to try
even harder (Romans 7:14-8:2); it is a sign to seek God. When I am aware 
of Jesus' presence, I usually want what He wants. It is His strenth, His love 
that empowers my weakness.
-- 
Stan Armstrong. Religious Studies Dept, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, N.S.
Armstrong@husky1.stmarys.ca | att!clyde!watmath!water!dalcs!armstrng

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20921
From: alastair@farli.otago.ac.nz (Alastair Thomson)
Subject: Does 'Just/justifiable War' exist?

Hi there netters,
I have a question I would very much like to see some discussion on:
Is there such a thing as a 'justifible' war? 

What I would love to see it some basis from scripture for either: "All war  
is wrong", or "Some war is justifiable". 

To get things started I would like to outline why I am asking the  
question. In my high school days I had been quite involved in the the New  
Zealand Cadet Forces (This is a bit like ROTC from what I understand of  
it, but with a lot more emphasis on fun than military career training).  
Through this I became extremely enamoured of flying, have become involved  
in the sport of gliding, and have a great interest in military aviation  
hardware as the very best a 'real' flyer could ask for. My favourite  
computer games are the accurate simulations of military aircraft, both  
past and present. 

I became a Christian about 10 years ago, and at the time rejected all  
military activity as immoral. For me, all war was in complete opposition  
to God's commandments to love one another, especially one's enemies.

During the war in Iraq, I found myself with great excitement listening to  
the reports of the effectiveness of the the attacks using the aviation  
technology I so admire - The F117A 'Stealh' bomber, the F14, F15 and F16  
strike aircraft, etc. After the war concluded I began to really enjoy  
simulations based around this conflict - Great to go and bomb Saddam's  
bio-weapons plants in an F117A on my computer, or shoot down some of his  
Mig's in an F16. The simulation of the death of people was a wonderful  
game. I imagine the real pilots view the real thing in much the same way.  
One only has to look at the language used to see that the personal impact  
of war is ignored: A building containing people, or an aircraft flown by a  
pilot is simply a 'target'. Dead civilians are 'collateral damage'. These  
euphanisms are a way of removing the reality of war from the people whose  
support are necessary for the continued waging of war - One only has to  
look at Vietnam to see how important public opinion is.

Now we see troops sponsored by the United Nations entering Somalia, and  
the prospect of military intervention in the Muslim/Croat/Serb conflict in  
the former Yugoslavia. My revulsion in particular to the siege of  
Sarajevo, and in the last few days of (sorry 'bout spelling) Sebrenitsa,  
has caused me to rethink where I stand on 'justifiable' war.

I will list several wars in the last 50 years I can look at each, and say  
- Yes this may have been justifible, this may not. These are simply my gut  
reactions to each - In many cases with the benefit of the impartiality  
history brings. Let me go through a few and state some of my reasons for  
my reaction - I am not a historian, so excuse any historical blunders, I  
am working from popular history as it is known in New Zealand.

1. The Second World War
	- Murder of Jews - Hitler had to be stopped.
	- Massive civilian casualties on both sides 
		- Dresden, Hiroshima/Nagasaki
	- Probably justifiable.

2. Korean war
	- Political expansionism by North Korea, basically
	  communism vs. capitalism.
	- Probably not justifiable.

3. Vietnam
	- As above, worsened by US involvement.

4. Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia.
	- Genocide by Khmer Rouge.
	- Probably justifiable.

5. Iraq (Desert Storm)
	- Political expansionism, threat to world oil supply
	- Other factors such as genocide.
	- Not sure, but probably justifiable

6. A future involvement in Bosnia
	- Genocide - so called 'Ethnic Cleansing'
	- Emotive - much TV coverage of atrocities and civilian casualties.
	- Probably justifiable

7. Possible future use of nuclear weapons - tactical or strategic,  
somewhere in the world by the US in response to someone else - e.g. Libya  
or Israel.
	- My feelings in this are simple
	- Nuclear war/weapons are abhorrent
	- I love the New Zealand government's stand on banning all nuclear
	  armed or powered warships from NZ port.
	- Never justifiable.

These are my own views, I have looked at scripture, and I am confused. I  
would appreciate others view, particularly those based on scripture. I  
*don't* want a - Naaahh, yer wrong - I think answers 8-).

Thanks for your help.

==========================================================================
                                    |
Alastair Thomson,                   | Phone +64-3-479-8347
Chief Programmer,                   | Fax   +64-3-479-8529
The Black Albatross Porject,        |
University of Otago,                |
Department of Computer Science,     | e-mail alastair@farli.otago.ac.nz
P.O. Box 56                         |        athomson@otago.ac.nz
Dunedin                             | NeXTmail Welcome
New Zealand                         |
 
   "God loved the world so much, that he gave us His Son, to die in 
    our place, so that we may have eternal life" John 3:16, paraphrase

==========================================================================

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20922
From: asket@acad2.alaska.edu
Subject: When is a couple married...


     I used to be a marriage commissioner for the Alaska Court
System (sort of a justice of the peace).  I had great difficulty
with that duty.  I used to pray earnestly in the courthouse
bathroom before the ceremonies, mostly asking that the couples
would come to appreciate and fulfill the true holiness and
divine purpose in marriage--couples who obviously didn't realize
that marriage is God's institution, not the state's.  Gradually,
however, I came to conclude that because I was acting in a
strictly secular, public capacity, established as such by both
the state and the expectations of the couples involved, I was
really conducting a purely secular, legal civil event, with no
greater moral or religious implications than if I had been
conducting a civil trial (the couple who told me, mid-ceremony,
to "please hurry it up" may have helped me to this conclusion). 

     I thought I had neatly rationalized a clear and sharp
distinction between marriage before God, and "marriage" before
the state, until I had to deal with my own divorce.  Keeping
Matthew 19:6 in mind, I felt that the state had no business
dissolving my marriage established before God, but of course it
assumed jurisdiction nonetheless.  

      I would ask those of you proposing answers to this
question to consider this issue's logical extension: If
intercourse, or the mental intent of the parties, or the
ceremony of the church, or any combination thereof, establishes
marriage, then at what moment is it dissolved?  

                                   Karl Thoennes III
                                   University of Alaska

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20923
From: rolfe@junior.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe)
Subject: Divine providence vs. Murphy's Law

Romans 8:28 (RSV)   We know that in everything God works for good with those 
who love him, who are called according to his purpose. 

Murphy's Law:  If anything can go wrong, it will.

We are all quite familiar with the amplifications and commentary on
Murphy's Law.  But how do we harmonize that with Romans 8:28?  For that
matter, how appropriate is humor contradicted by Scripture?
--
                                                    --- Tim Rolfe
                                                 rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu
                                                 rolfe@junior.dsu.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20924
From: mwhaefne@infonode.ingr.com (Mark W. Haefner)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jesus in your heart..."

>
>> Religion (especially Christianity) is nothing more than a DRUG.
>> Some people use drugs as an escape from reality.  Christians inject
>> themselves with jeezus and live with that high. 


Why would you say "especially Christianity"?


Mark

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20925
From: jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas)
Subject: What's in a name?: the sequel

I've been thinking about the idea that was raised (by Michael Covington, 
I think) that words mean what we think they mean, regardless of 
etymology.  I've been reflecting on what certain words meant in my 
childhood and tracing how this shaped some of my attitudes. 

I grew up in a home where Christ was a bad word.  People who were very 
angry said it.  The word Christian meant someone who was not a Jew.  It 
carried connotations of otherness, of threat, of enemy.  It took some 
time to figure out that there was a connection between `Christ' and 
`Christian'.  When I accepted Jesus, I expected to be disowned.  To 
become a Christian meant to join the enemy.  I knew others would 
consider me a traitor.  At some level, I agreed, but was still prepared 
to pay this price.  Like Esau, I sold my birthright.  However, I made a 
better bargain.  He only got some stew, but I got the incomparable 
riches of knowing Christ.

As it turned out, my parents did not disown me.  I found out later that 
they were hoping it was a phase that I would grow out of.  By the time 
they had decided it wasn't a phase, they were sort of used to it.  They 
didn't disown me but they didn't completely accept the situation either.  
For example, they didn't come to my wedding because it was in a church.   
When I visited my grandmother in the hospital a few days before her 
death, she said to me, "As far as I'm concerned, you still are a Jew." 
What she meant was that she loved me and forgave me.  But I am not a 
Jew.  I am a Christian.  (I'll concede, one that likes chicken soup with 
matzoh balls.:-)) 

I do not keep kosher.  I do not celebrate the Sabbath on Saturday.  My 
sons are not circumcised.  But these things are true of some people who 
do consider themselves Jews.  It is not these rules that make people 
Jews; it is the heritage from the past.  I gave up the past.

This is why I find it hard to relate to Messianic Jews.  Their 
experience is unlike mine.  They still consider themselves Jews while 
following Jesus.  Some would even say that I *must* do so, too.  

I am at a stage of my life now where I would like to have a heritage.  
It was not something I valued very much when I gave it.  But I did have 
a sense that I was giving it for God.  It may have been a small 
sacrifice.  It may have been an unnecessary sacrifice.  But I gave it 
and do not want to ask for it back.

And while I don't have the heritage I was born with, I do have another.  
I am an outcast from the house of Israel, but I am a member of the 
Church.  One of the things I like about being a Catholic Christian is 
that it is rich in tradition.  It gives me a feeling of, once again, 
being rooted in the past. 

This is probably one of the reasons why I don't like it when people mess 
around with Christian traditions (for example, changing the name of 
Easter).  These traditions fill an important emotional need of mine.

I suppose the point of all this is that people shouldn't assume that all 
believers of Jewish background are the same.  For some `Jewish 
Christian' is a good name, for others it is an oxymoron. 

Jayne Kulikauskas/jayen@mmalt.guild.org

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20926
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: tuff to be a Christian?

In article <Apr.17.01.10.58.1993.2246@geneva.rutgers.edu> mdbs@ms.uky.edu (no name) writes:
>bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:

>>same.  Hey we can't do it, God himself inspires us to turn our lives 
>>over to him.  That's tuff and most people don't want to do it, to be a 
>				^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>real Christian would be something for the strong to persevere at.  But 
>
>	So you think it is easy to be a Muslim? Or be a Buddhist?
[good points on buddhism, etc. deleted]

just because one says christianity -- true christianity -- is hard to
follow faithfully does NOT mean that one discounts the validity and
difficulty of other religions.  i admire those of any religion who are
willing to make the kind of sacrifices and dedicate themselves
spiritually in the way you are talking about. 

[more deleted]
>And perhaps some more. But leave the crap in it out ("woman was created
>after man, to be his helper" etc).

do you think this is what christianity is all about?  not all
christians believe in this particular story literally.  it sounds
above like you are supporting a policy of "to each his own" -- here is
another example of that.  if it helps someone's faith to take every
word of the bible literally, i support and respect that, too.

>>time.  We don't rush it in one day, Christianity is your whole life.  
>>It is not going to church once a week, or helping poor people once in 
>>a while.  We box everything into time units.  Such as work at this 
>>time, sports, Tv, social life.  God is above these boxes and should be 
>
>	When ever I turn on my TV there is this Pat Robertson and
>other brain washers (Oh boy, what an act they put on!) with an
>1-800 number to turn in your pledges.
>God it seems is alive and well inside these boxes.

please don't judge all of christianity by one man.  the only man one
can truly judge all of christianity by is jesus (makes sense, right?).

i think his point about how we put our lives into little boxes is very
true -- what does your comment about robertson have to do with that?

>>carried with us into all these boxes that we have created for 
>>ourselves.  	  

>	Parting Question:
>		Would you have become a Christian if you had not
>been indoctrinated by your parents? You probably never learned about
>any other religion to make a comparative study. And therefore I claim
>you are brain washed.

i was raised agnostic -- my father was never baptised and was raised
atheist.  he is not an atheist because he found a close-mindedness
present in the viewpoint of his parents equal to the close-mindedness
he found in the viewpoint of the christians he came in contact with.
thus i was _free_ to choose how to live my life, and he supported the
decision i made to join the episcopal church, although he emphasized
to me that his respect for my beliefs should result in my not
intruding on his beliefs, ie, i should not try to convert him, as that
is his decision.  (please, no flames or advice on how to convert him!)
one of my good friends is hindi and i greatly respect her
beliefs and the culture surrounding her religion.  my best friend is
jewish and i have always held a profound resepct for the jewish
religion (chaim potok and isaac bashevis singer are two of my favorite
authors).  i really do not think you can make that kind of
generalization about how christians choose -- and i do mean CHOOSE--
their faith.  if they have not consciously accepted the faith in their
adult lives (which is what confirmation represents), THEN you can talk
about their being brainwashed.

vera
"if you choose not to decide,
you still have made a choice!"
	- rush, "freewill"

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20927
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: An agnostic's question

perhaps you can tell your friend that you feel pressured by his
continual discussions of this topic -- surely he doesn't feel you
should be _pressured_ into something you feel uncomfortable about
(since christianity should be a choice one should make on one's own).
please also realize that he is doing this out of friendship -- he
probably feels you are missing out on something great, and wants to
tell you about it.  but since you know where you can learn about
christianity, you can tell him that it is now up to you to make that
choice, and if the choice is no, you should be respected for that.
personally i believe that a christian's mission is just to be
christ-like, showing his/her own faith and happiness in that faith,
and make sure people know they are welcome to talk to you about it.  i
do not believe in imposing your beliefs upon others -- but then again
everyone's definitions of "imposing" may differ.  

i hope i have made myself clear....  if not, please correct me!
:) vera
*******************************************************************************
I am your CLOCK!     |  I bind unto myself today    | Vera Noyes
I am your religion!  |  the strong name of the	    | noye@midway.uchicago.edu
I own you!	     |  Trinity....		    | no disclaimer -- what
	- Lard	     |	- St. Patrick's Breastplate | is there to disclaim?
*******************************************************************************

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20928
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: Re: SSPX schism ?

Here is some material by Michael Davies on the subject of schism in
general and Archishop Lefebvre in particular.  He wrote it around
1990.  The first part of the two-part article was on the scandalous
activities of Archbishop Weakland (in this country), but I cut all
that.  And I pared down the rest to what was relevant.

Joe Buehler

...

Schism and Disobedience

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, schism consists primarily in a
refusal of submission to the Pope or communion with the members of the
Church united to him. On first sight it would appear that, whatever
the subjective motivation of the Archbishop, as discussed above, he
must be in a state of objective schism as he has refused to submit to
the Pope on a very grave matter involving his supreme power of
jurisdiction. However, standard Catholic textbooks of theology make it
clear that while all schisms involve disobedience not all acts of
disobedience are schismatic. If this were so, as was noted at the
beginning of this article, it would mean that the number of American
bishops who are not schismatic would not reach double figures.

The distinction between disobedience and schism is made very clear in
the article on schism in the very authoritative Dictionnaire de
Theologie Catholique. The article is by Father Yves Congar who is
certainly no friend of Archbishop Lefebvre.  He explains that schism
and disobedience are so similar that they are often confused. Father
Congar writes that schism involves a refusal to accept the existence
of legitimate authority in the Church, for example, Luther's rejection
of the papacy. Father Congar explains that the refusal to accept a
decision of legitimate authority in a particular instance does not
constitute schism but disobedience.  The Catholic Encyclopedia
explains that for a Catholic to be truly schismatic he would have to
intend "to sever himself from the Church as far as in him lies."  It
adds that "not every disobedience is schism; in order to possess this
character it must include besides the transgression of the command of
the superiors, a denial of their divine right to command."Not only
does Mgr. Lefebvre not deny the divine right of the Pope to command,
but he affirms repeatedly his recognition of the Pope's authority and
his intention of never breaking away from Rome. The Archbishop made
his attitude clear in the July/August 1989 issue of 30 Days: "We pray
for the Pope every day. Nothing has changed with the consecrations
last June 30. We are not sedevacantists. We recognize in John Paul II
the legitimate Pope of the Catholic Church. We don't even say that he
is a heretical Pope. We only say that his Modernist actions favor
heresy."

...

Intrinsically Schismatic?

The principal argument used by those claiming that Mgr. Lefebvre is in
schism is that the consecration of a bishop without a papal mandate is
an intrinsically schismatic act. A bishop who carries out such a
consecration, it is claimed, becomes ipso facto a schismatic. This is
not true. If such a consecration is an intrinsically schismatic act it
would always have involved the penalty of excommunication. In the 1917
Code of Canon Law the offence was punished only by suspension (see
Canon 2370 of the 1917 Code). Pope Pius XII had raised the penalty to
excommunication as a response to the establishment of a schismatic
church in China. The consecration of these illicit Chinese bishops
differed radically from the consecrations carried out by Mgr. Lefebvre
as the professed intention was to repudiate the authority of the Pope,
that is, to deny that he has the right to govern the Church, and the
illicitly consecrated Chinese bishops were given a mandate to exercise
an apostolic mission. Neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor any of the
bishops he has consecrated claim that they have powers of
jurisdiction. They have been consecrated solely for the purpose of
ensuring the survival of the Society by carrying out ordinations and
also to perform confirmations. I do not wish to minimize in any way
the gravity of the step take by Mgr. Lefebvre. The consecration of
bishops without a papal mandate is far more serious matter than the
ordination of priests as it involves a refusal in practice of the
primacy or jurisdiction belonging by divine right to the Roman
Pontiff. But the Archbishop could argue that the crisis afflicting the
Church could not be more grave, and that grave measures were needed in
response.

It appears to be taken for granted by most of the Archbishop's critics
that he was excommunicated for the offense of schism, and the Vatican
has certainly been guilty of fostering this impression.  There is not
so much as a modicum of truth in this allegation. The New Code of
Canon Law includes a section beginning with Canon 1364 entitled
"Penalties for Specific Offenses" (De Poenis in Singula Dicta). The
first part deals with "Offenses against Religion and the Unity of the
Church" (De Delictis contra Religionem et Ecclesiae Unitatem). Canon
1364 deals with the offense of schism which is, evidently, together
with apostasy and heresy, one of the three fundamental offenses
against the unity of the Church.

But the Archbishop was not excommunicated under the terms of this
canon or, indeed, under any canon involving an offense against
religion or the unity of the church. The canon cited in his
excommunication comes from the third section of "Penalties for
Specific Offenses" which is entitled "Usurpation of Ecclesial
Functions and Offenses in their Exercise" (De Munerum Ecclesiasticorum
Usurpatione Degue Delictis iniis Exercendis). The canon in question is
Canon 1382, which reads: "A bishop who consecrates someone bishop and
the person who receives such a consecration from a bishop without a
pontifical mandate incur an automatic (latae sententiae)
excommunication reserved to the Holy See."

The scandalous attempts to smear Archbishop Lefebvre with the offense
of schism are, then, contrary to both truth and charity. A comparable
smear under civil as opposed to ecclesiastical law would certainly
justify legal action for libel involving massive damages. An accurate
parallel would be to state that a man convicted of manslaughter had
been convicted of first degree murder.

I must stress that what I have written here is not the dubious opinion
of laymen unversed in the intricacies of Canon Law. Canon lawyers
without the least shred of sympathy for Mgr. Lefebvre have repudiated
the charge of schism made against him as totally untenable. Father
Patrick Yaldrini, Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law of the Institut
Catholique in Paris noted in the 4 July 1988 issue of Valeurs
actuelles that, as I have just explained, Mgr.  Lefebvre was not
excommunicated for schism but for the usurpation of an ecclesiastical
function. He added that it is not the consecration of a bishop which
constitutes schism but the conferral of an apostolic mission upon the
illicitly consecrated bishop. It is this usurpation of the powers of
the sovereign pontiff which proves the intention of establishing a
parallel Church.

Cardinal Rosalio Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the
Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, commented on the consecrations
in the 10 July 1988 issue of la Repubblica. It would be hard to
imagine a more authoritative opinion. The Cardinal wrote:

    The act of consecrating a bishop (without a papal mandate) is not
    in itself a schismatic act. In fact, the Code that deals with
    offenses is divided into two sections. One deals with offenses
    against religion and the unity of the Church, and these are
    apostasy, schism, and heresy. Consecrating a bishop with a
    pontifical mandate is, on the contrary, an offense against the
    exercise of a specific ministry. For example, in the case of the
    consecrations carried out by the Vietnamese Archbishop Ngo Dinh
    Thuc in 1976 and 1983, although the Archbishop was excommunicated
    he was not considered to have committed a schismatic act because
    there was no intention of a breach with the Church.

....

It is not simply unjust but ludicrous to suggest that in consecrating
bishops without a papal mandate Archbishop Lefebvre had the least
intent of establishing a schismatic church. He is not a schismatic and
will never be a schismatic. The Archbishop considers correctly that
the the Church is undergoing its worst crisis since the Arian heresy,
and that for the good of the Church it was necessary for him to
consecrate the four bishops to ensure the future of his Society. Canon
Law provides for just such a situation, and even if one believes that
the future of the Society could have been guaranteed without these
consecrations, the fact that the Archbishop believed sincerely that it
could not means, as Canon Law states clearly, that he has not incurred
excommunication. Furthermore, while the Vatican allows such prelates
as Archbishop Weakland to undermine the Faith with impunity it cannot
expect Catholics to pay the least attention to its sanctions against a
great and orthodox Archbishop whose entire life has been devoted to
the service of the Church and the salvation of souls.

Dr. Eric M. de Saventhem, President of the International Una Voce
Association, is one of the best informed laymen in the Church, and he
knows the Archbishop intimately. Dr. de Saventhem, like myself, has no
greater desire than to see a reconciliation between Mgr. Lefebvre and
the Holy See during the Archbishop's lifetime. A quotation from a
statement by Dr. de Saventhem which was published in the 15 February
1989 Remnant merits careful study:

    In retrospect, the road leading to the consecrations of 30 June
    appears more paved with grave Roman (and, unfortunately, also
    papal) omissions than with Lefebvrist "obstinancies." And from the
    eyes of an informed public this cannot be hidden by attempting to
    present the Archbishop's act of grave disobedience as an offense
    against the Faith!  It is said--today--that Mgr. Lefebvre has "an
    erroneous concept of Tradition." If this were so, Cardinal
    Ratzinger could not, on behalf of the Pope, have addressed to the
    Archbishop the following words in his letter of 28 July 1987:
    "Your ardent desire to safeguard Tradition by procuring for it
    'the means to live and prosper' testifies to your attachment to
    the Faith of all time... the Holy Father understands your concern
    and shares it."

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20929
From: kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko)
Subject: Re: Atheist's views on Christianity (was: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")

Jason Smith (jasons@atlastele.com) wrote:
 
: [ The discussion begins: why does the universe exist at all?  ]
 
: One of the Laws of Nature, specifying cause and effect seems to dictate 
: (at least to this layman's mind) there must be a causal event.  No
: reasonable alternative exists.

I would argue that causality is actually a property of spacetime; 
causes precede their effects. But if you claim that there must be
an answer to "how" did the universe (our spacetime)  emerge from 
"nothing", science has some good candidates for an answer.

I have always wondered why Christians use the "There are questions
science (or atheism) cannot answer" argument; I hope this is the
appropriate group to ask this question.

The most popular question is the question of origins. Why does the
universe exist, or anything, for that matter?

I think this question should actually be split into two parts, namely

1) Why is there existence? Why anything exists?

and

2) How did the universe emerge from nothing?

It is clear science has nothing to say about the first question. However,
is it a meaningful question, after all?

I would say it isn't. Consider the following:

A die-hard skeptic being (be it human or whatever) attempts to doubt
one's very existence. Since it is so easy to doubt everything else -
I cannot be _sure_ the world exists, it may be my mind fooling me -
can I ever be sure I exist?

However, it is only possible to exist or not to exist. (Someone
insert an appropriate Shakespeare quote here ;-) )

A being that does not exist cannot doubt one's existence.
A being that does exist can doubt one's existence, but this would be
pointless - the being would exist anyway.

Let us return to the original question: why? A being that does not
exist does not need any reasons for its non-existence. This being
is not _sure_ whether anything else exists but his mind, but let
us assume that the world exists independent of the mind (the objectivity
postulate). The question "why anything exists" can be countered by
demanding answer to a question "why there is nothing in nothingness,
or in non-existence". Actually, both questions turn out to be
devoid of meaning. Things that exist do, and things that don't exist
don't exist. Tautology at its best.

I seriously doubt God could have an answer to this question.

Some Christians I have talked to have said that actually, God is
Himself the existence. However, I see several problems with this
answer. First, it inevitably leads to the conclusion that God is
actually _all_ existence, good and evil, devils and angels, us and
them. This is pantheism, not Christianity.

Another answer is that God is the _source_ of all existence.
This sounds much better, but I am tempted to ask: Does God
Himself exist, then? If God is the source of His own existence,
it can only mean that He has, in terms of human time, always
existed. But this is not the same as the source of all existence.
This argument sounds like God does not exist, but meta-exists,
and from His meta-existent perspective, He created existence.
I think this is actually a nonsolution, a mere twist of words.

The best answer I have heard is that human reasoning is incapable
of understanding such questions. Being an atheist myself, I do not
accept such answers, since I do not have any other methods.

The second question: How did the universe emerge from nothing?
belongs to the domain of science, and I, for one, do not doubt the
question can be answered by its methods. Many cosmologists have
suggested that it is entirely possible for universes to emerge
from vacuum (this possibility has been suggested in a recent
Hawking biography; see also Lizhi & Shuxian: Creation of the Universe,
World Scientific, 1989). However, I think the sci groups are more
appropriate for discussions like this.
 
: As far as I can tell, the very laws of nature demand a "why".  That isn't
: true of something outside of nature (i.e., *super*natural).

This is not true. Science is a collection of models telling us "how",
not why, something happens. I cannot see any good reason why the "why"
questions would be bound only to natural things, assuming that the
supernatural domain exists. If supernatural beings exist, it is
as appropriate to ask why they do so as it is to ask why we exist.
 
: I believe the "genetic code" will be entirely deciphered in our lifetimes,
: but we will not see man convert entirely inert material into self sustaining, 
: reproducing life, *ever*.  (I've never been much of a prophet, though. I
: can't even *picture* New York in my mind 8^] ).  I don't believe *any*
: technology would be able to produce that necessary *spark* of life, despite
: having all of the parts available. Just my opinion.

This opinion is also called vitalism; namely, that living systems are
somehow _fundamentally_ different from inanimate systems. Do Christians
in general adopt this position? What would happen when scientists announce
they have created primitive life (say, small bacteria) in a lab?

There is a problem with your prophecy: artificial life has been created,
although not yet in a chemical form. Computer simulations of evolution
contain systems that are as much alive as any bacterium, although
their code is electronic, as well as their metabolism. See a recent book

Steven Levy: Artificial life - The Quest for a New Creation. Jonathan
Cape, London 1992.

Artificial chemical life is just around the corner - after all, no 
spark of life has been found to be necessary; living systems do not
violate any physical laws as we know them. 

: You don't mind if a few of us send up a prayer on your behalf during your
: research, do you?  After all, if we of Christ are deluding ourselves, you
: really have nothing to worry about, eh?

Exactly. This is why I think atheists should _not_ post any evangelical
atheist arguments to soc.religion groups, since people who seek to 
find peace in religions must be allowed to gather together. I would
normally have asked these questions in alt.atheism or talk.religion.misc,
but it seems many Christians do not read these groups. 

Petri

--
 ___. .'*''.*        Petri Pihko    kem-pmp@          Mathematics is the Truth.
!___.'* '.'*' ' .    Pihatie 15 C    finou.oulu.fi    Physics is the Rule of
       ' *' .* '*    SF-90650 OULU  kempmp@           the Game.
          *'  *  .*  FINLAND         phoenix.oulu.fi  -> Chemistry is The Game.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20930
From: atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez)
Subject: Re: A question that has bee bothering me.

wquinnan@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Malcusco) writes:

>	My problem with Science is that often it allows us to
>assume we know what is best for ourselves.  God endowed us
>with the ability to produce life through sexual relations,
>for example, but He did not make that availible to everyone.
>Does that mean that if Science can over-ride God's decision
>through alterations, that God wills for us to have the power
>to decide who should and should not be able to have 
>children?  Should men be allowed to have babies, if that
>is made possible.

  In a word, yes.  I don't believe that physical knowledge has a great deal of
impact on the power of God.  In the past, God gave us the ability to create
life through sexual relations.  Now, he is giving us the ability to create life
through in vitro fertilization.  The difference between the two is merely 
cosmetic, and even if we gain the ability to create universes we won't begin to
approach the glory of God.
  The power we are being given is a test, and I am sure that in many cases we
will use our new abilities unwisely.  But, people have been using sexuality
unwisely for millenia and I haven't heard an outcry to abolish it yet!
  No matter how far we extend our dominion over the physical world, we aren't
impinging on God's power.  It's only when we attempt to gain control of the
spiritual world, those things that can't be approached through science and 
logic, that we begin to interfere with God.

Alan Terlep				    "...and the scorpion says, 'it's 
Oakland University, Rochester, MI		in my nature.'"
atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu	

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20931
From: atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

phs431d@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:

>In article <Apr.13.00.08.07.1993.28379@athos.rutgers.edu>, aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker) writes:

>This is not true.  The athiest's position is that there is no PROOF of the
>existence of God.  As much as some people accept their Church, their priests
>or straight from their own scriptures as the "proof", this does not 
>satisfy atheists.

  You haven't fully explained the atheist position.  Many theists believe that
there is "no proof of the existence of God" but choose to believe in him
anyway.  I haven't yet found an argument for atheism that can't quickly be
broken down to unprovable assumptions.  This isn't a problem with me (everybody
needs to have a faith) but if you believe that you can provide a "purely 
logical" argument for the nonexistence of God, I'd really like to see it.

>Are you asking us to believe blindly?  You are trying to deny that part of
>us that makes us ask the question "Does God exist?" i.e. self-awareness and
>reason.  If we do not use our ability to reason we become as ignorant
>as the other animals on this earth.  Does God want us to be like that?

>You are right that science and reason cannot PROVE anything.  However, if
>we do not use them we can only then believe on FAITH alone.  And since
>we can only use faith, why is one picture of "God" (e.g. Hinduism) any less
>valid than another (e.g. Christianity)?

  Ahh...but when you use science and reason, you have faith in certain beliefs
of the scientific method--for example:

  The physical laws of the universe are stable.
  Our observations of reality are a valid basis for a determination of truth.
  Objective reality exists.
  Logical argument is a valid way to answer all questions.
  
  Can you prove any of these?

Alan Terlep				    "...and the scorpion says, 'it's 
Oakland University, Rochester, MI		in my nature.'"
atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu	

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20932
From: atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez)
Subject: Re: Being right about messiahs

Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca (Desiree Bradley) writes:

>And, from my meagre knowledge of the Bible, it seems that Christians have
>been hard on the Jews of Christ's day for being cautious about accepting
>somebody that their religious authorities didn't accept as the Messiah.

  This is a good point.  Christ was hardly the only person who claimed to be
the Messiah--in fact, a number of "Messiahs" were active in the area from the
time of the Roman conquest to after the fall of Masada.
  Many of the statements made by the apostles--especially their repeated
attempts to give Jesus a sword (give him military power) point to the fact that
they didn't realize the true nature of his reign until after the fact.  Many of
the statements in the Bible can be seen as being oriented toward explaining 
this new definition of "Messiah" to the Jews who were being preached to.

Alan Terlep				    "...and the scorpion says, 'it's 
Oakland University, Rochester, MI		in my nature.'"
atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu	

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20933
From: atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez)
Subject: Atheists and Hell


  Hello,

  I have seen two common threads running through postings by atheists on the 
newsgroup, and I think that they can be used to explain each other.  
Unfortunately I don't have direct quotes handy...

1) Atheists believe that when they die, they die forever.

2) A god who would condemn those who fail to believe in him to eternal death
   is unfair.

  I don't see what the problem is!  To Christians, Hell is, by definition, 
eternal death--exactly what atheists are expecting when they die.  There's no
reason Hell has to be especially awful--to most people, eternal death is bad
enough.
  Literal interpreters of the Bible will have a problem with this view, since
the Bible talks about the fires of Hell and such.  Personally, I don't think
that people in Hell will be thrust into flame any more than I expect to Jesus
with a double-edged sword issuing from his mouth--I treat both these statements
as metaphorical.

Alan Terlep				    "...and the scorpion says, 'it's 
Oakland University, Rochester, MI		in my nature.'"
atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu	
Rushing in where angels fear to tread.				--Jody

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20934
From: norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak)
Subject: Re: tuff to be a Christian?

In article <Apr.17.01.10.58.1993.2246@geneva.rutgers.edu>, mdbs@ms.uky.edu (no name) writes:
|>
|> 	Parting Question:
|> 		Would you have become a Christian if you had not
|> been indoctrinated by your parents? You probably never learned about
|> any other religion to make a comparative study. And therefore I claim
|> you are brain washed.

You write as if no-one ever became a Christian except people from
Christian families.  This is not true, as quite a few people on this
group can attest (including me). 

-- 
Richard Aquinas Chonak, norris@mit.edu, Usenet addict, INTP
Seeking job change: sys-mgr: VAX, SIS, COBOL, DTR; progr: UNIX, C/++, X

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20935
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5

[In response to some of the discussions on the Sabbath, Andrew Byler
commented that if we really followed sola scriptura we would worship
on Saturday -- the change to Sunday was a law made by the Church, and
we don't acknowledge its authority to make laws.  I noted that
Protestants do not consider Sunday worship a law.  --clh]

He was not referring to the FAQ but to the five Sabbath Admissions posted
on the bible study group.  This is what prompted someone to send the FAQ
to me.

>  The argument against the Sabbath is
> that it is part of the ceremonial law, and like the rest of the
n> ceremonial law is not binding on Christians.

You cannot show, from scripture, that the weekly Sabbath is part of the
ceremonial laws.   Before you post a text in reply investigate its context.

> If you accept that
> the Sabbath is not binding on Christians, then the day of worship
> falls into the category of items on which individual Christians or
> (since worship is by its nature a group activity) churches are free to
> decide.
> 
Can the churches also decide what is and is not sin?  Interesting.  Where
there is no divine imperative of course we must establish rules of
operation.  But we cannot be as creative with what God has explicitly
spoken on.

Darius

[Again, in the normal Protestant interpretation, Sunday is not a law,
and worshipping on another day is not a sin.  Churches are free to
decide on the day they will meet, just as they are free to decide on
the hour.  It would not be a sin to worship on some other day, but if
you belong to a church that worships on Sunday and you show up on
Monday, you will probably worship alone...  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20936
From: gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham)
Subject: Poem


          The Sophomore
          (Romans 1:22)

The sophomore says, ``What is truth?''
and turns to bask in the admiration of his peers.

How modern how daring how liberating
How modern how daring how liberating
they chant

The sophomore, being American
Doesn't know
That his ``question''

   modern
       skeptical
           cynical

Was asked before, by a

   modern
       skeptical
           cynical
   urbane cosmopolitan

Politician (appointed not elected)
Who happened to live two thousand years ago.

Like many politicians he cared

    Less about ideals
         than results

    Less about ends
         than means

    Less about anything
         than keeping his job
              (and his head).

We might call him
A bit brutal
Though `firm' would be kinder
(And no doubt Stalin, who let nobody go, laughed at his laxness)
He didn't like his job; perhaps he no longer hoped for better
(Nor feared worse, except regarding his head).

And when these wily Jews
With their heads-I-win, tails-you-lose
     conundrums
Brought forth their madman,
His first impulse was to play the Roman:
``I find nothing wrong with him,
  See to it yourselves.''

But when they mentioned `King' and `Caesar'
His heart froze.

If he killed their madman
    He'd start a riot
         and lose his job
             (and his head)

If he saved the King of the Jews
    He'd piss off Caesar
         and lose his job
             (and his head)

And when his wife told him to have
   Nothing to do with the righteous lout
She didn't tell him anything
   He hadn't already figured out.

So he punted.

``Not my jurisdiction!  Take him to see Herod!''
(who just happened to be in town....)

Herod appreciated the courtesy
But wasn't worried
        And sent the sharp-tongued fool
     (Who suddenly didn't have much to say,
    funny how people lose it under pressure....)
  back
In the attire proper
  to his Royal State.

His ass is covered---if Herod has no problem,
Caesar certainly won't.  The fool can be king
of whatever world he wants
as long as it's not Caesar's.

``I'm letting him go,'' he said with a shout.
(Looks like he'll last this one out....)

The crowd's reaction puzzled him.
  They really wanted him dead.
They didn't want the King of the Jews,
  They wanted Barabbas instead
(And, as Josephus records, they got him)

Oh well, he thought,
They all look the same to me.
And we'll get Barabbas next time.

And if I can get them to say
   ``We have no king but Caesar!''
   By killing a madman,
Hell, I'll kill ten a day.

And then Pilate had his fun
  A little joke
    Short
      To the point
        Trilingual

And all this
Went as it always does
When someone gets caught
In the gears of government

And there's a scientific explanation
     (no doubt)
For the superstitious rumors
     (persisting to this day)
That it didn't all end
With a tomb
and a Roman squadron on guard.

Our sophomore doesn't know about this
He doesn't recognize his kindred spirit
(Or truth either, as he admits).

I guess we haven't learned much
in two thousand years.




--
-Fred Gilham    gilham@csl.sri.com
"Peace is only better than war when it's not hell too.  War being hell
makes sense."
               -Walker Percy, THE SECOND COMING

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20937
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: Assurance of Hell

I dreamed that the great judgment morning had dawned,
     and the trumpet had blown.
I dreamed that the sinners had gathered for judgment
     before the white throne.
Oh what weeping and wailing as the lost were told of their fate.
They cried for the rock and the mountains.
They prayed, but their prayers were too late.
The soul that had put off salvation, 
"Not tonight I'll get saved by and by.
 No time now to think of ....... religion," 
Alas, he had found time to die.
And I saw a Great White Throne.

Now, some have protest by saying that the fear of hell is not good for
motivation, yet Jesus thought it was.  Paul thought it was.  Paul said, 
"Knowing therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men."

Today, too much of our evangelism is nothing but soft soap and some of
it is nothing but evangelical salesmanship.  We don't tell people anymore, that
there's such a thing as sin or that there's such a place as hell.  

As Jayne has said, this doesn't mean we have to come on so strong so as to hit
people over the head with a baseball bat.  Yet the fact remains, there is a
place called hell.  A place so fearful that God died to save us from having to
experience it.  Whatever you or I, as Christians, do, we should do whatever we
can to win people to the Lord, if for no other reason, to keep them from going
to "outer darkness.".  

Jesus, in Mt. 25, tells us that He didn't prepare hell for people.  He prepared
it for the Devil and his angels.  No where in the Bible do I read -anywhere,
that God predestined anybody to go to hell.  D.L. Moody use to say that the
elect are the "whosoever will" and the nonelect are the "whosoever wont's." 
Whether or not that's theologically sound, I couldn't defend, but its
practical.  Jesus said to the people of Israel, "Ye would not."  

Now, some of you may not be students of the Bible, heck -some of you may not be
Christians.  Have you ever said to somebody, "I don't believe in hell.  I
believe in the religion of Jesus."  But did you know that Jesus talked more
about hell than He did about heaven!  "Oh I believe in the religion of the
sermon on the mount."  You find hell taught by Jesus in the sermon on the
mount.  You'll read that Jesus talked about the tree being cast into the fire. 
Several times he talks about hell and about judgment.  In fact, over and over
in the synoptics, Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus talks about hell.  Not Isaiah. 
Not Moses.  Not John the Baptist, though he did, but Jesus, the Son of God. 
The great Beloved One preached about hell because He loved people and didn't
want to see them go there.

Now, if there is no hell then Jesus preached in vain.  It was our Lord Jesus,
not some angry Baptist preacher, that said, "where the worm never dies, and
where the fire never goes out."  Jesus said that.  It was Jesus who called hell
a "furnace of fire."  It was Jesus that used the word, "condemnation."  "And
this is the condemnation, that men love darkness rather than light because
their deeds are evil.  Jesus said that.  

How can we get it across to you that a loving, dying Jesus preached about hell?
 Not only that, but He went through hell.  That's what Calgary was all about. 
When my Lord was on the cross, darkness fell.  He called hell, "outer
darkness."  

Do you have this idea that hell is a place where the gamblers are gambling over
here, the drunks are getting drunk over there, and the prostitutes are
prostituting their bodies over there?  That's not what hell is.  Hell's not a
party.  There's no fellowship there.  He called it "outer darkness."  "Outer"
-away from God.  "Darkness" -God is light.  

No when He was on the cross, He was made sin for you and for me.  God treated
Jesus the way sinners have to be treated.  That's is a sobering thought.  As my
son would say, an "awesome" thought.  

"My God, My God why hast Thou forsaken me?"  Hell is isolation.  There's no
fellowship in hell.  There's no friendship in hell.  There's no loving embrace
in hell.  There's no hand shake in hell.  There's no word of encouragement in
hell.  

"I thirst."  It goes much deeper than physical thirst.  Hell is eternal craving
with no satisfaction.  The man whose life was lived for drugs, will crave it
eternally.  The man whose life was lived for the lust of a woman's body, will
crave it eternally -and not be satisfied.  One theologian has put it this way
and I think it deserves merit.  What is hell?  Hell is just the kind of
environment that matches the internal condition of the lost.  

In a recent post, I was trying to remember the founder of The Word of Life
ministries.  I've remembered his name, Jack Wertzen, and found that the
illustration that I gave wasn't his.  His illustration was that he was talking
to his barber and his barber's wife and daughter had just recently been saved
and he was commenting about it to Jack.  "They sing these songs and read Bible
verses, and their praising this and that -I can't stand it!  Jack, do you think
God would send me to hell?"  Jack answered by saying, "Yes I think he would!" 
Of course the barber said, "What do you mean by that."  "Well if you can't
stand living at home with your wife and daughter who sing hymns and praises to
God now, what would you do in heaven where they'll do it for eternity?  You'd
be miserable.  Because God loves you, He'd put you where it would match what
you really are."   It makes a man think.

The crucifixion of Jesus Christ is a fact that necessitates the eternal
existence of hell because on the cross He performed an eternal act.  Don't ask
me how, I don't know.  But He is God and He is the infinite/eternal and when He
died, He died an infinite/eternal death.  It is by that eternal act that He
purchased eternal life for the "whosoever wills."  He suffered eternal
judgment.  

A lot of people would like to detour around hell by saying "Everybody is going
to be saved eventually."  -universalism.  My Bible says no, He'll separate
them.  The sheep from the goats.  ".After you die there's a probationary period
in which God prepares you for heaven."  No, my Bible says that "It is appointed
unto men once to die and then comes judgment."  Some of the cultist believe in
annihilation.  After you die, sssswish.  Just like a mosquito you're squished
out.  No, in Rev we are told that their is eternal existence in hell just as
there is in heaven.  

I don't enjoy making these kind of statements and maybe you don't enjoy
listening to them, but we have to preach the entire Word of God.  -There is a
place called hell.  If I could give one verse of Scripture that could give any
hope that people aren't going there, I'd give it to you, but I haven't found
it.  That fact that there is a place called hell, the fact that our God is a
God of holiness and must judge sin, the fact that He has made us the kind of
creatures we are and therefore we're responsible, the fact that He has placed
us in a "uni"verse that has purpose and design behind it, the fact that sin is
such an awful thing and the fact that God Himself went through hell to save us
from hell leads us to two applications.

1)  As I've already mentioned.  If you are a Christian, you must worn others. 
Its not good enough to stop and fix their flat tire and not tell them that just
around the bend the bridge is out.  "Knowing therefore the terror of Lord, we
persuade men."

2)  If you haven't accepted Jesus are your Savior, you're taking an awful
chance.  As I say to the Jehovah Witnesses (who no longer frequent my door), if
you are right and I am wrong, then I will have lived a good life and will die
and cease to exist, but if I am right and you are wrong, then you will die and
suffer eternal damnation.  I don't mean to make fun at this point, but its like
Dirty Harry said, "You've got to ask yourself, 'Do I feel lucky?'  Well do
you?"  "A man's got to know his limitations."  Don't be one of the "whosoever
wont's."  

"Because while I was yet a sinner, He died for me."
"There's no greater love than this, that a man lay down his life for another."
--Rex
 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20938
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5

I find it interesting that cls never answered any of the questions posed. 
Then he goes on the make statements which make me shudder.  He has
established a two-tiered God.  One set of rules for the Jews (his people)
and another set for the saved Gentiles (his people).  Why would God
discriminate?  Does the Jew who accepts Jesus now have to live under the
Gentile rules.

God has one set of rules for all his people.  Paul was never against the
law.  In fact he says repeatedly that faith establishes rather that annuls
the law.  Paul's point is germane to both Jews and Greeks.  The Law can
never be used as an instrument of salvation.  And please do not combine
the ceremonial and moral laws in one.

In Matt 5:14-19 Christ plainly says what He came to do and you say He was
only saying that for the Jews's benefit.  Your Christ must be a
politician, speaking from both sides of His mouth.  As Paul said, "I have
not so learned Christ."  Forget all the theology, just do what Jesus says.
 Your excuses will not hold up in a court of law on earth, far less in
God's judgement hall.

Darius

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20939
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5

> [Again, in the normal Protestant interpretation, Sunday is not a law,
> and worshipping on another day is not a sin.  Churches are free to
> decide on the day they will meet, just as they are free to decide on
> the hour.  It would not be a sin to worship on some other day, but if
> you belong to a church that worships on Sunday and you show up on
> Monday, you will probably worship alone...  --clh]

I totally agree with that sentiment.  But why do you have to go further
and advocate violating what God has set up?  That is the question which
you have not answered from Scripture.  You can worship on every day, as
long as you work.  But God says the Sabbath is all mine.

Darius

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20940
From: jkellett@netcom.com (Joe Kellett)
Subject: Re: Hell

In article <Apr.10.05.33.44.1993.14422@athos.rutgers.edu> mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:
>
>In a short poem ("God in His mercy made / the fixed pains of Hell"),
>C. S. Lewis expresses an idea that I'm sure was current among others,
>but I haven't be able to find its source:
>
>that even Hell is an expression of mercy, because God limits the amount
>of separation from Him, and hence the amount of agony, that one can
>achieve.
>

I have also heard it called an expression of mercy, because Heaven would be
far more agonizing for those who had rejected God.

-- 
Joe Kellett
jkellett@netcom.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20941
From: trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre)
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell

atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu  writes:

>   Hello,

>   I have seen two common threads running through postings by atheists on
> the newsgroup, and I think that they can be used to explain each other.  
> Unfortunately I don't have direct quotes handy...

> 1) Atheists believe that when they die, they die forever.

True to a point.  If you were to ask a Buddhist atheist...

> 2) A god who would condemn those who fail to believe in him to eternal death
>    is unfair.

>   I don't see what the problem is!  To Christians, Hell is, by definition, 
> eternal death--exactly what atheists are expecting when they die.  There's no
> reason Hell has to be especially awful--to most people, eternal death is bad
> enough.

Actually, yes and no, Hell is eternal death.  Actually, the way 
     I've had it related to me, it's more of an eternal damnation,
     where sinners will feel the licking flames of Hell.  If I
     supposedly can feel these flames, I would assume I'm still
     alive, but suffering and away from God.

>   Literal interpreters of the Bible will have a problem with this view, since
> the Bible talks about the fires of Hell and such.  Personally, I don't think
> that people in Hell will be thrust into flame any more than I expect to Jesus
> with a double-edged sword issuing from his mouth--I treat both these state-
> ments as metaphorical.

I believe Jehovah's Witnesses have a similar view, where the body
     sleeps for ever...

I don't have a problem with being condemned to Hell either.  The
     way I see it, if God wants to punish me for being honest in
     my skepticism (that is, for saying he doesn't exist), He
     certainly wouldn't be changing His nature.  Besides, I would
     rather spend an eternity in Hell than be beside God in Heaven
     knowing even one man would spend his "eternal life" being
     scorched for his wrongdoings...

Stephen

    _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   _/       _/    * Atheist
   _/        _/    _/   _/ _/ _/ _/     * Libertarian
  _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   _/   _/  _/      * Pro-individuality
       _/  _/     _/  _/       _/       * Pro-responsibility
_/_/_/_/  _/      _/ _/       _/ Jr.    * and all that jazz...

-- 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20942
From: s0612596@let.rug.nl (M.M. Zwart)
Subject: catholic church poland

Hello,

I'm writing a paper on the role of the catholic church in Poland after 1989. 
Can anyone tell me more about this, or fill me in on recent books/articles(
in english, german or french). Most important for me is the role of the 
church concerning the abortion-law, religious education at schools,
birth-control and the relation church-state(government). Thanx,

                                                 Masja,
"M.M.Zwart"<s0612596@let.rug.nl>

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20943
From: jcj@tellabs.com (jcj)
Subject: Re: proof of resurection

In article <Apr.16.23.15.09.1993.1823@geneva.rutgers.edu> smayo@world.std.com (Scott A Mayo) writes:
>...
>I think Christianity goes down in flames if the resurrection is
>ever disproved. ...

Didn't Paul write that if the Resurrection is not true, we are the
biggest fools of all?  However, whether you believe in Christ or not,
His teachings (e.g. love your brotherman as yourself), even if only 
followed at a secular level, could do a great deal to alleviate some of 
the problems we see today in the world.  Even when I was a rabid atheist 
I couldn't deny that.

Jeff Johnson
jcj@tellabs.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20944
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Subject: Daily Verse

Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap
a harvest if we do not give up. 

Galatians 6:9

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20945
From: bruce@liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Subject: Re: sex education

Joe Kellett (jkellett@netcom.com) wrote:
[bits deleted]
> I am told that Planned Parenthood/SIECUS-style "values-free" methods, that
> teach contraceptive technology and advise kids how to make "choices",
> actually _increase_ pregnancy rates. I posted a long article on this a while
> back and will be happy to email a copy to any who are interested. [...] 

> The same research produced the results that abstinence-related curricula
> were found to _decrease_ pregnancy rates in teens.  I assume that it is
> reasonable to assume that the AIDS rate will fluctuate with the pregnancy
> rate.

I'd be fascinated to see such evidence, please send me your article!
On the negative side however, I suspect that any such simplistic link
    abstinence-education => decreased pregnancy,
    contraceptive-education => increased pregnancy
is false.  The US, which I'd guess has one of the largest proportion of 
"non-liberal" sex education in the western world also has one of the highest
teenage pregnancy rates.  (Please correct me if my guess is wrong.)

--
Bruce Stephens     bruce@liverpool.ac.uk

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20946
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Certainty and Arrogance

In article <Apr.17.01.11.29.1993.2278@geneva.rutgers.edu>
kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:

>Someone called `REXLEX' has claimed that there IS a way out of the loop, but
>he did not bother to explain what it was, preferring instead to paraphrase
>Sartre, ramble about Wittgenstein, and say that the conclusion of my argument
>leads to relativism.

I will answer this as I find time.

>
>`REXLEX' suggested that people read _He is There and He is Not Silent_, by
>Francis Schaeffer.  I didn't think very highly of it, but I think that
>Mr Schaeffer is grossly overrated by many Evangelical Christians.  Somebody
>else might like it, though, so don't let my opinion stop you from reading it.
>
>If someone is interested in my opinion, I'd suggest _On Certainty_, by
>Ludwig Wittgenstein.
>
>
>Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu
>"If any substantial number of  [ talk.religion.misc ]  readers read some
> Wittgenstein, 60% of the postings would disappear.  (If they *understood*
> some Wittgenstein, 98% would disappear. :-))" -- Michael L Siemon
>

Notice what I said about this book.  I called it "Easy reading."  The reason I
dropped philosphy as my major was because I ran into too many pharisaical
Simon's.  I don't know how many walking encyclopedia's I ran across in
philosphy classes.  The problem isn't in knowing sooooo much more than your
average lay person, the problem comes when you become puffed up about it. 
Schaeffer is just fine for the average lay person.  That was who he was
writting to.  I suppose that you would have criticised John that his gospel was
to simple.  I've talked with Schaeffer one on one.  I've been in lectures with
the man when he was being drilled by philosphy students and prof's from secular
as well as Christian universities. (ND alone would fill both those catagories) 
His answers were enough that the prof's themselves often were taken back and
caused to re-think what their question was.  I saw this time and time again at
different open forums.  So yes, Schaeffers books are by in large, well,
simplistic.  It certainly isn't grad level reading.  But we must get off our
high horses when it comes to recommended reading.  Do you seriously think most
people would get through the first chapter of Wittgenstein?  I may have more to
say about this secular scientist at another time.

Also, one must finally get beyond the doubt caused by *insistent*
inquisitiveness.  One cannot live his life constantly from a cartisian doubt
base.  

Look, the Christian wholeheartedly supports genuine rationality.  But we must
add a qualification to give this balance.  Christianity is second to none in
keeping reason in its place.  We never know the value of a thing until we know
its limits.  Put unlimited value on something and in the end you will exhaust
it of all value!

THis is why Xianity is thoroughly rational but not the least bit rationalistic.
 It also explains the curious fact that it is rationalism, and not Christian
faith, which leads to irrationality.  If we forget the limits of a thing, we
fly in the face of reality and condem ourselves to learn the simple ironic
lesson of life: 

"More without limits is less;  less with limits is more."  

Or as I have so often stated it, freedom without form soon becomes form w/o
freedom.

Let's put it another way.  The rationality of faith is implacably opposed to
absurdity but has no quarrel with mystery. Think about that.  It can tell the
difference between the two if you will let it.  Christianity's contention with
rationalism is not that it has too much reason in it, but that it has very
little else.  When a Christian comes to faith his understanding and his trust
go hand in hand, but as he continues in faith his trust may sometimes be called
to go on by itself without his understanding.

This is where the principle of suspended judgment applies.  At such time if the
Christian faith is to be itself and let God be God, it must suspend judgment
and say, "Father I do not understand you but I trust you."  Now don't read all
your objections of me into that statement.  I wasn't saying I do not understand
you at all, but I trust you anyway." It means that "I do not understand You *in
this situation* but I do understand *why I trust You* anyway"  Therefore I can
trust that you understand even though I do not. The former is a mystery
unrelieved by rationality and indistinguishable from absurdity.  The latter is
a statement of rationality of faith walking hand in hand with the mystery of
Faith.  So.... the principle of suspended judgment is not irrational.  It is
not a leap of faith but a walk of faith.  As believers we cannot always know
why, but we canalways know why we trust God who knows why and this makes all
the difference.

Now, there is one obvious snag to all this and this is where I have parted
company with philosophy- what is eminently reasonable in theory is a rather bit
more difficult in practice.  In practice the pressure of mystery acts on faith
like the insistent "whying" of a 3 year old.  It isn't just that we would like
to know what we do not know but that we feel we *must* know what we cannot
know.  The one produces frustration because curiosity is denied; the other
leads to genuine anguish.  More specifically the poorer our understanding is in
coming to faith the more necessary it will be to understand everything after
coming to faith.  If we do not know why we trust God, then we will always need
to know exactly what God is doing in order to trust him.  Failing to grasp
that, we may not be able to trust him, for anything we do not understand may
count decisevely against what we are able to trust.  

If, on the other hand, we do know why we trust God, we will be able to trust
him in situations where we do not understand what He is doing. (Too many Xian
leaders teach as if the Christian had a window in the back of his head which
allows for understanding at every foot fall)  For what God is doing may be
ambiguous, but it will not be inherently contradictory!  It may be mystery to
us, but mystery is only inscrutable; what would be insufferable is absurdity.
And that my friend, was the conclusion of Nietzche both in theory and in
practice.   

--Rex

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20947
From: mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server)
Subject: Re: phone number of wycliffe translators UK

>  I'm concerned about a recent posting about WBT/SIL.  I thought they'd
>pretty much been denounced as a right-wing organization involved in
>ideological manipulation and cultural interference, including Vietnam
>and South America. A commission from Mexican Academia denounced them in
>1979 as " a covert political and ideological institution used by the
>U.S. govt as an instrument of control, regulation, penetration, espionage and
>repression."
>  My concern is that this group may be seen as acceptable and even
>praiseworthy by readers of soc.religion.christian. It's important that
>Christians don't immediately accept every "Christian" organization as
>automatically above reproach.
> 
>                                                                  mp

Good heavens, you mean my good friend Wes Collins, who took his wife and two 
small children into the jungles of Guatemala, despite dangers from primitive 
conditions and armed guerillas, so that the indigenous people groups their 
could have the Bible in their native languages--the young man who led Bible 
studies in our church, who daily demonstrated and declared his deep abiding 
faith in the Lord of Love--you mean he really was a sneaky imperialistic *SPY* 
whose _real_ reason for going was to exploit and oppress the ignorant and 
unsuspecting masses?  Imagine my surprise!  I never would have thought it of 
him.

How was this terrible deceit discovered?  What exactly was the "cultural 
interference" they were caught committing?  Attempting to persuade the locals 
that their ancestral gods were false gods, and their sacrifices (including 
human sacrifices in some cases) were vain?  Destroying traditional lifestyles 
by introducing steel tools, medical vaccines, and durable clothes?  Oh and by 
the way, who did the denouncing?

I am terribly shocked to hear that my friend Wes, who seemed so nice, was 
really such a deceitful tool of the devil.  Please provide me with specific 
documentation on this charge.  There is some risk that I may not believe it 
otherwise.

- Mark

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20948
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: Hell_2:  Black Sabbath

[In looking through my files this weekend, I ran across some lyrics from
various rock groups that have content.  Here are two from Black Sabbath's
"Master of Reality".  I'll say this much for the music of the '60's and early
'70's, at least they asked questions of significance.  Jethro Tull is another
to asked and wrote about things that caused one to wonder. --Rex] 

AFTER FOREVER

Have you ever thought about your soul--
     can it be saved?
Or perhaps you think that when you're dead
     you just stay in you grave.
Is God just a thought within you read in a book
     when you were at school?
When you think about death 
     Do you lose your breath
     Or do you keep your cool?

Would you like to see the Pope on the end of a rope?
Do you think he's a fool?
Well I have seen the truth.  Yes I have seen the light
     and I've changed my ways.
And I'll be prepared 
     When you're lonely and scared
     at the end of your days.

Could it be you're afraid of what your friends might say
If they knew you believed in God above?
They should realize before they criticise
That God is the only way to love. 

Is your mind so small that you have to fall
In with the pack wherever they run?
Will you still sneer when death is near
And say they may as well worship the sun?

I think it was true -it was people like you
     that crucified Christ.
I think it is sad the opinion you had
     was the only one voiced.
Will you be so sure when your day is near
     to say you don't believe?
You had the chance but you turned it down
     now you can't retrieve.
Perhaps you'll think before you say that God is dead & gone
Open your eyes, just realize that He is the one.
The only one who can save you now from all this sin and hate.
Or will you still jeer at all you hear?
Yes!  I think it's too late.


LORD OF THIS WORLD

You're searching for your mind don't know where to start.
Can't find the key to fit the lock on your heart.
You think you know but you are never quite sure
Your soul is ill but you will not find a cure.
Your world was made for you by someone above
But you choose evil ways instead of love.
You made me master of the world where you exist
The soul I took from you was not even missed.
Lord of the world,
Evil Possessor,
Lord of this world,
He's now your confessor!
You think you're innocent -you've nothing to fear
You don't know me, you say, but isn't it clear?
You turned to me in all your worldly
    greed and pride.
But will you turn to me when it your turn to die?

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20949
From: Christopher.S.Weinberger@williams.edu (Gib)
Subject: Re: Divine providence vs. Murphy's Law

In article <Apr.19.05.13.28.1993.29224@athos.rutgers.edu> rolfe@junior.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe) writes:
>Romans 8:28 (RSV)   We know that in everything God works for good with those 
>who love him, who are called according to his purpose. 
>Murphy's Law:  If anything can go wrong, it will.
>We are all quite familiar with the amplifications and commentary on
>Murphy's Law.  But how do we harmonize that with Romans 8:28?  For that
>matter, how appropriate is humor contradicted by Scripture?

	Both Christians and non-Christians laugh at this quote because
it exaggerates something we all feel, but know is not true.  Us
Christians just KNOW that a little better!    :)



			In God we trust!


			-Christopher


			email @ 96csw@williams.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20950
From: tbrent@bank.ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent)
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell

In article <Apr.19.05.14.08.1993.29279@athos.rutgers.edu> atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez) writes:

>  I don't see what the problem is!  To Christians, Hell is, by definition, 
>eternal death--exactly what atheists are expecting when they die.  There's no
>reason Hell has to be especially awful--to most people, eternal death is bad
>enough.
>  Literal interpreters of the Bible will have a problem with this view, since
>the Bible talks about the fires of Hell and such.  Personally, I don't think
>that people in Hell will be thrust into flame any more than I expect to Jesus
>with a double-edged sword issuing from his mouth--I treat both these statements
>as metaphorical.

Phew! That takes a load off. I don't want to live forever.  I wish
most Christians held this view.  You can't walk across campus in
spring without being assailed by fire-and-brimstone preachers.  I
really think the metaphor should be limited, at least with respect to
teaching our children.  It's criminal to put these ideas into a young
and trusting mind.  Besides, why not rely on the positive aspects of
your religion to win their faith?
 
-Tim 

 ______________________________________________________________________________
|				|				       	       |
|       Timothy J. Brent        |   A man will come to know true happiness,    |
|   BRENT@bank.ecn.purdue.edu   |   only when he accepts that he is but a      |
|=========$$$$==================|   small part of an infinite universe.	       |
|       PURDUE UNIVERSITY       |			  	   -Spinoza    |
| MATERIALS SCIENCE ENGINEERING |			 	 [paraphrased] |
|_______________________________|______________________________________________|
________________________________________________________________________________

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20951
From: johnsd2@rpi.edu (Dan Johnson)
Subject: Re: intolerance - eternal life - etc

I apologize if this article is slightly confusing, and late. The origonal
draft didn't make it through the moderators quote-screens. So I did
violence to it, but if you remember the article I am responding
to it should still make sence.

In article 1850@geneva.rutgers.edu, jsledd@ssdc.sas.upenn.edu (James Sledd) writes:
>Hi Xian Netters,  God bless you

What, no hello for heathan netters?

I feel all left out now. :(

[deletia- table of content, intro, homosexuality]

>
>INCREDIBLY CHOPPED UP POST

[deletia- incorrect attributions]

Uh, you have your attributions wrong, you were responding
to my article, so Dan Johnson should be the 1st one.

>In article 28388@athos.rutgers.edu, jayne@mmalt.guild.org 
>(Jayne Kulikauskas) writes:

[deletia- no free gifts speil nuked by moderator fiat.]

>I find that I am dissatisfied with the little purposes that we can
>manufacture for ourselves.  Little in the cosmic sense.

Ah, in the _cosmic_ sence.. but who lives in the cosmic sence?
Not me! Cosmicly, we don't even exist for all practical purposes.
I can hardly use the Cosmic Sence Of Stuff as a guide to life.
It would just say: "don't bother."

Luckily for mortals, there are many sences of scale you can talk
about. In a human sence, you can have big purposes.

>  Even the
>greatest of the great pharos are long gone, the pyramids historical
>oddities being worn down by the wind, eventually to be turned into dust.

But the influence of Aristotle, Confucious, Alexander, Ceasar and
countless others is still with us, although their works have perished.

But they have changed to course of history, and while humanity exists,
their deeds cannot be said to have come to nothing, even if they
are utterly forgotten.

>Mankind itself will one day perish.

One day, surely. (well, unless you believe in the Second Coming, which
I do not)

But in that time we can make a difference.

> Without some interconnectedness
>that transcends the physical, without God, it is all pointless in the
>end.

In the end. But it must be the end; until then, there is all the
point you can muster. And when that end comes, there will be nobody
to ask, "Gee, I don't think James Sledd's deeds are gonna make
much of a difference, ulitmately, ya know?".

But they will have already have made a difference, great or small,
before the end.

Why must your ends be eternal to be worthwhile?

>  Most people are able to live with that, and for them little
>purposes (success, money, power, effecting change, helping others)
>suffice.

Little is in the eye of the beholder, of course.

>  I suppose they never  think about the cosmic scale, or are at
>least able to put it out of their minds.

I don't doubt it. But I have thought about the cosmic scale. And
it does not seem to mean much to us, here, today.

>To me, it is comforting to know that reality is an illusion.

I would not find this comforting. But perhaps it is merely my
definitions. Here's what I think the relevant terms are:

"Reality"	That which is real.
"Illusion"	That which is not real, but seems to be.
"Real"		Objectively Existing

For "reality" to be an "illusion" would mean, then:

That which is real is not real, but seems to be.

Or:

That which objectively exists, does not objectively exist, but
does seem to objectively exist.

From which we can conclude, that unless you want to get a
contradiction, that no things objectively exist.

But I have a problem with this because I would like to say
that *I* objectively exist, if nothing else. Cogito Ergo Sum
and all that.

Perhaps you do not mean all that, but rather mean:
"Objective Reality is Unreachable by humans."

Which is not so bad, and so far as I know is true.

>  That the
>true reality underneath the the physical is spirit.

Have on. If reality is an illusion, isn't True Reality an illusion
too? And if True Reality is spirit, doens't that make Spirit an Illusion
as well?

If I am not distinctly confused, this is getting positively Buddhist.

>  That this world is a school of sorts, where we learn
>and grow, and our souls mature.

That is one hell of a statement, although perhaps true.

Do you mean to imply that it was *intended* to be so? If so,
please show that this is true. If not, please explain how this
can give a purpose to anything.

> That gives a purpose to my little purposes,

How does it do that?

Wouldn't the world=school w/ intent idea make the world a preparation for
some *greater* purpose, rather than a purpose in itself.

> and takes some of the pressure off.

What pressure?

>  It's not so necessary to make this life a success in human terms
>if you're really just here to learn.

It is not necessary to be a success in human terms, unless your
goals either include doing so or require doing so before they
themselves can be achived.

Indeed, many people have set goals for themselves that
do not include success in human terms as _I_ understand it. Check
out yer Buddhist monk type guy. Out for nirvana, which is not
at all the same thing.

>  It's more important to progress,
>grow, persist, to learn to love yourself and others and to express your
>love, especially when it's dificult to do so.  Honest effort is rewarded
>by God, he knows our limitations.

Why is learning to love a goal? What happens if you fail in this
goal? To you? To God? To the mysterious Purpose?


[deletia- question about immortailty and my answer deleted because it was
 mostly quote.]

>TWO SERIOUS QUESTIONS/INVITATIONS TO DISCUSSION
>1. What is the nature of eternal life?
>2. How can we as mortals locked into space time conceive of it?
>
>Possible answer for #2: The best we can do is Metaphor/Analogy
>Question 2A  What is the best metaphor?

I'll have a crack at that.

(1) The nature of eternal life is neatly described by its name: It is
the concept of life without death, life without end.

(2) No. We can put together word to describe it, but we cannot imagine it.

(2a) No metaphor is adequate next to eternity; if it were we could not
understand it either. (or so I suspect)
---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions probably show what I know.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20952
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5



In article <Apr.19.05.12.10.1993.29131@athos.rutgers.edu> 
pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes:

>priority than the direct word of Jesus in Matt5:14-19? Paul begins
>Romans 14 with "If someone is weak in the faith ..." Do you count
>yourself as one who is weak in the faith?

Do you count yourself as one who is weak in the faith?

>you read Jesus' word in Matt5:14-19? Is there any doubt in your mind
>about what is right and what is sin (Greek hamartia = missing the mark)?

Is there any doubt in your mind about what is right and what is missing
the mark?

>>However I'd like to be clear that I do not think there's unambiguous
>>proof that regular Christian worship was on the first day.  As I
>>indicated, there are responses on both of the passages cited.
>Whereas, the Ten Commandments and Jesus' words in Matt5:14-19 are fairly
>clear, are they not?

Are they clear or do you have doubts?

>[No, I don't believe that Paul can overrule God.

An important first step; the realization that Paul was human.

>However Paul was writing for a largely Gentile audience.

Yes, and he was writing and speaking for an audience that was at best,
very weak in the faith; most could not read, most were unfamiliar with
the Hebrew Scriptures in even the Septuagint form. Paul adapted the
message of the Bible to a largely uneducated market. Granted, this
market still exists today, but do you count yourself as part of it? To
be "weak in the faith" is not missing the mark (hamartia) if you do the
best that your education allows. Are you doing the best?

>The Law was regarded by Jews
>at the time (and now) as binding on Jews, but not on Gentiles.  There
>are rules that were binding on all human beings (the so-called Noachic
>laws), but they are quite minimal.

Let me make clear that the "Law" is none other than the Pentateuch of
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. What did Jesus say
about the "Law" in Matt5:14-19? Where did Jesus say that the "Law" only
applies to Jews and that Gentiles are above the "Law"?

>The issue that the Church had to
>face after Jesus' death was what to do about Gentiles who wanted to
>follow Christ.  The decision not to impose the Law on them didn't say
>that the Law was abolished.  It simply acknowledged that fact that it
>didn't apply to Gentiles.

Who acknowledged this fact? On what basis? Are we extra-biblical at this
point? Why not also acknowledge that the Bhagavad-Gita is the only
relevant text for Gentiles, after all we see in the Bible that it was
Magus from the east who observed the star-signs of Jesus? Why bother
with any texts at all? Why not just follow whatever the Church has to
say?

>Thus there is no contradiction with Mat 5.

I don't see how you can say this with a straight face. Are you a
follower of Christ, or do you follow someone else? Are you saying that
the words of Jesus only apply to Jews?

>As far as I can tell, both Paul and other Jewish Christians did
>continue to participate in Jewish worship on the Sabbath.  Thus they
>continued to obey the Law.

How Jewish was Paul after he changed his name from Saul?

>The issue was (and is) with Gentile
>Christians, who are not covered by the Law (or at least not by the
>ceremonial aspects of it).

Who says Gentile Christians are not covered by the first five books? Who
says that Gentile Christians are above the Ten Commandments?

>Jesus dealt mostly with Jews.  I think we can reasonably assume that
>Mat 5 was directed to a Jewish audience.

You're implying that Jesus' words are valid only for Jews. Is this
really what you mean to say? You do realize that you are gutting rather
large portions of the Bible? When you read Jesus' words, did you ever
consider that maybe, just maybe Jesus is talking to you, no matter what
your race or sex? If the Hebrew Scriptures and the Gospel accounts of
Jesus are only directed to Jews, why were they translated into English?

>He did interact with
>Gentiles a few times (e.g. the centurion whose slave was healed and a
>couple of others).  The terms used to describe the centurion (see Luke
>7) suggest that he was a "God-fearer", i.e. a Gentile who followed
>God, but had not adopted the whole Jewish Law.

As Paul would call him, one who was weak in the faith.

>He was commended by
>Jewish elders as a worthy person, and Jesus accepted him as such.
>This seems to me to indicate that Jesus accepted the prevailing view
>that Gentiles need not accept the Law.

Which is more important: 1) The recorded word of Jesus or 2) Indications
that you can deduce from the Bible? Was Jesus God only of the Jews, or
God of all humankind of all race and sex?

>However there's more involved if you want to compare Jesus and Paul on
>the Law.  In order to get a full picture of the role of the Law, we
>have to come to grips with Paul's apparent rejection of the Law, and
>how that relates to Jesus' commendation of the Law.  At least as I
>read Paul, he says that the Law serves a purpose that has been in a
>certain sense superceded.

This is your understanding of Paul. Compare this to the word of Jesus.
Are you Christian or Pauline?

>Again, this issue isn't one of the
>abolition of the Law.  In the middle of his discussion, Paul notes
>that he might be understood this way, and assures us that that's not
>what he intends to say.  Rather, he sees the Law as primarily being
>present to convict people of their sinfulness.  But ultimately it's an
>impossible standard, and one that has been superceded by Christ.

Again, this is your understanding of Paul. Did Jesus say that the Law
was an "impossible standard?" Did Jesus say that He superceded the Law?
Are you Christian or Pauline?

>Paul's comments are not the world's clearest here, and not everyone
>agrees with my reading.

You acknowledge that it is *your* reading of Paul. What did Jesus say?
Can you deny that Matt5:14-19 is quite clear in its meaning? Are you 
Christian or Pauline?

>But the interesting thing to notice is that
>even this radical position does not entail an abolition of the Law.
>It still remains as an uncompromising standard, from which not an iota
>or dot may be removed.  For its purpose of convicting of sin, it's
>important that it not be relaxed.

When did Jesus say that the purpose of the Law was conviction of sin?

>However for Christians, it's not
>the end -- ultimately we live in faith, not Law.

Please reread Matt5:14-19. Are you Christian or Pauline?

>Jesus' interpretations
>emphasize the intent of the Law, and stay away from the ceremonial
>details.

Are you saying that the Ten Commandments are ceremonial details?

>Paul's conclusion is similar.  While he talks about the Law being
>superceded, all of the specific examples he gives involve the
>"ceremonial law", such as circumcision and the Sabbath.  He is quite
>concerned about maintaining moral standards.

You call observance of the Sabbath, the day on which the Lord rested,
ceremonial? Has circumcision been superceded for Christians?

....

Are you Christian or Pauline?

[Both.  There is no doubt in my mind about what is sin and what is
not, at least not in this case.  Jesus did not deal explicitly with
the question of whether the Law was binding on Gentiles.  That's why I
have to cite evidence such as the way Jesus dealt with the Centurion.

As to general Jewish views on this, I am dependent largely on studies
of Pauline theology, one by H.J. Schoeps, and one whose author I can't
come up with at the moment.  Both authors are Jews.  Also, various
Christian and non-Christian Jews have discussed the issue here and in
other newsgroups.

Mat 5:19 is clear that the Law is still valid.  It does not say that
it applies to Gentiles.

And yes, I say that the specific requirement for worship on the
Sabbath in the Ten Commandments is a ceremonial detail, when you're
looking at the obligations of Gentiles.  Similarly circumcision.

I'm not sure quite what else I can say on this subject.  Again, it's
unfortunate the Jesus didn't answer the question directly.  However we
do know (1) what the 1st Cent. Jewish approach was, (2) how Jesus
dealt with at least one Gentile, and (3) how Jesus' disciples dealt
with the issue when it became more acute (I'm referring to Acts 15
more than Paul).  Given that these are all in agreement, I don't see
that there's a big problem.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20953
From: mtf@vipunen.hut.fi (Antti Lahelma)
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell

In <Apr.19.05.14.08.1993.29279@athos.rutgers.edu> atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez) writes:

>  Hello,

>  I have seen two common threads running through postings by atheists on the 
>newsgroup, and I think that they can be used to explain each other.  
>Unfortunately I don't have direct quotes handy...

>1) Atheists believe that when they die, they die forever.

 More correctly: when people die, they cease to exist.

>2) A god who would condemn those who fail to believe in him to eternal death
>   is unfair.

>  I don't see what the problem is!  To Christians, Hell is, by definition, 
>eternal death--exactly what atheists are expecting when they die.

 The idea I've gotten is that to christians, Hell is -- like Heaven --
 afterlife; i.e, you don't cease to exist, but are subjected to eternal 
 torture (well, that's the orthodox idea anyway; "eternal death" if you
 prefer that). Atheists don't believe in any sort of afterlife.

>  Literal interpreters of the Bible will have a problem with this view, since
>the Bible talks about the fires of Hell and such.  Personally, I don't think
>that people in Hell will be thrust into flame any more than I expect to Jesus
>with a double-edged sword issuing from his mouth--I treat both these state-
>ments as metaphorical.

 I think it's safe to say that Hell was never intended metaphorical. Certainly
 not the equivalent of ceasing to exist. Some christian concepts are indeed
 metaphors, but your idea of Hell is a 20th century interpretation. It is, of
 course, nice to see that even christianity might evolve to fit the worldview 
 of modern age, but I fear the church will not accept it. Understandably, per-
 haps, because if you accept that Hell is a metaphor, then you're one step
 closer to turning God into a metaphor as well.
-- 
Antti Lahelma   |	      mtf@saha.hut.fi 	           |   GNOTHI SEAUTON 
Lehtotie 3     -O-	      stel@purkki.apu.fi          -*-  ====== ======= 
00630 HELSINKI  | <<Jumalat ovat pakanoille suosiollisia>> |    TUNNE ITSESI   

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20954
From: will@futon.webo.dg.com (Will Taber)
Subject: [soc.religion.christian] Re: The arrogance of Christians

In a previous message  aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker) writes:

>If I don't think my belief is right and everyone else's belief is wrong,
>then I don't have a belief. This is simply what belief means.

 [More stuff deleted]

This seems to be a pretty arogant definition of belief.  My beliefs
are those things which I find to be true based on my experience of the
world.  This experience includes study of things that I may not have
experienced directly.  But even then, I can only understand the
studies to the extent to which I can relate what I study back to what
I have experienced.

Which means that by beliefs about God are directly related to my
experience of God.  Having experienced God, I try to make sense of
that experience.  I study religion and read the Bible.  I find things
that echo what I have already experienced.  Out of this I build my
beliefs.  I also find things that don't match my experience.  That
doesn't make them false.  They just don't match my experience.  Maybe
I will understand that stuff later.  I don't know.  Maybe all of my
beliefs are wrong.  I can change my beliefs.

If someone else has beliefs that are different from mine, so what.
Neither of us are necessarily wrong.  Someone else is making sense out
of a different set of experiences.  Even though we have different
explanations and beliefs, if we talk we might even discover that the
underlying experiences are similar.

Some people approach religion as a truth that can only exist in one
form, and usually has a single revelation.  The more dogmatic and
inflexible the belief system, the more arrogant it will appear to an
outsider.  There is another approach possible, however.  God is a
mystery.  I am trying to solve the mystery, so I look at the evidence
available to me.  I try to arrive at the best understanding that I can
based on the evidence.  New evidence may cause me to change my
understanding.  When I encounter someone with a different belief than
my own, it isn't a threat, it is an opportunity to perhaps discover
something new about this mystery I can never fully comprehend.

Peace
Will Taber
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
| William Taber         | Will_Taber@dg.com 	  | Any opinions expressed |
| Data General Corp.    | will@futon.webo.dg.com  | are mine alone and may |
| Westboro, Mass. 01580 |                         | change without notice. |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| When all your dreams are laid to rest, you can get what's second best,   |
|	But it's hard to get enough.		David Wilcox               |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20955
From: schnitzi@osceola.cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell

atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez) writes:

>1) Atheists believe that when they die, they die forever.

>2) A god who would condemn those who fail to believe in him to eternal death
>   is unfair.

>  I don't see what the problem is!  To Christians, Hell is, by definition, 
>eternal death--exactly what atheists are expecting when they die.  

Well, I think that most Christians believe that your conciousness will
somehow continue on after your 'physical' death, which contradicts what
most atheists (myself included) believe, namely that your conciousness,
being contained in your brain, dies when your brain dies.

>There's no
>reason Hell has to be especially awful--to most people, eternal death is bad
>enough.

I fear the pain that often comes with the process of dying, but since I
won't be around to worry about it, I don't fear eternal death.

>  Literal interpreters of the Bible will have a problem with this view, since
>the Bible talks about the fires of Hell and such.  

This is something I've always found confusing.  If all your nerve endings
die with your physical body, why would flame hurt you?  How can one "wail
and gnash teeth" with no lungs and no teeth?


Mark Schnitzius
schnitzi@eola.cs.ucf.edu
University of Central Florida

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20956
From: conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt)
Subject: Latest on Branch Davidians

Most of you will have probably seen the news by the time you read this,
but the Branch Davidian compound is no more.  This morning about 6:00,
the feds punched holes in the compound walls by using a tank.  They 
then started using non-lethal tear gas.  Shortly after noon, 2 cult
members were seen setting fire to the compound.  So far, about 20-30
people have been seen outside the compound.  The fate of the other 60 or
70 people is unknown, neither is the fate of the 17 children that were
inside.  The compound did burn to the ground.

Koresh, who at times has claimed to be the Messiah, but then backed off
and only claimed to be a prophet, had promised several times to come
out peacefully if his demands were met.  First, he demanded that his
message be broadcast on the radio, which it was, but he didn't come out.
He claimed to be waiting for a message from God.  Finally, he said that
God told him that he needed to decipher the mystery of the 7 seals in
Revelation, and when he was finished, he'd come out.  He finished the
first one, but didn't do any more work that anyone knows of since then.
The federal agents did warn him that if they didn't come out, they 
would be subjected to tear gas.

I think it's really sad that so many people put their faith in a mere
man, even if he did claim to be the son of God, and/or a prophet.  I
think it underscores the importance of putting you faith only in
things that are eternal and knowing for yourself what the Scriptures
say and what they mean, instead of relying on others to do it for you,
even if those others are learned and mean well.

Paul Conditt

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20957
From: johnsd2@rpi.edu (Dan Johnson)
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell

In article 29279@athos.rutgers.edu, atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez) writes:

>  I have seen two common threads running through postings by atheists on the 
>newsgroup, and I think that they can be used to explain each other.  
>Unfortunately I don't have direct quotes handy...

>1) Atheists believe that when they die, they die forever.

>2) A god who would condemn those who fail to believe in him to eternal death
>   is unfair.

>  I don't see what the problem is!  To Christians, Hell is, by definition, 
>eternal death--exactly what atheists are expecting when they die.

This is the problem. This is not hell, this is permanent death. It is
indeed what atheists (generally) expect and it is neither fair nor
unfair, it just is. You might as well argue about whether being made
mostly of carbon and water is "fair".

However, the atheists who claim that Hell is unfair are talking about
the fire and brimstone place of endless suffering, which necessarily
includes eternal existance (life, I dunno, but some sort of continuation);
not at all the same thing.

Granted, you clearly feel that hell=death, but this is not a univeral
sentiment as near as I can tell.

If *your* idea of God "condemns" heathens to ordinary death, I have no
problem with that. I do have a problem with the gods that hide from humans
and torture the unbelievers eternally for not guessing right.

[deletia- Hell, and Literalness.]

---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions probably show what I know.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20958
From: johnsd2@rpi.edu (Dan Johnson)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."

In article 29201@athos.rutgers.edu, seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson) writes:
>In article <Apr.14.03.07.38.1993.5420@athos.rutgers.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
>>In article 28388@athos.rutgers.edu, jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas) writes:
>>
>>>  This is why the most effective 
>>>substance-abuse recovery programs involve meeting peoples' spiritual 
>>>needs.
>>
>>You might want to provide some evidence next time you make a claim
>>like this.
>>
>In 12-step programs (like Alcoholics Anonymous), one of the steps
>involves acknowleding a "higher power".  AA and other 12-step abuse-
>recovery programs are acknowledged as being among the most effective.

[deletia- and so on]

I seem to have been rather unclear.

What I was asking is this:

Please show me that the most effective substance-absure recovery
programs involve meetinsg peoples' spiritual needs, rather than
merely attempting to fill peoples' spiritual needs as percieved
by the people, A.A, S.R.C. regulars, or snoopy. This will probably
involve defining "spritual needs" (is it not that clear) and
showing that such things exist and how they can be filled.

Annother tack you might take is to say that "fulfilling spiritual
needs" means "acknowledging a "higher power" of some sort, then
show that systems that do require this, work better than otherwise
identical systems that do not. A correlation here would help you,
but as you point out this might just be demonstrating swapping
one crutch for annother. (however, I do feel that religion is
usually a better crutch than alchohol, as it is not usually
poisonous! :) )

I hope with that clarification, my question will be answerable. I actually
did know about the 12 step program, its the question of what it does,
rather than what it tries to do, that makes a difference to me.
---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions probably show what I know.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20959
From: maridai@comm.mot.com (Marida Ignacio)
Subject: Refusing Divine Peace and Alive Prayer? (was Re: Question about Mary)

It's like refusing 'God's kingdom come'.

In one of Jesus' revelation in this century, "...same thing as in
the old days.  People refuse to believe my messengers.  Even when
I was alive here on earth, they refuse Me.  What more when I am just
talking through somebody else?" (paraphrased).

With all the knowledge believers accumulated, He would think that
we would be 'enlightened' enough to detect which ones are 
'authentic and divine' as opposed to 'evil or man-made'.

These signs, these miracles, are you afraid that they are not from God?
That these are the signs we should not open our hearts and mind to for thinking
  they are evil?
Well, is faith in God evil?
Is true peace evil?  Is true love that is divine and pure evil? 
Why can't someone accept that God can do what He wants in fulfillment of His
  generous love and Jesus' never ending forgiveness to those who turn back to
  Him for salvation?
Why are we refusing God's messenger of this truth?  The mother to all who are
  in Christ?
What brings us these:
    fears of being shamed by what others will think or say about us?
        which, in contrary, could be pleasing to God?
    fears of being humbled?
    fears of being judged as wrong (wrt mainstream standard of what is right)?
Why can't we tolerate non-believers' mockery or ridicule of us for the
  sake of peace, love and obedience to God?  The humbling lessons left to us
  by martyrs and saints?
We'd rather engage in never-ending bickering and disproof of each other's
  opinion - looking at each other's mistakes - for the sake of arguments,
  instead of having communion in one body with Christ.
What makes us go blind to the truth that God is All Powerful and that He can
  not be binded by what people wrote and have written about Him in all ages?
Why is our faith in God limited?  By all the words and literature we muster?
What prevents us from going *beyond* being saved and extend God's rich love
  to others who are not?

Why are our eyes not wide open to see that He continuously sees our faith, hope
  and love which glorify Him and so He gives us indications of His 
  acknowledgements with signs/miracles (ordinary/common or divinely inspired) 
  everywhere?  Isn't that like an atheist/agnostic's view that all these
  are just ordinary here on earth and not caused by anything supernatural?

Why then does the Holy Mother comes back to remind us:
  "We must really __accept that prayer__ changes the course of things and that
  with prayers __even wars can be prevented__."
but then she continues:
  "You often have an egotistic attitude.  Dear children, in these days you
  have prayed very much, __but your hands have remained empty__."
Why hesitate in proclaiming what needs to be done:
  "prayer, conversion, peace, penance, fasting, the Holy Mass, living life
  as what the Gospel brings."?
Why not do so?  How?  To the world?
To this, the Mother says:
  "Start in your family.  Be a good example.  Live the Word."
Why worry if it is going to be of good use to many?
Our Holy Mother says:
  "The fruits, __leave them to the Lord__, do not worry about anything or 
  anyone but entrust yourself to the Lord."

Although the Holy Mother does not insist because:
  "You are free; I bow before the freedom which God gives you."
but she follows this with:
  "You are surprised because I say to you: Decide for God and yet, see how
  you have lived this day."
Why does she constantly conveys:
  "Take this life toward God in the way as to __experience__ the Lord Himself
  in your __behavior__ and __not only__ when you pray" or one time when we 
  decide that we are saved, or talk/write about God, etc.
The Holy Mother warns:
  "Satan (the serpent) is always trying to dissuade you to turn you away from
  my peace plan and prayer."  (Rev 12:17, the dragon became angry with the woman
  and went off to wage war against the rest of her offsprings, those who keep
  God's commandments, and bear witness to Jesus.)

Do you have fear or hate for God's current messenger of true peace, love and
  our motherly protector from the anti-Christ?
The one who is being apprehensive of communism, wars, famine and other evils
  that the serpent brings upon us? 
This obedient and blessed new Eve?
The mother who warns us so we can be prepared and be strong against Satan?
Haven't there been renewed faith, hope, love, peace and obedience wherever
  this messenger has shared her blessings and graces that God has given her
  in good purpose?
Why do we choose to be blind?
Why fear the truth that God has been giving us a chance and sharing Christ's
  ever-forgetting forgiveness to us through the obedient mother?
The mother who has been consecrated the task __to reverse__ the disobedient
  harm and example done by the ancient Eve.
She has been preparing the new Eden with her Immaculate Heart.
The new Eden as sanctuary (the womb) for the next coming and judgement of the 
  righteous by our Lord, Jesus Christ; when The Lamb marries His bride.
Shouldn't we give her a hand in her exhaustive job of preparing us for the
  second coming of her Son as she has been conceived without sin to bear
  the Son of God in her womb?
Why fear true peace, love and renewed faith and obedience to God that Mary
  faithfully brings to God's children?  She has been protecting the flock
  (the rest of the offsprings) from the greedy dragon so as to present more 
  righteous members for her Son's coming.
Not all apparitions and miracles that resulted from them are worthy
  of belief.  With prayer and guidance from the Holy Spirit and, of course,
  approval of our Church authorities, we should be aware of the true and
  divinely inspired ones; specifically, the ones which aligns with the
  Scripture.
  

Also, our Lady reminds us of recommendation of __silence__ in our prayers:
  "If you speak unceasingly in your prayers, how will you be able to hear
  God?  Allow Him room to answer you, to speak to you." 

She encourages us (with motherly nurturing) to continue in exuberant 
faith, hope and love to Jesus, constantly.  NOT with mere emotions, 
but with deep, constant obedience to Jesus, her Beloved Son and
acknowledgement of our need to have Him as part of our lives.

Let's not wait to the last minute to renew our faith and the life
that God wants us to live; when there won't be enough time or when
it will be late.
                                                      
Nowadays, Mary says, 
"Pray, pray, pray for peace...reconciliation, my children."
Have peace within yourself first before you can promote peace to
others.  For without peace, you can not fully accept my Son."
                                                                       

And you think she's just an ordinary lady.  Not to me.  She's
our good Mother/messenger from God and she is so nice enough to
share God's kingdom to us through her Son and experience it.

With Mary, we are assured that The Lamb always succeeds.

-----
Note:  All enclosed in quotes are from "Latest News of Medjugorje"
       Number 10, June, 1991 by Fr. Rene' Laurentin.

-----

O, new Mother of Eden, Most Pure
Preparing the sanctuary for true christians
Cleansing us with peace for God's kingdom come
Bring us to your loving, protective and obedient Church
That we may belong in one Body to your Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord
And not go astray from His perfect completeness
Pray that we ourselves pray with the Holy Spirit guiding us
So that we may help you in strength to conquer the enemies of your Son
  while you prepare us for Him with your Immaculate Heart.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20960
From: mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server)
Subject: Re: So far so good

>>This may be a really dumb one, but I'll ask it anyways:
>>       Christians know that they can never live up to the requirements of  
>>God, right? (I may be wrong, but that is my understanding)  But they still  
>>try to do it.  Doesn't it seem like we are spending all of our lives  
>>trying to reach a goal we can never achieve?  I know that we are saved by  
>>faith and not by works, but does that mean that once we are saved we don't  
>>have to do anything?  I think James tells us that Faith without works is  
>>dead (paraphrase).  How does this work?

Short reply:  We can never achieve perfect health, yet we always strive for it.  
We don't seek to do God's will because we're forced to, we follow His way 
because His way is best.  The reason it's hard is because we are flawed, not 
because He's unreasonable.  But we seek to follow His way because we want to 
improve ourselves and our lives.

- Mark

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20961
From: mussack@austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Subject: Re: tuff to be a Christian?

Please realize that I am frequently getting in trouble for
straying from orthodoxy, but here is my opinion:

In article <Apr.17.01.10.58.1993.2246@geneva.rutgers.edu>, mdbs@ms.uky.edu (no name) writes:
> ... Moreover the Buddha says that we are 
> intrinsically good (as against Christ's "we are all sinners").

I never thought of these two ideas being "against" each other.
People might quibble about what "intrinsically" means but the
reason we are sinners is because we do not behave as good as we
are. The message of Christ is that each of us are not only good,
but great, that we can approach perfection, albeit perhaps through a 
different technique than you claim Buddhism teaches. Because we do
not realize our greatness, we sin. Peter had no problem walking 
on water until a little doubt crept in.

Doesn't David ask in the 8th Psalm "what is man that you [God] 
should care for him, but you have made him just a little lower 
than the angels"?

I probably exagerate in my mind what a scrawny little kid David
was, just as I probably exagerate what a gigantic monster Goliath
was, but David's power easily defeated Goliath's.

Remember the rich young man who comes up to Jesus and asks what
he can do to enter the Kingdom, Jesus says follow the commandments.
I always picture the smug look on his face as he says he's done that
his whole life, probably anticipating an "attaboy" from the 
Messiah. Instead Jesus gives him a harder task, sell everything
and follow Him. Jesus is raising the bar. The desciples say
how can anyone do this if it's so hard even for rich people.
Jesus says anyone can do it, with God's help.

Jesus says not only can we avoid killing people, we can avoid
getting angry at people. Not only can we avoid committing
adultery, we can control our own desires. 

I realize this was not your main point, but I wonder how other
people see this. 

> ...
> 	Parting Question:
> 		Would you have become a Christian if you had not
> been indoctrinated by your parents? You probably never learned about
> any other religion to make a comparative study. And therefore I claim
> you are brain washed.

(Please forgive any generalizations I am about to make.)

Your point about how "hard" other religions are is a good one, just 
as your "Parting Question" is a tough question. I think that Muslims
worship the same God as I do, we can learn from their name "submission".
Hindus and Buddhists and Taoists, etc. claim that "God" is impersonal. 
Is God personal or impersonal? I say yes, but if I think a little
more my answer is whichever is greater. I think it is greater 
to be a personal entity, with an individual consciousness, but
you're right that that might be a cultural bias. If I think more
I must admit that God's personal nature is as far beyond my
conception as His impersonal nature is beyond the Hindu's
conception. If somehow Jesus could fit into Hindu cosmology
then maybe I wouldn't have a problem, though that is hard to imagine.

Are there any former (or present) "Eastern Religion" members here 
who could comment?

Chris Mussack

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20962
From: mussack@austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5

General question: Since the world was discovered to be
round, the definition of Saturday is, if not ambiguous,
at least arbitrary. How would someone answer this?

Also, when the calendar was changed (Gregorian to Julian?)
was the day of the week changed or just the date? Once again
this points to the arbitrariness of the days.

Chris Mussack

[When calendars change, there is no change in the 7-day weekly cycle,
just months and dates.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20963
From: shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker)
Subject: Re: SSPX schism ?

In article <Apr.17.01.11.35.1993.2284@geneva.rutgers.edu> jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes:
>
>[Descriptions of true and false obedience]
>
>Obedience is not solely a matter of compliance/refusal.  The nature of
>the commands must also be taken into account; it is not enough to
>consider someone's compliance or refusal and then say whether they are
>"obedient" or "disobedient".  You also have to take into consideration
>whether the commands are good or bad.

You ask where we are.  I would echo that question.  I'm not trying to be
contentious.  But assuming that the Pope has universal jurisdiction
and authority, what authority do you rely upon for your decisions?
What prevents me from choosing ANY doctrine I like and saying that
Papal disagreement is an error that will be resolved in time?
This is especially true, since Councils of Bishops have basically
stood by the Pope.

It appears that much of what lies at the heart of this matter is
disagreements over what is tradition and Tradition, and also over
authority and discipline.  

My question to the supporters of SSPX is this:

  Is there ANY way that your positions with respect to church reforms
  could change and be conformed to those of the Pope? (assuming that
  the Pope's position does not change and that the leaders of SSPX
  don't jointly make such  choice.)

If not, this appears to be claiming infallible teaching authority.
If I adopt the view that "I'm NOT wrong, I CAN'T be wrong, and
there's NO WAY I'll change my mind, YOU must change yours", that
I've either left the Catholic Church or it has left me.

The Orthodox Church does not recognize papal authority/jurisdiction
viewing authority as present in each bishop, and in Ecumenical
Councils.  We regard the subsequent development of the doctrines 
regarding papal authority and jurisdiction to be a separation of
the Bishop of Rome from the Orthodox church.  Without going into
the merits of the Great Schism, at least the Orthodox agree that
a split occurred, and don't paly what appear to be semantic games
like "He's the Pope, but we don't recognize that what he does
is effective...".  Words aside, it appears to be a de facto split.

>So where are we?  Are we in another Arian heresy, complete with weak
>Popes?  Or are the SSPX priests modern Martin Luthers?  Well, the only
>way to answer that is to examine who is saying what, and what the
>traditional teaching of the Church is.

We sould argue from now until the Second Coming about what the "real"
traditional teaching of the Church is.  If this were a simple matter
East and West would not have been separated for over 900 years.
 
>Many Catholics will decide to side with the Pope.  There is some
>soundness in this, because the Papacy is infallible, so eventually
>some Pope *will* straighten all this out.

I thought that the teaching magisterieum of the church did not allow
error in teachings regarding faith and morals even in the short term.`
I may be wrong here, I'm not Roman Catholic. :-)

What would be the effect of a Pope making an ex cathedra statement
regarding the SSPX situation?  Would it be honored?  If not, how
do you get around the formal doctrine of infallibility?
Again, I'm not trying to be contentions, I'm trying to understand.
Since I'm Orthodox, I've got no real vested interest in the outcome,
one way or the other.

>Schism is a superset of disobedience (refusal to obey a legitimate
>command).  All schismatics are disobedient.  But it's a superset, so
>it doesn't work the other way around: not all disobeyers are
>schismatics.  The mere fact that the SSPX priests don't comply with
>the Holy Father's desires doesn't make them schismatics.

It does if the command was legitimate.  SSPX does not view the
Pope's commands as legitimate.  Why?  This is a VERY slippery slope.
 
>                                      But my problem with this is
>this: according to the traditional theology of Holy Orders, episcopal
>consecration does not confer jurisdiction.  It only confers the power
>of Order: the ability to confect the Sacraments.  

True enough.

>                                                  Jurisdiction must be
>conferred by someone else with the power to confer it (such as the
>Pope).  The Society bishops, knowing the traditional theology quite
>well, take great pains to avoid any pretence of jurisdiction over
>anyone.  They simply confer those Sacraments that require a bishop.

One could argue that they are establishing a non-geographic jurisdiction.
I don't know if that's even a concept or problem in Catholic circles.
 
Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com)
-- 
-------
Lawrence Overacker
Shell Oil Company, Information Center    Houston, TX            (713) 245-2965
llo@shell.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20964
From: JJMARVIN@pucc.princeton.edu
Subject: Re: Losing your temper is not a Christian trait

In article <Apr.15.00.58.22.1993.28891@athos.rutgers.edu>
ruthless@panix.com (Ruth Ditucci) writes:
 
> One of the tell tale signs/fruits that give non-christians away - is
>when their net replies are acrid, angry and sarcastic.
>
>We in the net village do have a laugh or two when professed, born again
>christians verbally attack people who might otherwise have been won to
>christianity and had originally joined the discussions because they were
>"spiritually hungry."  Instead of answering questions with sweetness and
>sincerity, these chrisitan net-warriors, "flame" the queries.
 
Although I certainly agree with the basic sentiment that snideness is
unloving and ineffective, I'm a little disturbed by the formulation that
ill temper is not a Christian trait. It seems like a false argument to
say that anyone who displays trait X must not be a Christian. Could
well be a sinning Christian, but a Christian nonetheless.
Anger is human, and Christians are
human: Christians get angry and defensive and react badly just like
everyone else. It's not perfect righteousness but the effort of seeking
righteousness that marks a dedicated Christian. And one of the greatest
gifts of faith to me is that of seeking and accepting forgiveness for
my failures. Expecting flawless behavior from self or others isn't
Christianity: it's perfectionism.
 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20965
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Some questions from a new Christian

In a previous article, 18669@bach.udel.edu (Steven R Hoskins) writes:
> 
>  One of my questions I would
> like to ask is - Can anyone recommend a good reading list of theological
> works intended for a lay person?
> 

I would recommend "Essential Truthes of the Christian Faith" by RC Sproul.
It is copywrited 1992 from Tyndale House Publishers. Sproul offers concise 
explanations, in simple language, of around 100 different Christian 
doctrines, grouped by subject. I think it would be particularly good for
newer Christians (and older Christians suffering spiritual malnutrition),
as it gives a Biblically sound basic treatment of the issues, avoiding 
long in-depth analysis that can wait until after you know the basics. 

---
Dave Weaver               | "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to
weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com|  gain what he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot (1949)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20966
From: fraseraj@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Andrew J Fraser)
Subject: Re: God-shaped hole (was Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")

[Several people were involved in trying to figure out who first used
the phrase "God-shaped hole".  --clh]

"There is a God shaped vacuum in all of us" (or something to that effect) is
generally attributed to Blaise Pascal.
What I want to know is how can you have a God shaped vacuum inside of you if
God is in fact infinite (or omnipresent)?

=========================================================================
||     Name: Andrew James Fraser  E-mail: fraseraj@dcs.gla.ac.uk       ||
||     ESE-3H student, University of Glasgow.			       ||
||     Standard disclaimers...                                         ||

[Don't you think you're being a tad too literal with this metaphor?  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20967
From: wdburns@mtu.edu (BURNS)
Subject: Interfaith weddings

Hello everyone.

Last week I posted a similar question to alt.wedding.  Now I come in
search of a deeper-level answer.

My fiance is Lutheran and I am Catholic.  We plan on getting married in
her church because she is living there now and I plan on moving there
in a month or so.  I called my Catholic priest to find out what I needed
to do in order for the marriage to be recognized by my church.

Needless to say that I have found that there is no "hard and fast" rule
when it comes to how the Catholic law for interfaith weddings is interpreted.
But I'm pretty sure that we CAN get married without too much problem; the
trick lies in the letter of dispensation.

But that is not why I am here....

What I'd like to know is: 
  What are the main differences between the Lutheran and Catholic religions?
  My priest mumbled something about how the Eucharist was understood...
  I have heard that if two religions combine soon, it would be these two.

Any help would be appreciated...

Thanks so much!

Bill
-- 
  Bill Burns  [ Internet: wdburns@mtu.edu ]  Mac Network System Administrator
              [ AppleLink: SHADOW         ]  Apple Student Rep, MTU
First we must band together as friends,
     then mearcilessly crush our enemies into paste.

[We've had enough Catholic/Protestant arguments recently that I'm not
going to accept any renewals.  I suggest responses via email, unless
they are clearly non-controversial.  I would be happy to see positive
summaries of both important Catholic and Lutheran beliefs.  Among
other things, they'd be useful for the FAQ collection.  But I'm not up
for yet another battle.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20968
From: fernandeza@merrimack.edu
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article <Apr.19.05.11.41.1993.29112@athos.rutgers.edu>, aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker) writes:

> I am asking you to believe in things not visible. I don't know if this is
> believeing blindly or not. .... If you decide in advance that your reason 
> will act only on the evidence of the five physical senses, then you cut
> reason off from any possibility of reaching a conclusion outside the
> physical sphere

Someone said:
	"Thinking if I could see, I would believe. Then someone said

	BELIEVE		AND 	YOU	WILL	SEE!!"

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20969
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: So far so good

In article <Apr.19.05.13.16.1993.29204@athos.rutgers.edu> armstrng@cs.dal.ca (Stan Armstrong) writes:
>In article <C4z5u3.Jxo@spss.com> luomat@alleg.edu writes:
>>
>>This may be a really dumb one, but I'll ask it anyways:
>>	Christians know that they can never live up to the requirements of  
>>God, right? (I may be wrong, but that is my understanding)  But they still  
>>try to do it.  Doesn't it seem like we are spending all of our lives  
>>trying to reach a goal we can never achieve?  I know that we are saved by  
>>faith and not by works, but does that mean that once we are saved we don't  
>>have to do anything?  I think James tells us that Faith without works is  
>>dead (paraphrase).  How does this work?
>>
>So long as we think that good things are what we *have* to do rather than
>what we come to *want* to do, we miss the point. The more we love God; the
>more we come to love what and whom He loves.
>
>When I find that what I am doing is not good, it is not a sign to try
>even harder (Romans 7:14-8:2); it is a sign to seek God. When I am aware 
>of Jesus' presence, I usually want what He wants. It is His strenth, His love 
>that empowers my weakness.
>-- 
>Stan Armstrong. Religious Studies Dept, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, N.S.
>Armstrong@husky1.stmarys.ca | att!clyde!watmath!water!dalcs!armstrng

I apologize to the moderator, but the first quote was deleted and I
would like to respond to both.

As for the "goal we can never achieve", the reward comes from the
trying.  Paul makes a clear claim that we are to continue straining for
the prize over in Philippians 3:10-16.  Only by not living out the
commands do we stagnate and become lukewarm, to be spit out by Jesus.
As it says in 1 John 5:3:  "This is love for God:  to obey his comands."
That obedience is our straining to achieve for God.  Of course, this
requires work on our part.

As for the quote in James, Satan doesn't care what we believe.  What
matters is the results of our belief (works).  If one truly has faith in
what one believes, one will either act on that faith or be lying to
oneself about believing in the first place.  

Stan, as for your first line, you have a very good point.  Obedience by
obligation (grudgery) is not what God desires.  Instead, look at how
many times the Bible talks about being joyous in all situations and when
doing God's work.  Being begrudged by the work has no value.  Also, we
should do the work necessary whenever we can, not just when we feel
Jesus' presence.  Feelings can deceive us.  However, as Paul states to
Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:2:  "Preach the Word; be prepared in season and
out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and
careful instruction."  Also, remember that Paul tells Timothy in 1
Timothy 4:16:  "Watch your life and doctrine closely.  Persevere in
them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers."
So, in order to do the work necessary, we need to be sure that we are
correct first.  Remember Jesus' warning in Matthew 7:3-5 not to be
hypocritical about what we do.  The best way to accomplish this is to be
a disciple completely in both thought and deed.  

Joe Fisher
 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20970
From: nigel.allen@canrem.com (Nigel Allen)
Subject: library of congress to host dead sea scroll symposium april 21-22


 Library of Congress to Host Dead Sea Scroll Symposium April 21-22
 To: National and Assignment desks, Daybook Editor
 Contact: John Sullivan, 202-707-9216, or Lucy Suddreth, 202-707-9191
          both of the Library of Congress

   WASHINGTON, April 19  -- A symposium on the Dead Sea 
Scrolls will be held at the Library of Congress on Wednesday,
April 21, and Thursday, April 22.  The two-day program, cosponsored
by the library and Baltimore Hebrew University, with additional
support from the Project Judaica Foundation, will be held in the
library's Mumford Room, sixth floor, Madison Building.
   Seating is limited, and admission to any session of the symposium
must be requested in writing (see Note A).
   The symposium will be held one week before the public opening of a
major exhibition, "Scrolls from the Dead Sea: The Ancient Library of
Qumran and Modern Scholarship," that opens at the Library of Congress
on April 29.  On view will be fragmentary scrolls and archaeological
artifacts excavated at Qumran, on loan from the Israel Antiquities
Authority.  Approximately 50 items from Library of Congress special
collections will augment these materials.  The exhibition, on view in
the Madison Gallery, through Aug. 1, is made possible by a generous
gift from the Project Judaica Foundation of Washington, D.C.
   The Dead Sea Scrolls have been the focus of public and scholarly
interest since 1947, when they were discovered in the desert 13 miles
east of Jerusalem.  The symposium will explore the origin and meaning
of the scrolls and current scholarship.  Scholars from diverse
academic backgrounds and religious affiliations, will offer their
disparate views, ensuring a lively discussion.
   The symposium schedule includes opening remarks on April 21, at
2 p.m., by Librarian of Congress James H. Billington, and by
Dr. Norma Furst, president, Baltimore Hebrew University.  Co-chairing
the symposium are Joseph Baumgarten, professor of Rabbinic Literature
and Institutions, Baltimore Hebrew University and Michael Grunberger,
head, Hebraic Section, Library of Congress.
   Geza Vermes, professor emeritus of Jewish studies, Oxford
University, will give the keynote address on the current state of
scroll research, focusing on where we stand today. On the second
day, the closing address will be given by Shmaryahu Talmon, who will
propose a research agenda, picking up the theme of how the Qumran
studies might proceed.
   On Wednesday, April 21, other speakers will include:

   -- Eugene Ulrich, professor of Hebrew Scriptures, University of
Notre Dame and chief editor, Biblical Scrolls from Qumran, on "The
Bible at Qumran;"
   -- Michael Stone, National Endowment for the Humanities
distinguished visiting professor of religious studies, University of
Richmond, on "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pseudepigrapha."
   -- From 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. a special preview of the exhibition
will be given to symposium participants and guests.

   On Thursday, April 22, beginning at 9 a.m., speakers will include:

   -- Magen Broshi, curator, shrine of the Book, Israel Museum,
Jerusalem, on "Qumran: The Archaeological Evidence;"
   -- P. Kyle McCarter, Albright professor of Biblical and ancient
near Eastern studies, The Johns Hopkins University, on "The Copper
Scroll;"
   -- Lawrence H. Schiffman, professor of Hebrew and Judaic studies,
New York University, on "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of
Judaism;" and
   -- James VanderKam, professor of theology, University of Notre
Dame, on "Messianism in the Scrolls and in Early Christianity."

   The Thursday afternoon sessions, at 1:30 p.m., include:

   -- Devorah Dimant, associate professor of Bible and Ancient Jewish
Thought, University of Haifa, on "Qumran Manuscripts: Library of a
Jewish Community;"
   -- Norman Golb, Rosenberger professor of Jewish history and
civilization, Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, on "The
Current Status of the Jerusalem Origin of the Scrolls;"
   -- Shmaryahu Talmon, J.L. Magnas professor emeritus of Biblical
studies, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, on "The Essential 'Commune of
the Renewed Covenant': How Should Qumran Studies Proceed?" will close
the symposium.

   There will be ample time for question and answer periods at the
end of each session.

   Also on Wednesday, April 21, at 11 a.m.:
   The Library of Congress and The Israel Antiquities Authority
will hold a lecture by Esther Boyd-Alkalay, consulting conservator,
Israel Antiquities Authority, on "Preserving the Dead Sea Scrolls"
in the Mumford Room, LM-649, James Madison Memorial Building, The
Library of Congress, 101 Independence Ave., S.E., Washington, D.C.
    ------
   NOTE A: For more information about admission to the symposium,
please contact, in writing, Dr. Michael Grunberger, head, Hebraic
Section, African and Middle Eastern Division, Library of Congress,
Washington, D.C. 20540.
 -30-
--
Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario
416-629-7000/629-7044

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20971
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5

In article <Apr.19.05.14.21.1993.29291@athos.rutgers.edu> dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:

>You cannot show, from scripture, that the weekly Sabbath is part of the
>ceremonial laws.   Before you post a text in reply investigate its context.

First of all, "ceremonial law" is an extraScriptural term.  It is sometimes
used as a framework to view Scripture.  But if you look at Collosions,
without going into it with the assumption that the Sabbath cannot be 
a ceremonial law, you will see that it does refer to the sabbath.

Paul writes in Collosions 2:14-17 how that Christ nailed the laws that were
against us to His cross, and therefore we should not be judged in what
what food we eat, what we drink, the keeping of new moons and holy days,
or the keeping of the sabbath.

The word for sabbath in this verse is "sabbaton" and is used throughout the
New Testament to refer to the 7th day.  If there is any Scripture from
which we get the idea of the ceremonial law, this is one of them, and the
sabbath is listed among the ceremonial laws.

If one goes into this with the fundamental assumption "the sabbath cannot
be a ceremonial law" then he will have to find some way around it, like
saying that this can only refer to the other sabbath holy days besides the
7tH day, Because "the sabbath cannot be a ceremonial law."  But
Paul is very careful in his letters to add some kind of parenthetcal 
statement if there is anything that can be seen as a liscence to sin
in his writings.

Also, why is the sabbath absent from the epistles (except for Hebrews 4, which
talks about the rest that comes through faith?)  Surely it would have
been a big problem for first century Christians living in a society
that did not rest on the 7th day.  Especially slaves. Many new converst were
slaves.  It would have been difficult for slaves to rest on the sabbath
if it had been mandatory.  Why is there no mention of this in the epistles?

Link Hudson.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20972
From: jasons@atlastele.com (Jason Smith)
Subject: Re: Atheist's views on Christianity (was: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")

In article <Apr.19.05.13.48.1993.29266@athos.rutgers.edu> kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko) writes:
= Jason Smith (jasons@atlastele.com) wrote:
=  
= : [ The discussion begins: why does the universe exist at all?  ]
=  
= : One of the Laws of Nature, specifying cause and effect seems to dictate 
= : (at least to this layman's mind) there must be a causal event.  No
= : reasonable alternative exists.
= 
= I would argue that causality is actually a property of spacetime; 
= causes precede their effects. 

And I must concede here.  Cause *before* effect, implies time, time is part
of spacetime.  Hense, the argument would be valid.  I could return and say 
that this does not infer the cause and effect relationship being *unique*
to *this* spacetime, but I won't 8^), because the point is moot.  Doesn't
address why (which Petri Pikho addresses below).  

I also concede that I was doubly remiss, as I asserted "No reasonable
alternative exists", an entirely subjective statement on my part (and one
that could  be invalidated, given time and further discovery by the
scientist).  I also understand that a proving a theory does not necessarily
specify that "this is how it happened", but proposes a likely description of
the phenomena in question.  Am I mistaken with this understanding?

= But if you claim that there must be
= an answer to "how" did the universe (our spacetime)  emerge from 
= "nothing", science has some good candidates for an answer.

All of which require something we Christians readily admit to: ``Faith''.

The fact that there are several candidates belies that *none* are conclusive.  
With out conclusive evidence, we are left with faith.

It could even be argued that one of these hypotheses may one day be proven (as
best as a non-repeatable event can be "proven").  But I ask, what holds  
someone *today* to the belief that any or all of them are correct, except by 
faith?

[ a couple of paragraphs deleted.  Summary: we ask "Why does the
universe exist" ]

= I think this question should actually be split into two parts, namely
= 
= 1) Why is there existence? Why anything exists?
= 
= and
= 
= 2) How did the universe emerge from nothing?
= 
= It is clear science has nothing to say about the first question. However,
= is it a meaningful question, after all?
=
= I would say it isn't. Consider the following:

Apparently it *is* for many persons.  Hence, we *have* religions.

= The question "why anything exists" can be countered by
= demanding answer to a question "why there is nothing in nothingness,
= or in non-existence".  Actually, both questions turn out to be
= devoid of meaning. Things that exist do, and things that don't exist
= don't exist. Tautology at its best.

Carefully examine the original question, and then the "counter-question". 
The first asks "Why", while the second is a request for definition.  It 
doesn't address why something does or does not exist, but asks to define 
the lack of existence.  The second question is unanswerable indeed, for
how do we identify something as "nothing" (aren't they mutually exclusive
terms)?.  How do we identify a state of non-existence (again, this is
nearing the limits of this simple layman's ability to comprehend, and I
would appreciate an explanation). 

I might add, the worldview of "Things that exist do, and things that
don't...don't" is as grounded in the realm of the non-falsifiable,
as does the theist's belief in God.  It is based on the assumption
that there is *not* a reason for being, something as ultimately
(un)supportable as the position of there being a reason.  Its very
foundation exists in the same soil as that of one who claims there *is* a
reason.

We come to this. Either "I am, therefore I am.", or "I am for a reason."
If the former is a satisfactory answer, then you are done, for you are
satisfied, and need not a doctor.  If the latter, your search is just
beginning.  

= I seriously doubt God could have an answer to this question.

Time will tell. 8^)

= 
= Some Christians I have talked to have said that actually, God is
= Himself the existence. However, I see several problems with this
= answer. First, it inevitably leads to the conclusion that God is
= actually _all_ existence, good and evil, devils and angels, us and
= them. This is pantheism, not Christianity.

Agreed.  It would lead me to question their definition of Christianity as
well.

= Another answer is that God is the _source_ of all existence.
= This sounds much better, but I am tempted to ask: Does God
= Himself exist, then? If God is the source of His own existence,
= it can only mean that He has, in terms of human time, always
= existed. But this is not the same as the source of all existence.

This does not preclude His existence.  It only seeks to identify His
*qualities* (implying He exists to *have* qualities, BTW).

= The best answer I have heard is that human reasoning is incapable
= of understanding such questions. Being an atheist myself, I do not
= accept such answers, since I do not have any other methods.

Like the theist, we come to a statement of faith, for this position assumes 
that the evidence at hand is conclusive.  Note, I am not arguing against 
scientific endeavor, for science is useful for understanding the universe in
which we exist. But I differ from the atheist in a matter of perspective.  I
seek to understand what exists to understand and appreciate the art of the
Creator.

I also have discovered science is an inadequate tool to answer "why".   It
appears that M. Pihko agrees (as we shall see).  But because a tool is
inadequate to answer a question does not preclude the question.  Asserting
that 'why' is an invalid question does not provide an answer.  

= : As far as I can tell, the very laws of nature demand a "why".  That isn't
= : true of something outside of nature (i.e., *super*natural).
= 
= This is not true. Science is a collection of models telling us "how",
= not why, something happens. I cannot see any good reason why the "why"
= questions would be bound only to natural things, assuming that the
= supernatural domain exists. If supernatural beings exist, it is
= as appropriate to ask why they do so as it is to ask why we exist.

My apologies.  I was using why as "why did this come to be".  Why did
pre-existence become existence.  Why did pre-spacetime become spacetime.

But we come to the admission that science fails to answer "Why?".  Because
it can't be answered in the realm of modern science, does that make the
question invalid?
= : I don't believe *any*
= : technology would be able to produce that necessary *spark* of life, despite
= : having all of the parts available. Just my opinion.
= 
= This opinion is also called vitalism; namely, that living systems are
= somehow _fundamentally_ different from inanimate systems. Do Christians
= in general adopt this position? What would happen when scientists announce
= they have created primitive life (say, small bacteria) in a lab?

I suppose we would do the same thing as when Galileo or Capernicus was 
*vindicated*  (before someone starts jumping up and down screaming
"Inquisition!", note I said *vindicated*.  I certainly hope we've gotten
beyond the "shooting the messenger" stage).

M. Pihko does present a good point though.  We may need to ask "What do I 
as an individual Christian base my faith on?"  Will it be shaken by the
production of evidence that shatters our "sacred cows" or will we seek to
understand if a new discovery truly disagrees with what God *said* (and
continues to say) in his Word?

"Why do I ask why?" (apologies to Budweiser and company 8^]).

Jason.



-- 
Jason D. Smith  	|
jasons@atlastele.com	|    I'm not young enough to know everything.
     1x1        	| 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20973
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: Does 'Just/justifiable War' exist?

Some thoughts:

[A. On the non-pacifist side:]

(1) Killing to defend the innocent may be, if anything, _more_ justifiable
than killing in self-defense.  I can turn my _own_ other cheek, but I have
no right to turn someone else's.

(2) It seems to me that if Jesus had meant to teach pacifism, He would have
made His position more explicit.  He didn't tell the centurion to leave the
army, for instance; and the NT is full of military metaphors.

[B. On the pacifist side:]

(1) Apparently many early Christians refused to fight in the Roman army,
or stated that one should refuse if given a choice.  But it's not clear
whether they were objecting to war _per se_, or objecting to Roman policies.

(2) In modern warfare, it seems to be impossible to direct attacks only at
combatants.  Bombing, both conventional and nuclear, kills lots of civilians.

(3) It's hard to tell whether any _particular_ war is justified at the time.
Often it takes decades for the requisite information to become available
to the general public.

Please, NO EMAIL REPLIES -- this is meant as a contribution to a public
discussion, and anyone wanting to reply should also reply publicly.
-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20974
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: Divine providence vs. Murphy's Law

In article <Apr.19.05.13.28.1993.29224@athos.rutgers.edu> rolfe@junior.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe) writes:
>Romans 8:28 (RSV)   We know that in everything God works for good with those 
>who love him, who are called according to his purpose. 
>
>Murphy's Law:  If anything can go wrong, it will.
>
>We are all quite familiar with the amplifications and commentary on
>Murphy's Law.  But how do we harmonize that with Romans 8:28?  For that
>matter, how appropriate is humor contradicted by Scripture?
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I've always taken Murphy's Law to be an exhortation to prudence, and
an observation about the behavior of complex systems, rather than a
denial of divine benevolence.
-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20975
From: conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt)
Subject: Re: Being right about messiahs

[The following is my comment on an article by Desiree Bradley.  --clh]

>By the way, from Koresh's public statement it's not so clear to me
>that he is claiming to be Christ.

Koresh did originally claim to be the Christ, but then backed off and
said he was a prophet.  The latest news at 8:00 CDT from Waco is that
the feds broke through a wall of the compound with a tank.  No news
besides that at this time.

Paul

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20976
From: kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Questioning Authority

Chris Mussack writes:

> For all those people who insist I question authority: Why?

How about:

	The Holocaust
	The Spanish Inquisition
	Jonestown

(just to name a few) ?

Authorities sometimes tell people to do evil things.  People who "just
follow orders" have tortured and killed others in very large numbers,
and protest their innocence afterwards.

When your authority starts telling you to do things, you should ask
questions.  Except for situations of pressing need ("I said shut the
hatch because the submarine is filling with water!"), any reasonable
authority should be able to give at least some justification that you
can understand.

Just be sure to listen when authority answers.

(If anybody is interested in questions of psychological pressure and
 following orders, you might want to read about a study done by Solomon Ashe
 in 1951 on conformity, and another done by Stanley Milgram in 1963 on
 obedience.  Both should be in any good book on psychology/sociology.  The
 results are both fascinating and terrifying.)


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu
"we do what we're told
 we do what we're told
 we do what we're told
 told to do" -- Peter Gabriel

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20977
From: dxf12@po.cwru.edu (Douglas Fowler)
Subject: Re: Christian Parenting


     Sorry for posting this, but my e-mail keeps bouncing.  Maybe it will
help others here, anyway, and therefore I pray others will read this.  It is
actually a response from my Aunt, who has 5 kids, since I have none yet.

>Hi I am a Sociology student and I am currently researching into
>young offenders.  I am looking at the way various groups of
>children are raised at home.  At the moment I am formlulating
>information on discipline within the Christian home.
>
>Please, if you are a parent in this catagory can you email me
>your response to the following questionaire.  All responses
>will be treated confidentially and will only be used to prepare
>stats.
     I'm posting this for a good Christian relative who does not have e-mail
access.  Since this aunt and uncle have 5 kids I felt they would be more
relevant than I, who have none (yet).

>1.  Ages & sexes of children
     13-year-old (13YO) twins, 10YO boy, 6.5YO boy, 2YO girl

>2.  Do you spank your kids?
     I don't call it spanking, but they do, so yes, very rarely.

>3.  If so how often?
     I don't call it spanking because it's more of a reaction to something
very dangerous, such as trying to stick their finger in a fan or running
into the road.  Maybe 3-4 times for each except for the 2YO girl, who has
not been spanked yet.
     They call it that because it *does* hurt their feelings, and of course
I give all the hugs and stuff to ensure they know they're still loved.

>4.  Do you use an implement to spank with?
     No, that would be too painful.  If it's too traumatic they never recall
why they were punished.  Besides, it must be immediate, and taking the time
to go get a toolmeans you're not doing it right away, and that lessens the
impact.  It's very emotional for a child as it is - which is evidenced by the
fact that a little slap on the rear - which hurts for perhaps 5 seconds -
is called a spanking.
>
>5. If you do not spank, what method of discipline do you use?
     Lots of logical consequences - for instance, when 4YO Matthew dared
a good friend to jump out of his treehouse or he would push him out, I made
sure they didn't play together for 5 days so he'd know that would make him
lose friends very quickly.  He's never done anything like that since.
     We also use time-out in their rooms - I use a timer so they don't keep
arguing with me over leaving, since it's hard to argue with a macine.
I will go to the closed door and tell them timeout won't be over until they
calm down if they're too tantrumy.  I use the top of the stairs when they're
really young.

>6.  Your age?
     40

>7.  Your location
     Bath, Ohio.  It's right outside of Akron, in the northeast part of Ohio.

>8.  While under the age of 16 did you ever commit a criminal
>offence?
     No, and none of my kids would dream of it.  I hope you can use this to
teach all parents that physical punishment isn't always required - parents use
that as an excuse to hit too hard.

>9.  How ere you disciplined as a kid
     Lots of timeouts, same as I use.  Our family and my husband's have never
used spankings.  In fact, my grandmother in law was one of 11 kids, and they
were almost never spanked.  This was around the turn of the century.  And,
none of us has ever been afoul of the law - man-made or God's law.
     Jesus says, referring to a small child whom he is holding, that "what
ye do to the least of these, ye do also to me."  The Bible also says in all
things to be kind, and merciful, and especially loving. (Colossians 3:12-15.)
There is no room for selfish anger, which I'll admit I've been tempted with
at times.  When I've felt like spanking hard in anger, maybe the kid deserved
a little slap on the rear, but what I would have given would have been the
devil's work.  I could feel the temptation, and just angrily ordered the kid
to his/her room and went to my room myself.  After praying and asking God's
forgiveness, I was much calmer, and did not feel like spanking, but felt that
what I had done was enough punishment.
-- 
Doug Fowler: dxf12@po.CWRU.edu  : Me, age 4 & now: "Mommys and Daddys & other
    Ever wonder if, after Casey : relatives have to give lots of hugs & love
missed the 3rd strike in the poem: & support, 'cause Heaven is just a great
he ran to first and made it?     : big hug that lasts forever and ever!!!"

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 20978
From: thssccb@iitmax.iit.edu (catherine c bareiss)
Subject: Re: phone number of wycliffe translators UK

In article <Apr.17.01.11.19.1993.2268@geneva.rutgers.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>
>  I'm concerned about a recent posting about WBT/SIL.  I thought they'd
>pretty much been denounced as a right-wing organization involved in
>ideological manipulation and cultural interference, including Vietnam
>and South America. A commission from Mexican Academia denounced them in
>1979 as " a covert political and ideological institution used by the
>U.S. govt as an instrument of control, regulation, penetration, espionage and
>repression."

I have personally know quite of few of the Wycliffe Bible Translators.
As an organization their fundamental purpose is to translate the scriptures
into the native languages which in terms usual means learning it and 
developing a written language (along with teaching the natives to read).
It is not associated with the U.S. govt. at all.  Many governments
want the help of the translators.  To the best of my knowledge the 
Mexican government now encourages them to come.  Their idea is not
cultural interference but the presentation of the Good News.

To understand more about what they do, I suggest you read some of the books
(autobiographical and biographical) about some of the translators.  One
that stands out in my mind as an excellent is called "Peace Child."
This would give a true picture of what their mission is.

>  My concern is that this group may be seen as acceptable and even
>praiseworthy by readers of soc.religion.christian. It's important that
>Christians don't immediately accept every "Christian" organization as
>automatically above reproach.
>
>                                                                  mp
I agree with this statement, but we cannot also accept what others
say without looking into the issues.  That would be the same as taking 
Suddan's discussion about the CIA, etc. as being true.  We must look
at both sides.

Cathy Bareiss

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21308
From: mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary

a.faris@trl.oz.au (Aziz Faris) writes:

>Helllo Netters:

>I was told the Bible says that God took the body of the Virgin Mary as
>she was being carried for burial. Is this true, if so were in the Bible
>does it say that.

>Regards,
>A.Faris

>[I think you're talking about the "assumption of the Blessed Virgin
>Mary".  It says that "The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin
>Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed
>body and soul into heavenly glory."  This was defined by a Papal
>statement in 1950, though it had certainly been believed by some
>before that.  Like the Immaculate Conception, this is primarily a
>Roman Catholic doctrine, and like it, it has no direct Biblical
>support.  Note that Catholics do not believe in "sola scriptura".
>That is, they do not believe that the Bible is the only source of
>Christian knowledge.  Thus the fact that a doctrine has little
>Biblical support is not necessarily significant to them.  They believe
>that truth can be passed on through traditions of the Church, and also
>that it can be revealed to the Church.  I'm not interested in yet
>another Catholic/Protestant argument, but if any Catholics can tell us
>the basis for these beliefs, I think it would be appropriate.  --clh]


	Again I find myself wanting to respond to a posting and having neither
the time nor the proper materials with me (you would think I would learn my
lesson by now--but I'm trying to finish writing my Thesis and don't have tons
of time.  Anyway...)

	The basis for our (the catholic church's) belief in the assumption of
Mary, body and soul, into heaven is that, to put it simply, the apostles 
and all the early generation Christians believed it.  In fact, throughout their
ministry the apostles kept in close contact with Mary, and 11 of the 12 were
present when she died.  Only Thomas was missing--when he arrived several days
later, he asked to be shown her body, and moved with pity, Peter and several of
the other apostles brought him to her tomb.  When they arrived the seal was
still unbroken.  They broke the seal, entered, and the body was missing.  There
was no sign that anyone had entered, forcibly or otherwise, and everything else
was laid out exactly as it had been left.  The apostles present all believed
that Mary was assumed into heaven--and the apostles TAUGHT this in their  
preaching (of course, this does not appear in any of the texts currently 
considered part of the bible, but it does appear in other writings left behind
by several of them.)  Basicaly, as an apostolic church (ie. founded by the
apostles), we believe that the teachings of the apostles, whether written down
in the bible or written down in other sources, is true, providing that the
authenticity of those other sources can be confirmed.  At least in the case of
the assumption of Mary, the authenticity is quite clear.

	Hope this helps--I would welcome anyone who has more information to
	add to what I've said.
					- Mike Walker
					  mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
					  (Univ. of Illinois)
					  ]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21309
From: news@cbnewsk.att.com
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary

In article <May.3.05.01.53.1993.9964@athos.rutgers.edu> a.faris@trl.oz.au (Aziz Faris) writes:

>[I think you're talking about the "assumption of the Blessed Virgin
>Mary".  It says that "The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin
>Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed
>body and soul into heavenly glory."  This was defined by a Papal
>statement in 1950, though it had certainly been believed by some
>before that.  --clh]

So true.  I'm not sure of the basis of the belief, but it was a widely
held belief among the laity of the RC church and their support of it
lead to it being declared to be true.  Basically the teaching on infallibility
holds that the pope is infallible in matters of faith and doctrine, the
college of bishops is likewise infallible, and the laity is as well.
The pope gets most of the attention/criticism but the consensus of the
other bodies is equally infallible (according to RC teaching).

Joe Moore

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21310
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: What WAS the immaculate conception

Biblical basis for the Immaculate Conception:

1) "I will put enmity between you [the Serpent] and the woman, and
between your seed and her seed, she [can also be read he] shall crush
your head and you shall bruise her [or his] heel."
    -Genesis 3.15

2) "He who commits sin is of the devil ..."
    -1 John 3.8

3) "Hail, full of grace [greek - kecharitomene], the Lord is with thee ..."
    -Luke 1.28

   From the above, we prove the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
   First, God has given the proto-evangel in Genesis 3.15, which is the
first promise of a savior, who will redeem mankind from the wiles of
Satan. "[Satan] was a murderer from the beginning, and has not stood in
the truth because there is no truth in him." John 8.44.  Now the
proto-evangel promises several things, enmity between Satan and "the
woman", and enmity between Satan and "her seed."  Now the woman is both
Eve (who is the immediate point of reference) and Mary, the second Eve. 
"Her seed" is Jesus Christ, and He is also at enmity with Satan in the
same way as Mary is said to be at enmity with Satan.  Thus, knowing as
we do that Jesus Christ is sinless (Hebrews 7.26), we can conclude that
Mary is also sinless because if she wasn't she would 1) not be at enmity
with the devil, as 1 John 3.8 tells us, and 2) the relation of her
sinlessness to Christ's sinlessness would be called into question, as
would God's veracity.  For God promised an enmity between Mary and the
serpent, and it is not possible for God to lie or be decieved.
    Second, we have the Angelic Greeting where Mary is called by the
Archangle Gabriel "full of grace."  As I pointed out above this is from
the Greek word "Kecharitomene" which means not just full of grace, but a
plenitude or perfection of grace.  The sense of it is best grasped by
the footnote to the Jerusalem Bible, "Hail you who have been and reamin
filled with grace."  But that is a little to long to say, so it is
reduced to full of grace.  And as it says, "you who have been" Mary had
always been filled with grace, from the moment of her conception, which
was also the moment of her salvation, until her death some years later.
    It must be admitted that it is possible that God could have done
what the doctrine of the Immaclute Conception says He did do.  And if
God could keep himself free from any contact with sin, through his
Mother, He would have, and the Bible records this fact, to which the
Fathers of the Church such as St. John Damascus, St. Augustine of Hippo
, St. Ambrose and others are in complete agreement with, as is all of
Christian tradition, and as is the infallible declaration of the Pope on
the matter in "Ineffibilus Deus."

Andy Byler

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21311
From: marka@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley)
Subject: Re: SATANIC TOUNGES

In article <May.2.09.50.21.1993.11782@geneva.rutgers.edu> mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>I have seen the claims, but I don't know if there are any
>authenticated cases of people making prolonged speeches in
>real languages they don't know. From my observations, "speaking
>in tongues" in practice has nothing at all do with this.

I have a simple test. I take several people who can speak
only one language (e.g. chinese, russian, german, english).
Then I let the "gifted one" start "speaking in toungues".
The audience should understand the "gifted one" clearly
in their native language. However, the "gifted one" can
only hear himself speaking in his own language.

Works everytime. 8-)
Perhaps I would believe the "gifted ones" more if they were
glorifying God rather than themselves. Then perhaps we'd
witness a real miracle.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Ashley                        |DISCLAIMER: My opinions. Not Harris'
marka@gcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com      |
The Lost Los Angelino              |

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21312
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: Babylon Book Offer

From time to time I have made reference to a book called "The Two Babylons"
which is a book written by Alexander Hislop (mid 1800's) about the Babylonian
mystery religion and its flight through history.  I was unable to put it down
the first time I read it, but others have found it dry.  It has numberable
references and illustrations.  If you are interested in purchasing your own
copy, you can call Moody Book Store @ (312)329-4352 and order it for $16.99 and
they will ship it to you.   
  It is a good book just to get the reference titles for your own digs into the
mystery religions.  I have found it invaluable for that purpose alone.  But for
those who only want to skim the subject, it comes highly recommended.  
  Just a note to my RC brothers and sisters.  You may find this to be a
diatribe or you may find it to be a test to the origin and true nature of the
origin of RCism.  If you are offended by anything that asks hard questions
about your denomination (as to whether or not it is "Christian") then perhaps
you should just passover this offer.  To those who are a little more
adventurous, go for it and later, please contact me with you reasons pro or con
on the scholorship of this book.  I really would be interested.

adelphoi ev Christos,
Rex 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21313
From: storrs@eos.ncsu.edu (JERRY STORRS)
Subject: Re: March for Jesus

The only info I have is my area is not having a large march.  They are leaving
it up to each congragation.  IMO this means organizers found it too difficult
to manage or no one feels the need to be involved.

I'm not casting stones, my involvement with the Lord does not include the March
this year.  Maybe He is giving a message by the lack of one??  JLS

=============================================================================
Jerry L Storrs, Systems Manager   ||| U Got 2 B Tru,
Dept of Chemical Engineering	  |||   U Got 2 B Livin' What U Say U Believe
North Carolina State University   ||| U Got 2 B Tru,
Raleigh, NC 27695		  |||   Even when nobody but Jesus is watchin U
919-515-6393  (-3465 FAX)	  |||
storrs@che.ncsu.edu (preferred)   |||			(Steven Curtis Chapman)
			<><       |||
=============================================================================

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21314
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: Record burning...

rgolder@hoh.mbl.edu (Robert Golder) writes:

>The movie version
>of "The Last Temptation of Christ" was so awful that practically no one
>would have seen it, or been influenced by its message, had not
>conservatives loudly protested its distribution.  They unwittingly
>created a larger market for the movie.

In many places, Christians were sucessful in their attempts
to get the films banned, or at least given a very restrictive 
showing.

I have no problem with Christians burning their own pieces of
art (though I find it a tragic waste). I do however have a 
problem with their attempts to censor what I may or may not
view.

P.
-- 
 moorcockpratchettdenislearydelasoulu2iainmbanksneworderheathersbatmanpjorourke
clive p a u l  m o l o n e y  Come, let us retract the foreskin of misconception
james trinity college dublin  and apply the wire brush of enlightenment - GeoffM
 brownbladerunnersugarcubeselectronicblaylockpowersspikeleekatebushhamcornpizza 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21315
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Monophysites and Mike Walker

>		- Mike Walker 
> 
>[If you are using the standard formula of fully God and fully human,
>that I'm not sure why you object to saying that Jesus was human.  I
>think the usual analysis would be that sin is not part of the basic
>definition of humanity.  It's a consequence of the fall.  Jesus is
>human, but not a fallen human.  --clh]

The proper term for what Mike expresses is Monophysitism.  This was a
heresy that was condemned in the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD.  It
grew up in reaction to Nestorianism, which held that the Son and Jesus
are two different people who happened to be united in the same body
temporarily.  Monophysitism is held by the Copts of Egypt and Ethipoia
and by the Jacobites of Syria and the Armenian Orthodox.  It believes
that Jesus Christ was God (which is correct), that he was man (which is
correct), that he was one person (which is correct), but that he had
only one nature and one will and oen energy (which is heretical, the
orthodox position is that he had two natures and two wills and two
energies, both divine and human, though the wills were in perfect
harmony).  That is what Mike is trying to get across, that while Jesus
came in human form, Mike says He did not have a human nature or a human
will.  In reality, he had both, though neither made him subject to
original sin.
It is interesting to note that the Monothelites were a reaction to this
conflict and attempted to solve the problem by admitting two natures but
not two wills or two energies.  It also was condemned, at a late council
in Constantinople I believe.

Andy Byler

[These issues get mighty subtle.  When you see people saying different
things it's often hard to tell whether they really mean seriously
different things, or whether they are using different terminology.  I
don't think there's any question that there is a problem with
Nestorius, and I would agree that the saying Christ had a human form
without a real human nature or will is heretical.  But I'd like to be
a bit wary about the Copts, Armenians, etc.  Recent discussions
suggest that their monophysite position may not be as far from
orthodoxy as many had thought.  Nestorius was an extreme
representative of one of the two major schools of thought.  More
moderate representatives were regarded as orthodox, e.g. Theodore of
Mopsuestia.  My impression is that the modern monophysite groups
inherit the entire tradition, not just Nestorius' version, and that
some of them may have a sufficient balanced position to be regarded as
orthodox.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21316
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse


   The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. 
    The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you. 
Romans 16:20

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21317
From: brownli@ohsu.edu@ohsu.edu (Liane Brown)
Subject: CHRIST, MY ADVOCATE - A Poem


                 _MY ADVOCATE_

I sinned. And straightway, posthaste, Satan flew
Before the presence of the Most High God
And made a railing accusation there.
He said, "This soul, this thing of clay and sod,
Has sinned. 'Tis true that he has named Thy name;
But I demand his death, for Thou hast said,
'The soul that sinneth, it shall die.' Shall not
Thy sentence be fulfilled? Is justice dead?
Send now this wretched sinner to his doom!
What other thing can righteous ruler do?"
Thus Satan did accuse me day and night;
And every word he spoke, O  God, was true!

Then quickly One rose up from God's right hand,
Before whose glory angels veiled their eyes;
He spoke, "Each jot and tittle of the law
Must be fulfilled; the guilty sinner dies!
But wait -- suppose his guilt were all transferred
To Me and that I paid his penalty!
Behold My hands, My side, My feet! One day
I was made sin for him and died that he
Might be presented, faultless, at Thy throne!"
And Satan flew away.  Full well he knew
That he could not prevail against such love,
for every word my dear Lord spoke was true!


					by Martha Snell Nicholson

+++++++++++++++++++++++
I heard this poem read last night and wanted to share it with other 
subscribers of this newsgroup.  It's such a wonderful blessing to see how 
secure our salvation is because the Lord Jesus paid for what He did not owe 
because we had a debt which we were not capable to pay.

Thanks and praise be to the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who is seated at 
the right hand of the Majesty on High, making intercession for us.
++++++++++++++++++++++++

Liane Brown
(Internet) brownli@ohsu.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21318
From: loisc@microsoft.com (Lois Christiansen)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <Apr.30.03.11.27.1993.10101@geneva.rutgers.edu> FSSPR@acad3.alaska.edu wrote:
> This subject was beaten to death on bit.listserv.christia recently,
> until Madge stepped in and closed the topic.  It has been discussed
> since privately in e-mail amongst their participants, and I've 
> received some of it.  A fairly large file (approx. 18 KB) of comments 
> made on the March On Washington was among these.  If it hasn't been 
> posted here already (I don't know;  I just scan through this 
> newsgroup, as at 1200 bps, I couldn't possibly read it all), I would
> be glad to send it along.  I believe that it would be of interest to
> people here.
> 
> 
> I hope that anyone who remembers seeing Rev. Troy Perry's
> "performance" at the 1987 March On Washington will see for themselves
> just how inconceivable it is to mix Christianity with homosexuality.
> 
> Sean Patrick Ryan****fsspr@aurora.alaska.edu or sean@freds.cojones.com

You might visit some congregations of Christians, who happen to be homosexuals,
that are spirit-filled believers, not MCC'rs; before you go lumping us all
together with Troy Perry.  

The Lord IS working in our community (the homosexual community, that is).  He's
not asking us to change our sexual nature, but He is calling us to practice
the morality that He established from the beginning.

Isn't Satan having a hayday pitting Christian against Christian over any issue
he can, especially homosexuality.  Let's reach the homosexuals for Christ. 
Let's not try to change them, just need to bring them to Christ.  If He
doesn't want them to be gay, He can change that.  If they are living a moral
life, committed to someone of the same sex, and God is moving in their lives,
who are we to tell them they have to change?

That's my two cent.

God Bless You All
Loisc

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21319
From: sdixon@andy.bgsu.edu (Sherlette Dixon)
Subject: Re:  My original post (Was Jesus Black?)

My, my, my.  I knew that I would receive a response to my post, but not
THIS extensive.  Thank you to all who responded; it at least showed that
people were willing to think about it, even though the general response was
a return to the same old "Why should it matter?" question.  To those of you
who were a part of this response, I suggest that you read the articles
covering this same question in soc.culture.african.american, for you are in
DIRE need of some cultural enlightenment.

Hasta luego

Sherlette

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21320
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Going permanent no-mail

Well, it's that time of year again here at IU:  graduation.
Unfortunately, this means that I am out of here, more than likely for
good.  I cannot say if I'll be in here under another username or not, or
even if I'll ever get back in here at all.  I am leaving this part of my
ministry to another brother, John Right.  So, have fun and remember that
flaming can be considered slander.

Joe Fisher

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21321
From: MNHCC@cunyvm.bitnet (Marty Helgesen)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary

In article <May.3.05.01.53.1993.9964@athos.rutgers.edu>, a.faris@trl.oz.au (Aziz
Faris) says:
>A.Faris
<<Posting deleted.  The moderator replies:
>[I think you're talking about the "assumption of the Blessed Virgin
>Mary".  It says that "The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin
>Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed
>body and soul into heavenly glory."  This was defined by a Papal
>statement in 1950, though it had certainly been believed by some
>before that.  Like the Immaculate Conception, this is primarily a
>Roman Catholic doctrine, and like it, it has no direct Biblical
>support.  Note that Catholics do not believe in "sola scriptura".
>That is, they do not believe that the Bible is the only source of
>Christian knowledge.  Thus the fact that a doctrine has little
>Biblical support is not necessarily significant to them.  They believe
>that truth can be passed on through traditions of the Church, and also
>that it can be revealed to the Church.  I'm not interested in yet
>another Catholic/Protestant argument, but if any Catholics can tell us
>the basis for these beliefs, I think it would be appropriate.  --clh]

That is generally accuate, but contains one serious error.  We Catholics
do believe that God's revealed truth that is not explicitly recorded in
the Bible can be and is passed on through the Tradition of the Church.
It should be noted that the Tradition of the Church, otherwise known as
Sacred Tradition, is not the same as ordinary human traditions.
However, we do not believe that additional truth will be revealed to
the Church.  Public revelation, which is the basis of Catholic doctrine,
ended with the death of St. John, the last Apostle.  Nothing new can
be added.  Theologians study this revelation and can draw out implications
that were not recognized previously, so that the Council of Nicea could
define statements about the theology of the Trinity and the Incarnation
that were not explicitly stated in the Bible and had been disputed
before the council, but there was no new revelation at Nicea or at
any subsequent council.

Cardinal Newman's _An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine_,
written while he was still an Anglican, is an excellent discussion of
of this point.  It was recently reprinted as a Doubleday Image Books
paperback with some related shorter works under the title _Conscience,
Consensus, and the Development of Doctrine_.
-------
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm   Internet: mnhcc@cunyvm.cuny.edu

"What if there were no such thing as a hypothetical situation?"

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21322
From: Steve.Hayes@f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
Subject: MAJOR VIEWS OF THE TRINITY

04 May 93, D. Andrew Byler writes to All:

 DAB> I think I need to again post the Athanasian Creed, whicc pretty well
 DAB> delinieates orthodox Christian belief on the Trinity, and on the
 DAB> Incarnation.

 DAB> It's a pretty good statement of the beliefs eventually accpeted, and the
 DAB> Creed is in use by the Catholic Church, as well as the Lutheran,
 DAB> Anglican, and Orthodox churches (the last minus the filioque, which they
 DAB> delete from the original form of the creed).

Do you have any evidence that it is used by the Orthodox Churches?

As far as I know it is purely Western, like the "Apostles' Creed". The
Orthodox Churches use the "Symbol of Faith", commonly called "The
Nicene Creed".

Steve Hayes
Department of Missiology
University of South Africa

--- GoldED 2.40

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21323
From: sun075!Gerry.Palo@uunet.uu.net (Gerry Palo)
Subject: Re: Athiests and Hell

In article <Apr.30.03.10.22.1993.10056@geneva.rutgers.edu> REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov writes:
>In article <Apr.29.04.19.17.1993.9069@geneva.rutgers.edu>
>sun075!Gerry.Palo@uunet.uu.net (Gerry Palo) writes:
>
>>Note that in this, perhaps the oldest of the creeds, there is no mention
>>of the danger of hell for non-believers.  Likewise there is no mention 
>>of the salvation of the believers' soul and its destiny in heaven after 
>>death. There is only the resurrection of the body (and it does not say 
>>when or how).
>
>You don't go far enough back.  If we believe in God and that He did create the
>heavens and the earth and He did create Adam and Eve and that they walked in
>the garden and history flowed from there, if we can agree with that, then would
>you agree that the further back you go the closer you get to people who had a
>stronger memory of who God was and what He said and commanded?  

Between Adam and Eve and Golgotha the whole process of the fall of man
occurred.  This involved a gradual dimming of consciousness of the spiritual
world.  This is discernable in the world outlooks of different peoples through
history.  The Greek, for example, could say, "better a beggar in the land
of the living than a king in the land of the dead." (Iliad, I think).

The question of what happens to human beings who died before Christ is
an ever present one with Christians.  I am not ready to conscign Adam
or Abraham, or even Cain to eternal damnation.  Yet they all died in their
sins, in the Christian sense.  The same can be said of the whole of  Gentile
humanity, and also of the unrepentant malefactor on the cross next to
him.  I do not limit the power of Christ to save even him, through whom
Satan would mock his deed of salvation at the very moment of its fulfillment.

>In my studies
>of the ancient mystery reliegions, I have run across many poems or rituals or
>what nots with the interpretation that those who are of God will be with Him
>via the promised seed but those who rebel will suffer *eternal* life in dieing.
> It was a standard belief back then.  

It is possible to experience eternity in a passing moment.  The
relationship of eternity to duration is not simply one of indefinitely
extended conditions of Greenwich mean time. It is possible to imagine
an eternity of agony or bliss - or even many of them - in the
spiritual world during the time between earthly death and a new birth.

It was also a standard belief among many peoples that even the righteous
were lost. This again is the result of the loss of the paradisal consciousness
that fled from us after the fall, with our ever increasing involvement with
the sense world.

It would be interesting to share in the results of your studies of ancient
people's ideas of life after death.

>                                    Today we think we know so much and that
>if we could go back in time we could sure teach those people a thing or two. 
>But I think that as this age has grown older that it is we who opperate from a
>mist, not those of the older ages.
>

Mankind fell into mist and darkness, and at "the turning point of
time" a new light entered into the world.  The light still grows, and
we are developing the eyes with which to see by it.  Much new
revelation and growth in under- standing lies before us.  Our new
vision and understanding is still very feeble, but it contains
something new that will grow in time to embrace that which is old and
much more as well.

(At this point I should acknowledge openly my debt to the work of Rudolf
Steiner, founder of Anthroposophy, for  many insights that have led me to my
views on this subject).

>I have said it before, I'd love to post on this but the vulcan hammer would
>fall.  The history to purgatory can be shown from the druids in England to the
>Greeks who pilaged it from the Egyptians who ultimately got it from the
>Babylonian mysteries. And yes, the eastern religions also show many
>similarities.  I mean, its black and white.  THe writings and the archeological
>finds plainly show its origin and the whys and wherefores of this doctine.  

The way you refer to it as "doctrine" puts a modern intellectual coloring
on it. I think it was much less abstract and much more real and spiritually
concrete, a teaching that struck much closer to home than our doctrines or
teachings today can be received.

I am not so ready to attribute widespread notions in antiquity to
simple dispersion from an original source.  Even if they were passed
on, the question is, to what extent did they reflect real perception
and experience?  The similarity in the midst of great variety of
expression of the different people's ideas of the time immediately
after death testifies to the presence of an underlying reality.  In
any case, we study geometry not by reading old manuscripts of Euclid,
but by contemplating the principles themselves.

On the other hand, there is one notion firmly embedded in Christianity
that originated most definitely in a pagan source.  The idea that the
human being consists essentially of soul only, and that the soul is
created at birth, was consciously adopted from Aristotle, whose ideas
dominated Christian thought for fifteen hundred years and still does
today. He was at once the father of modern thought and at the same
time lived during that darkened time when the perception of our
eternal spiritual being had grown dim.

>maybe at sometime in the future-  

Indeed. I should also clarify that I do not deny that eternal
irrevocable damnation is a real possibility.  But the narrow range in
which we conceive of the decisive moment, i.e. after the end of a
single earthly life, is not in my mind sufficient to embrace the
reality, and I think that is why the early creeds were couched in
terms that did not try to spell it out.

>Rex

Gerry (73237.2006@compuserve.com)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21324
From: sml@rpsyc.nott.ac.uk (Steve Lang)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

In article <May.2.09.51.49.1993.11841@geneva.rutgers.edu>, you wrote:

> The genius of science is that it discovered that enormous progress 
> in knowledge could be made by isolating the study of physical 
> interactions for the more general areas of study and proceeding
> not by logical argument but by experiment. The scientific method
> is hypothesize, attempt to disprove the hypothesis, if you fail, 
> publish, if others fail to disprove your hypothesis, accept it
> as a working theory and move on. This method is suitable only
> for the study of objects without will, objects which do not
> take an interest in the experiment.

Science does not progress via experimentation but by philosophising.  One
aim of experiments is to investigate the validity of the hyptheses
resulting from the models produced by this thinking process.

> The arrogance of science is the assumption many advocates of 
> science make that the scientific method is the only method of
> serious study, the only one leading to knowledge rather than
> belief. 

Science has one advantage of all other approaches to explaining the world.
It is objective.

> Its further arrogance, is the assumption which arises
> that, since science is the only valid method of thought, everything
> which exists must be the sort of thing which the scientific 
> method can study, and that if the scientific method cannot 
> study it it either does not exist or cannot in any way be known.

Anything which affects the physical world can be studied.  For example,
since we are part of the physical world, anything (including spirits) which
affects our behaviour can be observed.  Science does not make any claims
about the existence or non-existence of objects which do not affect the
physical world.

> Since these asumptions about the nature of the world cannot
> themselves be made the subject of experiment, it is bad science
> to believe them, as well as arrogance, illogic, and just plain
> sloppy thinking.

The purpose of science is to produce a model of the *physical* world.  The
model must be able to explain all past observations and predict the outcome
of future observations.  One of the aims of experiments is to carry out
well defined observations which are objective.

Ideally scientist will except the model which best describes the world, and
the model which realises on the minimal number of assumptions.  At the
moment models which do not rely on the assumption of some *spiritual* world
existing are equally powerful to ones which assume the assumption of a
*spiritual* world.  As the non-spiritual models has fewer assumptions it
should be the currently accepted models.

The scientific process never assumes that its present models are the
correct ones, whereas many religions claim to represent the truth.  The
arrogance of many theists is that they claim to represent the truth, this
cannot be said of scientists.

Steve Lang
SLANG->SLING->SLINK->SLICK->SLACK->SHACK->SHANK->THANK->THINK->THICK

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21325
From: marka@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary

>[I think you're talking about the "assumption of the Blessed Virgin
>Mary".  It says that "The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin
>Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed
>body and soul into heavenly glory."  This was defined by a Papal
>statement in 1950, though it had certainly been believed by some
>before that.  Like the Immaculate Conception, this is primarily a
>Roman Catholic doctrine, and like it, it has no direct Biblical
>support.  Note that Catholics do not believe in "sola scriptura".
>That is, they do not believe that the Bible is the only source of
>Christian knowledge.  Thus the fact that a doctrine has little
>Biblical support is not necessarily significant to them.  They believe
>that truth can be passed on through traditions of the Church, and also
>that it can be revealed to the Church.  I'm not interested in yet
>another Catholic/Protestant argument, but if any Catholics can tell us
>the basis for these beliefs, I think it would be appropriate.  --clh]

In the Bible, there are a lot of instances where God speaks
to people, where a person just "came to know" some piece
of information, where a person walks off into the desert
for "40 days", etc. With all of God's power He certainly can
do whatever He wants when He wants it. The Bible "ends"
with the book of Revelations. But does God's reign end there ? No.
So who can say for sure that God's messages are either no longer
happening or still happening ?

I can now hear the clamor for proof. 8-)
With the cold response I've gotten from the past from this
group, it's very hard to get the point across. I'll only
go over the physical stuff so that skeptics can look
at documents stored somewhere. I've cited the uncorrupted
bodies of saints before. They're still there. 8-)
The apparitions at Fatima, Portugal culminated in a miracle
specifically granted to show God's existence. That was
the spinning/descending of the sun. It was seen in several
countries. That event is "approved" by the Pope. Currently,
images of Mary in Japan, Korea, Yugoslavia, Philippines, Africa
are showing tears (natural or blood). These are still under
investigation by the Church. But realize that investigations
take decades to finish. And if the message is Christ will come
in ten days, that's a bit too late, isn't it 8-).
Other events under investigation are inner locutions ("coming
to know"), stigmata (the person exhibits Christ's wounds. And
they don't heal. And doctor's don't know why).
Non-believers are welcome to pore through documents, I'm sure.

This stuff is not like Koresh. Or Oral Roberts (give me $5M
or God will call me home). It's free. Find out why they're
happening (as we ourselves are studying why). If anybody
can figure this out, tell us ! You can be of any religion.
If you have the resources, go to one of the countries I mentioned.
These are not "members only" events. God and Mary invites 
everybody.

So in conclusion (finally) ...
We RC's believe in the modern day manifestations of God and Mary.
We are scared to death sometimes although we're told not to.
There are more proofs and events. And that is why "not everything
is in the Bible". Although in a lot of the apparitions, we are told
to read the Bible.

As far as the Protestant vs. Catholics issue is concerned...
In the end, God's churches will unite. I'm not sure how.
I have some idea. But the point is we shouldn't worry
about the "versus" part. Just do God's work. That's all
that matters. Unity will come.

BTW, I'm just a plain person. I'm not the Pope's spokesperson.
But I am RC.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Ashley                        |DISCLAIMER: My opinions. Not Harris'
marka@gcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com      |
The Lost Los Angelino              |

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21326
From: news@cbnewsk.att.com
Subject: Re: What WAS the immaculate conception

In article <May.3.05.01.26.1993.9898@athos.rutgers.edu> todd@nickel.laurentian.ca writes:
>{:>         Your roommate is correct.  The Immaculate Conception refers to
>{:> the conception of Mary in Her mother's womb.  
>
>Okay, now that we've defined the Immaculate Conception Doctrine would it
>be possible for those more knowledgeable in the area to give the biblically
>or other support for it. I've attempted to come to terms with it previously
>(in an attempt to understand it for learning purposes) and haven't been able
>to grasp the reasoning. 
>
It was a gift from God.  I think basically the reasoning was that the
tradition in the Church held that Mary was also without sin as was Jesus.
As the tenets of faith developed, particularly with Augustine, sin was
more and more equated with sex, and thus Mary was assumed to be a virgin
for life (since she never sinned, and since she was the spouse of God, etc.)
Since we also had this notion of original sin, ie. that man is born with
a predisposition to sin, and since Mary did not have this predisposition
because she did not ever sin, she didn't have original sin.  When science
discovered the process of conception, the next step was to assume that
Mary was conceived without original sin, the Immaculate Conception.

Mary at that time appeared to a girl named Bernadette at Lourdes.  She 
refered to herself as the Immaculate Conception.  Since a nine year old 
would have no way of knowing about the doctrine, the apparition was deemed
to be true and it sealed the case for the doctrine.

RCs hold that all revelation comes from two equally important sources, that
being Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition.  In this case, mostly tradition.

Joe Moore

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21327
From: e_p@unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)
Subject: Legal definition of religion


  .
           It's my understanding that the U.S. Supreme Court has never 
       given a legal definition of religion.  This despite the many 
       cases involving religion that have come before the Court. 
           Can anyone verify or falsify this?  
           Has any state or other government tried to give a legal 
       definition of religion? 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21328
From: maridai@comm.mot.com (Marida Ignacio)
Subject: Re: What WAS the immaculate conception?

Note: I am cross-posting (actually, emailing) this to 
bit.listserv.catholic while main posting goes to 
soc.religion.christian.

[Quotations omitted.  This is in response to a question about
the Immaculate Conception.  I explained it, but left justification
up to our Catholic readers.  --clh]

There is no direct reference in the Holy Scripture except for the
mention of Mary's _blessedness_/full of grace in the "Annunciation" by
Angel Gabriel in Luke 1:26-28

 And in the 6th month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto
 a city of Galilee, named Nazareth.  To a virgin espoused to a
 man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's
 name was Mary.  And the angel came unto her and said, _"Hail,
 thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed
 art thou among women."_

Now, now, hold that line of thought - "the Lord is with Mary &
blessed art thou among women" - while you read on....

In the book, "First Lady of the World, A Popular History of
Devotion to Mary" by Peter Lappin:

The _Immaculate Conception_ matter is really far more complicated
than the _Assumption_.  This arose in 430 AD.  It is quite possible
that the feast of _Mary's Conception_ under the title "The Conception
of Saint Anne", originally commemorated the _physical miracle_ of
a woman _beyond the age_ of child bearing, conceiving a daughter,
just as Elizabeth had conceived John the Baptist.  A transfer in
emphasis from the physical miracle wrought in Anne to the miracle
of grace wrought by God in the soul of Mary was _logical_.  Mary
is the incorruptible timber "out of which was hewn the _tabernacle_
of Christ's sinless body"; she is "God's Eden, in whom there is
no tree of knowledge, and no serpent that harms."  Her perfect
beauty and spotlessness find their exemplar in Christ, her
purity in that of the Father.  At the time of the Council of Ephesus,
she was hailed as "innocent, without blemish, immaculate, inviolate,
spotless, holy in soul and body, who was blessed as a lily from
among thorns, unlearned in the evil ways of Eve".
...
At the end of the thirteenth century, an Irish Franciscan,
John Duns Scotus (1266-1308),...God maintained that it was a 
greater thing for Him to preserve His (the Son) mother from all
sin _than to use His power to clease her from it later_.
...

Now let's go to the discussion of baptism and original sin.
From "Pocket Catholic Cathechism" by John A. Hardon:

Baptism -
Concupiscence Remains after Baptism.
Concupiscence or the tendency to sin remains in the baptized
but since it is left to provide trial, it has no power to
injure those who do not consent and who by the grace of
Christ Jesus, manfully resist (Canon 5).

Original gifts of Adam and Eve before their fall:
In the light of the foregoing, we see that our first
parents were originally gifted three times over:
-They had the natural gifts of human beings especially the
 power to think and to choose freely.
-The had the _preternatural_ gifts of bodily immortality
 and of integrity, or the internal power to control desires.
-They had the _supernatural_ gifts of sanctifying grace,
 the virtues of faith, hope, and charity and the corresponding
 title to enter heaven.
By their disobedience, they lost the _supernatural and
preternatural_ gifts entirely, and were weakened (without
losing) their natural capacity to reason and to choose
freely.

Baptism restores the _supernatural_ life lost by Adam's
sin.  It _does not_ restore the _preternatural_ gifts
but gifts as a title to a glorified restoration of our
bodies on the last day...

Going back to _Immaculate Conception_
(I am not sure if this interpretation is in any other
books but it may be another contribution to the 'puzzle'):

Given the miracle of St. Anne bearing a child at a
non-childbearing age, AND Christ was not yet born 
AND _there was no baptism yet_ on Mary's birth but
STILL, the Angel Gabriel's greetings was:
"Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you.
Blessed art thou amongst women".

Even Mary was confused about this greeting.

Mary could very well have possessed all of the
_treefold original gifts above_ given to our first
parents (Adam and Eve before their sin):
    Hail Mary (Example of praise given by the Angel Gabriel)
    Full of grace (natural, preternatural, supernatural)
    The Lord is with you (At those times, God would
                definitely want to be with those He
                has made _blessed_)
    Blessed art thou amongst women (that says it all)

At the conception, God made Mary _full of grace
and blessed_ as the 'tabernacle' for the coming body
of Christ and so,

Immaculate Conception of Mary is true and Mary still
has maintained her Immaculate Heart. 

-Marida
(P.S.  I do hope that others will continue more
       light and facts on this matter.  Thanks.)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21329
From: Anthony Lest <lest@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Subject: 2nd CFV: soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya moderated

                      CALL FOR VOTES

This is the official 2nd Call For Votes for this newsgroup.

NAME OF PROPOSED NEWSGROUP: 
==========================

     soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya


CHARTER: 
=======

     A religious newsgroup, which would mainly be devoted to 
fostering an understanding and appraisal of the Ahmadiyya Muslim
Community, its beliefs, ideology and philosophy. It will also 
discuss the distinction between Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and 
other branches of Islam.
     
     In addition this newsgroup will also discuss the beliefs,  
teachings, and philosophy of all the other major religions to pro-
mote universal religious appreciation, awareness, and tolerance.

     The newsgroup may also be used to post important religious
events within the world wide Ahmadiyya Islamic Community.


VOTING INSTRUCTIONS: 
====================

Voting is being held since the first call for votes appeared (May 4, 1993),
and will continue untill May 25, 1993 (23:59:59 GMT)

All votes should be received within this period. It gives a total
of 21 days for all to vote.

All votes in _favor_ of creation of the proposed newsgroup should
be sent in a form of a e-mail message to:

                
                SRIA-YES@UCSU.COLORADO.EDU


with a clear statement in the  body of the message like:

     I vote YES for soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya
     I vote in favor of s.r.i.a.
     etc.

Similarly all votes _against_ the proposed newsgroup should be 
sent in a form of a e-mail message to:


                SRIA-NO@UCSU.COLORADO.EDU


with a clear statement in the body of the message like:

     I vote NO for soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya
     I vote against the creation of s.r.i.a.
     etc.


*  You may also include your vote in the SUBJECT header of your mail.

*  Please make sure to include your FULL NAME, if your mailer does
   not do that for you. 

*  One person may only vote ONCE. No matter how many e-mail accounts
   s/he has. Only one vote per person shall be considered valid.

*  Any ambiguous votes like "I vote YES for S.R.I.A., if ...." shall 
   only be considered comments and would NOT be counted as votes.

*  Votes received _after_ 23:59:59 GMT, on May 25, 1993, will not
   be valid and not counted.

*  In the event of multiple votes being received from the same
   person, only the last one will be counted. If you change your 
   mind regarding the way you have voted, send your new vote again,
   your previous vote shall be discarded.
   
*  Posting to USENET will NOT be counted a vote.

*  Please DO NOT send any votes to the e-mail address of the per-
   son who has posted this CVF. Those votes shall not be counted
   either.


NOTE: An acknowledgement shall be sent to everyone who votes.Two 
additional CFV's will be posted during the course of the vote.
Number(s) of "YES" or "NO" votes will not be disclosed during the
the voting period, at the end of which all votes shall be made
public.


PURPOSE OF THE NEWSGROUP: 
========================

    The following are the main purposes this group shall achieve:

    i)    To highlight the common beliefs of all major religions 
          and philosophical traditions as they relate to Ahmadiyya 
          Muslim Community.

    ii)   To discuss the doctrines, origin and teachings the Ahmad-
          iyya Muslim Community, a dynamic world-wide movement.

    iii)  To expound Islamic teachings and beliefs in the Holy 
          Quran and Islamic traditions from the Ahmadiyya Islamic
          perspective.

    iv)   To emphasize and discuss the similarities between Ahmadi 
          Muslims and followers of other religions of the world and 
          to explore how understanding and respect for each other's
          faith can be brought about to eliminate religious intol-
          erance and malice among people of all religious and phil-
          osophical traditions.
          
    v)    To look into the origin and teachings of all religions in
          general and of Islam and Ahmadiyya Muslim Movement in par-
          ticular, and to use the commonality of origin to foster
          better understanding among Ahmadi Muslims and other people
          and to promote an acceptance of universality of fundamental
          rights to the freedom of conscience.

    vi)   To point out current world problems and suggest solutions 
          to these problems, as offered by different religions and 
          systems of ethical philosophies.

    vii)  To investigate the implications of science on religion 
          with particular emphasis on the Ahmadi Muslim perspective,
          but with openness to dialogue with people of all religions
          and philosophical traditions with reasoned positions as to
          the relationship between religion and empirical science,
          logic, and scientific ethics. 
          
    viii) To exchange important news and views about the Ahmadiyya
          Muslim Community and of other religions.

    ix)   To add diversity to the existing religious newsgroups pre-  
          sent on Usenet in the interest of promoting a forum for
          decorous dialogue. 

    x)    To inquire why religious persecution is on the rise in the
          world and suggest solutions to remedy the ever deterior-
          ating situation in the world in general and in the Islamic
          world in particular. 

    xi)   To commemorate the contributions to humanity, society and
          world peace made by the founders and followers of all
          religions in general and by the International Ahmadiyya
          Muslim community in particular.


TYPE: 
====

The group will be MODERATED for orderly and free religious dialo-
gue. The moderation will NOT prevent disagreement, dissent, or 
controversy based on a difference of beliefs or doctrine; rather,
the moderators will seek mainly to discourage gratuitously deroga-
tory, abusive, or squalid language, and the introduction of issues
which are irrelevant based on the provisions of this charter. 

The moderators have been chosen through personal e-mail and through
a general consensus among the proponents by discussion in news.groups.
The following moderators have been proposed and agreed upon:

Moderator:     Nabeel A. Rana  <rana@rintintin.colorado.edu>
Co-Moderator:  Dr. Tahir Ijaz  <ijaz@ccu.umanitoba.ca>



A  BRIEF  DESCRIPTION  ABOUT  AHMADIYYA  ISLAM:
===============================================


        The Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam, an international organi-
sation, was found in 1889 in Qadian, India. The founder of this
movement, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908), was proclaimed to 
be the Promised Reformer of this age as foretold in the Scriptures
of almost all major religions of the world. He claimed to be the 
fulfillment of the long awaited second comming of Jesus Christ
(metaphorically), the Muslim Mahdi, and the Promised Messiah.

        The claims of Hazrat Ahmad raised storms of hostility and
extreme opposition, which are often witnessed in the history of 
divine reformers. Even today this sect is being persecuted especial-
ly in some of the Muslim regimes. The right of Ahmadi Muslims to 
openly practice their religion and to define themselves as Muslims
has been severely restricted in many Muslim Countries. The United
Nations, human rights organizations such as Amnesty International
and top leaderships of some countries have voiced their concerns 
against this denial of basic human and civil liberaties to the
members of this movement, but so far to no avail.

        Despite the opposition and persecution, the movement cont-
inues to grow with a current membership of millions from around the
world in over 130 countries, who come from diverse ethnic and cul-
tural backgrounds.

        The movement is devoted to world peace and strives towards
developing a better understanding of all religions. Ahmadi Muslims
have always been opposed to all forms of violence, bigotry, reli-
gious intolerance and fundamentalism.

        Among its many philanthropic activities, the sect has es-
tablished a network of hundreds of schools, hospitals, and clinics
in many third world countries. These institutions are staffed by
volunteer professionals and are fully financed by the movement's
internal resources. The movement stresses the importance of educa-
tion and leadership. Its members have included a high number of
professionals as well as world class individuals.

        The Ahmadiyya mission is to bring about a universal moral
reform, establish peace and justice, and to unite mankind under
one universal brotherhood.


NEWSGROUP CREATION: 
==================

        The  discussion for this proposed newsgroup has now offi-
cially ended. Voting will be held for three weeks. If the news-
group gets 2/3rd majority AND 100 more "YES/Create" votes than
"NO/don't create" votes; the newsgroup shall be created. 


ABOUT THE VOTE-TAKER: 
====================

        Mr. Anthony Lest has been asked by the proponents of
this newsgroup to act as an official impartial vote-taker for the
proposed newsgroup. He has no objection to  use his workstation
for the purpose of vote-taking. Neither the University of Colora-
do, nor Anthony Lest has anything to do with the proposal of the
newsgroup.  They are just collecting the votes as a neutral third
party.

QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS:
=====================

        Any questions or comments about the proposed newsgroup
may be sent to:
     Nabeel A. Rana  <rana@rintintin.colorado.edu>

        Any questions or problems in voting should be sent to:
     Anthony Lest    <lest@ucsu.colorado.edu>

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21330
From: David.Bernard@central.sun.com (Dave Bernard)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary

In article 28782@athos.rutgers.edu, revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille) writes:
>Just an observation- although the bodily assumption has no basis in
>the Bible, Carl Jung declared it to be one of the most important pronouncements
>of the church in recent years, in that it implied the inclusion of the 
>feminine into the Godhead.



What did Jung mean by a "Godhead?"

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21331
From: u0mrm@csc.liv.ac.uk (M.R. Mellodew)
Subject: Re: If There Were No Hell

In article <May.5.02.51.25.1993.28737@athos.rutgers.edu>, shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker) writes:

> Here's a question that some friends and I were debating last night.
> 
> Q: If you knew beyond all doubt that hell did not exist and that
>    unbelievers simply remained dead, would you remain a Christian?
> 
> My contention is that if you answer this question with "No. I would
> not then remain a Christian" then you really are not one now.  
> Following Jesus Christ has everything to do with sharing in
> his work and spreading the news that the Kingdom of Heaven is already
> among us.  Fear-based religion is not a faith-relationship with the
> One Who made us all.

So does that mean that anyone who is a Christian to avoid Hell isn't really
a Christian at all? It sounds like it to me.

Mit Liebe in Christus,
 Martyn R. Mellodew. (u0mrm@compsci.liverpool.ac.uk)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martyn R. Mellodew,                |     E-mail: u0mrm@compsci.liverpool.ac.uk
Department of Applied Mathematics  |     ARPA/Internet: u0mrm@csc.liv.ac.uk
  and Theoretical Physics,         |     JANET:         u0mrm@uk.ac.liv.csc
The University of Liverpool,       |
P.O. Box 147,                      | 
Liverpool,                         |
England,                           | 
L69 9BX.                           |     `Dubito ergo Deus est.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21332
From: MANDTBACKA@finabo.abo.fi (Mats Andtbacka)
Subject: Re: If There Were No Hell

In <May.5.02.51.25.1993.28737@athos.rutgers.edu> shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com writes:

> Here's a question that some friends and I were debating last night.
> Q: If you knew beyond all doubt that hell did not exist and that
>    unbelievers simply remained dead, would you remain a Christian?

      (Reasoning pertinent to believing Xians deleted for space)

      It strikes me, for no apparent reason, that this is reversible.
I.e., if I had proof that there existed a hell, in which I would be
eternally punished for not believing in life, would that make me a Xian?
(pardon my language) _Bloody_hell_no_!

      ...Of course, being merely a reversal of your thinking, this
doesn't add anything _new_ to the debate, but...

> Several friends disagreed, arguing the fear of hell was necessary
> to motivate people to Christianity. To me that fatally undercuts the
> message that God is love.

      A point very well taken, IMNSHO.

-- 
"Successful terrorism is called revolution, and is admired by history.
 Unsuccessful terrorism is just lowly, cowardly terrorism."
    - Phil Trodwell on alt.atheism

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21333
From: Bjorn.B.Larsen@delab.sintef.no (Bjorn B. Larsen)
Subject: Re: The Bible available in every language (was Re: SATANIC TOUNGES)

In article <May.5.02.53.10.1993.28880@athos.rutgers.edu>
koberg@spot.Colorado.EDU (Allen Koberg) writes:

> [ ... about tongues ... ]

> The concept of tongues as used at Pentecost seems an outdated concept
> now.  With the Bible available in nearly every language, and missionaries
> who are out there in ALL languages, why does the church need tongues?

I guess there are at least some people who are not able to support
this claim. There are still a lot of languages without the Bible, or a
part of the Bible. There are still many languages which we are not
able to write, simply because the written version of the language has
not yet been defined!

I guess this is one of the main goals for Wycliffe Bible Translators:
To define rules and a grammar for writing the 'rest' of the languages
of this world. I do not see that any of them will have any reason to
become unemployed during the foreseeable future. (Provided they get
their neccessary support!) And still they are one of the 3 largest
missionary organizations of the world.

Bjorn
--
______________________________________________________________________
               s-mail:                 e-mail:
|   |   |      Bjorn B. Larsen         bjorn.b.larsen@delab.sintef.no
|__ |__ |      SINTEF DELAB
|  \|  \|      N-7034 TRONDHEIM        tel: +47-7-592682 / 592600
|__/|__/|_     NORWAY                  fax: +47-7-591039 / 594302
______________________________________________________________________

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21334
From: wagner@grace.math.uh.edu (David Wagner)
Subject: Re: Deuterocanonicals, esp. Sirach

ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis)
writes:

 	II. The deuterocanonicals are not in the canon because
 		they are not quoted by the NT authors.

That is not quite accurate.  Otherwise we would have the book
of Enoch in the canon (as Dave noted).  One can say that the 
apocrypha are not quoted by Christ.  

Dave also writes:

III. The deuterocanonicals are not in the canon because
 		they teach doctrines contrary to the (uncontroverted)
 		parts of the canon.
 
 	then I answer: 
 		These is a logically invalid *a priori*. 
 		Besides, we are talking about OT texts- 
 		which in many parts are superceded by the NT
 		(in the Xtian view). Would not this same
 		principle exclude _Ecclesiastes_?
 		This principle cannot be consistently applied.
 
I have to reject your argument here.  The Spirit speaks with one
voice, and he does not contradict himself.  

The ultimate test of canonicity is whether the words are inspired
by the Spirit, i.e., God-breathed.  It is a test which is more
guided by faith than by reason or logic.  The early church decided
that the Apocrypha did not meet this test--even though some books
such as The Wisdom of Ben Sirach have their uses.  For example,
the Lutheran hymn "Now Thank We All Our God" quotes a passage
from this book.

The deutero-canonical books were added much later in the church's
history.  They do not have the same spiritual quality as the
rest of Scripture.  I do not believe the church that added these
books was guided by the Spirit in so doing.  And that is where
this sort of discussion ultimately ends.

David H. Wagner
a confessional Lutheran		"Now thank we all our God
				With heart and hands and voices,
				Who wondrous things hath done,
				In whom His world rejoices;
				Who from our mother's arms
				Hath blessed us on our way
				With countless gifts of love,
				And still is our today."
				--"Nun danket alle Gott", v. 1
				--Martin Rinckart, 1636
				(compare Ben Sirach 50: 22-24)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21335
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary

D. Andrew Kille writes:

>Just an observation- although the bodily assumption has no basis in
>the Bible, Carl Jung declared it to be one of the most important
>pronouncements
>of the church in recent years, in that it implied the inclusion of the 
>feminine into the Godhead.

Which means he has absolutely no idea about what the Assumption is.

However greatly we extoll Mary, it is quite obvious that she is in no
way God or even part of God or equal to God.  The Assumption of our
Blessed Mother, meant that because of her close identification with the
redemptive work of Christ, she was Assumed (note that she did not
ASCEND) body and soul into Heaven, and is thus one of the few, along
with Elijah, Enoch, Moses (maybe????) who are already perfected in
Heaven.  Obviously, the Virgin Mary is far superior in glorification to
any of the previously mentioned personages.

Jung should stick to Psychology rather than getting into Theology.

Andy Byler

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21336
From: sun075!Gerry.Palo@uunet.uu.net (Gerry Palo)
Subject: Re: Christianity and repeated lives

In article <May.5.02.52.15.1993.28800@athos.rutgers.edu> JEK@cu.nih.gov writes:
>Gerry Palo writes:
>
> > ...there is nothing in Christianity that precludes the idea of
> > repeated lives on earth.
>
>The Apostle Paul (Romans 9:11) points out that God chose Jacob
>rather than Esau to be the ancestor of the Covenant People and
>ultimately of the Messiah, and that He made this choice while the
>two boys were still in their mother's womb, and therefore could not
>possibly have done anything good or evil to deserve their appointed
>destinies. If we admit the possibility that they had lived previous
>lives, and that (in accordance with the Asiatic idea of "karma")
>their present lives are a reward or punishment for past behaviour,
>this makes nonsense of Paul's whole point.
>

The existence of repeated earth lives and destiny (karma) does not
mean that everything that happens is predetermined by past deeds.
There is an oriental view of it that tends in that direction, but I
did not subscribe to that view.  God may choose one individual over
another as the fit instrument for his plans, but that does not
preclude that the development of that individual into what he is in
this earthly life is not the result of a longer course of development.

I do not, and Rudolf Steiner did not, subscribe to the oriental view
of an inexorable, mechanistic karma determining everything that
befalls one.  This is a kind of shriveled caricature of a much greater
law in the context of which the deed of Christ on Golgotha and the
ultimate salvation and freedom of the human being as a working of
Christ can be seen as the master theme and, indeed, a new impulse that
was completely free of karma.  Christ incarnated only once in the
flesh, and in that he had no debt of karma or sin.  The oriental
concepts of reincarnation and karma, which are even more trivialized
and mechanized in some new age teachings, incorrectly assume Jesus
Christ to have been the reincarnation of a master.  avatar, etc.
Their teaching of reincarnation and karma also has no concept the
continuing individuality from one life to the next (e.g. Buddhism).
More important, they have no concept of the resurrection of the body,
the ultimate continuity of the whole human being -- to ultimate
resurrection and judgement on the Last Day.

There is another biblical passage that also has a bearing. It is the
tenth chapter of John, devoted almost entirely to the man born blind.
Clearly here, Jesus tells the disciples that it was not his past karma
or that of his parents that led to his blindness, but rather that a
new impulse is to be revealed through him.  But note that he does not
refute the disciples' question.  In fact, they ask it as a matter of
course, the question being stated as if it were self evident that only
one of two possibilities existed - it was either the sins of the man
himself, obviously not in this incarnation, or the sins of his
parents.  The fact that they even asked about the first possibility at
all indicates an awareness of the idea on their part and the form of
Christ's answer indicates that he did not disagree with it.

There is also Matthew 11:14, where Jesus says straight out about John
the Baptist,

   "If you care to accept it, he himself is Elias, who was to come."

This also emphasizes that the Gospels do not have a positive teaching
either way about reincarnation -- or, in fact, about what happens to
the human being at all between death and the Last Day.  Even Jesus did
not push this teaching on people who were not ready to embrace it ("If
you care to accept it").  So I took care to point out, not that the
Bible teaches reincarnation but that it does not deny it either, and
that much in both scripture and fundamental Christian doctrine becomes
understandable if reincarnation is understood in the right way.  I
pointedly used "repeated earth lives" to distinguish a little from the
oriental doctrines usually associated with the word "reincarnation".
The phrase is Rudolf Steiner's (wiederholte Erdenleben).  He noted too
that the idea needed to arise as a new insight in the west, completely
free from eastern tradition.  It did in the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries, the most important expression of it being Lessing's "The
Education of the Human Race".

To return to your original point, Paul's statement about Jacob and
Esau does not contradict the idea of repeated earth lives and karma.
And both of these principles receive their fulfillment in the
incarnation, death, and resurrection, ascension and return of Jesus
Christ, in my view.

Regards, 
Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21337
From: danc@procom.com (Daniel Cossack)
Subject: Re: The truth of the Bible

sodium.asc.slb.com@asc.slb.com (Michael A. Montgomery) writes:

>I believe that the God has preserved the Bible perfectly in that it
>perfectly conveys all of the truth that He intended. This He has done

Oh yea?  Which version of the Bible is the perfectly preserved one?  And
why are there so many translations that are not perfectly preserved?  Is
God trying to confuse us?

>Minor changes in wording or even accidental omission of passages in some
>manuscripts does not change the truth being conveyed, nor would it lead a
>serious student into doctrinal error. (Note also that God provided many

But that is exactly what happend.  There are so many branches of 
denominations of Christianity and deviations of doctrine portruding
from varying translations of biblical texts by "serious students" that
are much too numerous to begin to count.  If there is a Perfect Bible,
then there would be no possible misinterpretation and there would be
no need for anyone here to be debating it.  On the other hand, maybe
the Bible is perfect, but no one on this planet is perfect enough to
read it correctly, but then there would be no point in God giving us
something we cannot use correctly.

>In short, if you attack the credibility and reliability of the Bible, you
>are on weak ground. Furthermore, the only reason that I can see for wanting
>to do so is to remove the Bible as the final authority, and instead put
>that responsibility on men to sift the Bible to strain out the nuggets of
>truth that it contains (in other words, what they want to believe), and
>ignore the rest. The Bible IS Truth; it does not just contain truth.

IMHO, if you trust your salvation on the reliability of a single book,
you are on weak ground.  Remember, In the beginning was the Word, and
the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  This Word existed BEFORE
the Bible was written.  (Note: Word <==> God).  This Word that John is
trying to describe cannot be fully described in any written language,
all languages being IMPERFECT.  Realization comes only from contemplation
of the Word, and is outside the boundaries of language.  I use the Bible
as a guide, a stepping stone, but in no way is it my final authority.
God alone is the final authority.
-- 
===========================================================================
Daniel Cossack                |  danc@procom.com, 71333.2102@compuserve.com
Senior Software Engineer      |  2181 Dupont Drive, Irvine, CA 92715
Procom Technology, Inc.       |  +1 714 852 1000

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21338
From: bruce@liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

>>>>> On 5 May 93 06:51:23 GMT, shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker) said:

> In article <Apr.30.03.11.27.1993.10101@geneva.rutgers.edu> FSSPR@acad3.alaska.edu (Hardcore Alaskan) writes:
>>
>>I hope that anyone who remembers seeing Rev. Troy Perry's
>>"performance" at the 1987 March On Washington will see for themselves
>>just how inconceivable it is to mix Christianity with homosexuality.

> Whether or not Christianity and homosexuality are compatible is clearly
> debatable, since it IS being debated.  In my opnion, it is genuinely
> destuctive to the cause of Christianity to use this sort of ad hominem
> argument to oppose one's adversaries.  It only serves to further drive
> people away from Christianity because it projects and confirms the
> frequently held opinion that Christians are unable to think critically
> and intelligently. 

I agree entirely.  Speaking as an atheist (heterosexual, for what it's
worth), this is one of the least attractive parts of some varieties of
Christianity.  Although I'm sure it's possible to argue theologically
that we shouldn't make analogies between discrimination on the basis
of sex and race and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,
morally the case looks unanswerable (for those outside religion): the
three forms _are_ analogous; we shouldn't discriminate on the basis of
sex, race or sexual orientation.

I found the moderator's FAQs on the subject instructive, and recommend
everyone to read them.

There seem to be three different levels of acceptance:

1) Regard homosexual orientation as a sin (or evil, whatever)
2) Regard homosexual behaviour as a sin, but accept orientation
(though presumably orientation is unfortunate) and dislike people who
indulge
3) As 2, but "love the sinner"
4) Accept homosexuality altogether.

My experience is that 3 is the most common attitude (I imagine 1 and 2
are limited to a few fundamentalist sects).

I suppose I can go along with 3, except that I have this feeling that
a 14--15 year old living in a community with this attitude, on
discovering that they were more attracted to members of the same sex,
would not feel the love of the community, but would rather feel the
pressure not to exhibit their feelings.  I'm not saying that the
community (in particular the parents) would not love the child, but I
suspect the child would not feel loved.
--
Bruce              CMSR, University of Liverpool

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21339
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: SATANIC TOUNGES

In article <May.6.00.34.49.1993.15418@geneva.rutgers.edu> marka@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley) writes:
>I have a simple test. I take several people who can speak
>only one language (e.g. chinese, russian, german, english).
>Then I let the "gifted one" start "speaking in toungues".
>The audience should understand the "gifted one" clearly
>in their native language. However, the "gifted one" can
>only hear himself speaking in his own language.

That would be neat, but nowhere in the Bible does it say
that one who has the gift of tounges can do this.  If the gift
of tounges were the ability to be understood by everyone,
no matter what languages they know, there would be no need for the
gift of interpretation, and I Corinthians 14 would not have had to
have been written. 


>Perhaps I would believe the "gifted ones" more if they were
>glorifying God rather than themselves. Then perhaps we'd
>witness a real miracle.

That's a pretty harsh assumption to make about a several million
Christians world wide.  Sure, there are some who want glory
for themselves who speak in tounges, just as there are among those
who do not have this gift.  There were people like this in the Corinthian
church also.  that does not mean that there is no true gift or that all
who speak in tounges do it for their own glory in the sight of men.  
I would venture to say that a large percentage of those who do speak in tounges 
do so more often in private prayer than in public.

Link Hudson

[There were apparently those in the early church who claimed that
at Pentecost the miracle was that the crowd were all given the
ability to understand the Apostles speaking in Greek.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21340
From: wjhovi01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

Undoubtedly people adopt atheism for many reasons, but I suspect that a biggie
is that the God they've believed in is (in J.B. Phillips's words) "too small". 
If a person's understanding of God is not allowed to grow and develop, it will
eventually become inadequate.  The grey-haired gentleman on a throne who was a
comforting image in childhood becomes a joke.

A therapist friend of mine sometimes suggests to her clients that they "fire
God".  What she means by that is letting go of an inadequate understanding of
God to make room for a fuller one.  But she follows up by encouraging them to
"hire a new one".  My guess is that a lot of folks go through the firing
process, but are not adequately supported in the subsequent re-hire.

billh

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21341
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse


   When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives,
the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for
all the miracles they had seen: 
Luke 19:37

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21342
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Athiests and Hell

In article <May.6.00.35.31.1993.15453@geneva.rutgers.edu>
sun075!Gerry.Palo@uunet.uu.net (Gerry Palo) writes:>Between Adam and Eve and
Golgotha the whole process of the fall of man
>occurred.  This involved a gradual dimming of consciousness of the spiritual
>world.  

This was precisely my point.  From a theological bent, those who lived
immediately after the flood, such as Noah, Ham, his son Cush, and his son
Nimrod had a much stronger appreciation of Divine wrath.  They also had a
stronger understanding of the True God.  In fact, this immediacy was a cause of
hardship for some, so much so that Atlas, who is seen with heavens resting on
his shoulders.  But this is not merely the physical heavens that he is lifting.
 It is to put God and the strict spirituality of His law at a distance, and
thus he became the "Elevator of the heavens."  This "god" made men able to
"feel" as if heaven were afar off and "as if either the God of Heaven could not
see through the dark cloud, or did not regard with displeasure the breakers of
His laws."  It is interesting to see that it was that was titled "Emancipator"
or "Deliverer"  or Phoroneus. It was Nimrod who invaded the patriarchal system
and abridged the liberties of mankind, yet was worship for having given many
benefits.  He was a deliverer all right but not as we think of Christ as a
Deliverer.  One delivered from a conscious feeling of God's wrath, the other
actually performed a delivery from Gods wrath and it is up to us to accept it
as true.

>The question of what happens to human beings who died before Christ is
>an ever present one with Christians.  I am not ready to consign Adam
>or Abraham, or even Cain to eternal damnation.

I don't see the problem.  From the time of Adam, those who looked forward to
the coming "Anointed One" and put their faith in the fact that it was God who
was to do the provision, were accounted as righteous.  But up to the
Crucifixion, their sins were only covered, not taken away.  Therefore, the
dispensation of the Church views the accountability of sin the same, but see it
as a completed action.  Rom's makes it clear that it has always been salvation
via faith and nothing else.

>It is possible to experience eternity in a passing moment.  The
>relationship of eternity to duration is not simply one of indefinitely
>extended conditions of Greenwich mean time. 

I understand what you're trying to convey, but I don't think I'd lay hold of it
because the scriptures do equate the eternality of the second death with the
eternality of, say the Church ruling with Christ.  Jn 17 tells us what eternal
life is exactly, as you are correct that it is much more than non-cessation of
consciousness.  

>It was also a standard belief among many peoples that even the righteous
>were lost. 

It depends upon your def of "lost."  The elect were lost only in time as
outside of time they had been chosen from the foundation of the world. 
Existentially we were all born "lost", but the "righteous" were "in Christ" and
therefore never *assuredly* lost.  
>
>It would be interesting to share in the results of your studies of ancient
>people's ideas of life after death.

Maybe this summer I could find time to put together a paper on it.  I simply
have to buy more books for myself, and these older books are very expensive. 
Either that or countless trips to the oriental museum.
>
>Mankind fell into mist and darkness, and at "the turning point of
>time" a new light entered into the world.  The light still grows, and
>we are developing the eyes with which to see by it.  Much new
>revelation and growth in under- standing lies before us.  Our new
>vision and understanding is still very feeble, but it contains
>something new that will grow in time to embrace that which is old and
>much more as well.


Couldn't agree with you more.  Our understanding, of say eschatology, is
clearly clearer than that of, say Isaiah.  But that is not what I was referring
to.

>(At this point I should acknowledge openly my debt to the work of Rudolf
>Steiner, founder of Anthroposophy, for  many insights that have led me to my
>views on this subject).

>The way you refer to it as "doctrine" puts a modern intellectual coloring
>on it. I think it was much less abstract and much more real and spiritually
>concrete, a teaching that struck much closer to home than our doctrines or
>teachings today can be received.

No, I understand it as you have said. This was my point.

>
>I am not so ready to attribute widespread notions in antiquity to
>simple dispersion from an original source.  Even if they were passed
>on, the question is, to what extent did they reflect real perception
>and experience? 

Ah!  This is it.  This is the big question.  However, I would say, again I
think, that the best lie is one that has an appreciable amount of truth to it. 
Look at Satan's twist of God's Word when he coerced Eve.  That is a very
interesting study.

 >The similarity in the midst of great variety of
>expression of the different people's ideas of the time immediately
>after death testifies to the presence of an underlying reality.

Yes, that is my point.  But it is a two edged sword. For some do not want the
underlying reality to be revealed.  They were not known as "mystery" religions
for no reason.  There was the public side of them and there was the private
side, that was so protected that the initiates to an oath of death if they
revealed that private side.  That is why it is so hard to bring their teachings
to light. The "Mystery of Iniquity" that we find in the Bible, correlates to
this I think.  The primary object of the mysteries was to introduce privately,
little by little, under the seal of secrecy and sanction of oath, what it would
not have been safe to openly profess was the true religion.  Case in point
today might be the Masons.  (Just a note, that they too worshipped Osiris in
Egypt, who can be traced to Nimrod, the "husband son.")

>On the other hand, there is one notion firmly embedded in Christianity
>that originated most definitely in a pagan source.  The idea that the
>human being consists essentially of soul only, and that the soul is
>created at birth, was consciously adopted from Aristotle, whose ideas
>dominated Christian thought for fifteen hundred years and still does
>today.

No, I disagree with you here Gerry.  I know what you're alluding to in that the
church, primarily the RCC, did endorse Aristotelian philosophy into their
worldview, but I would disagree with you that it originated in Greece.  If you
are a student of history, you will come to see that much of what Greece came to
expound to the world as their original, was just an adulteration of that which
they had taken from conquered countries.  The soul is clearly mentioned and
discussed at length in the Egyptian religions. As was the unity of God and also
the trinity of God.  See if you can find Wilkinson's "Egyptians."  He really
does a number on what the Greeks did to what they "pilfered" from the
Egyptians. 

> He was at once the father of modern thought and at the same
>time lived during that darkened time when the perception of our
>eternal spiritual being had grown dim.

I'm not knocking Aristotle or Plato or any other Greek thinker.  Its just that
"there is nothing new under the sun."


>Indeed. I should also clarify that I do not deny that eternal
>irrevocable damnation is a real possibility.  But the narrow range in
>which we conceive of the decisive moment, i.e. after the end of a
>single earthly life, is not in my mind sufficient to embrace the
>reality, and I think that is why the early creeds were couched in
>terms that did not try to spell it out.

Each age has its own focus of theology.  The early church struggled with the
Trinitarian formulation.  The reformation dealt with authority.  Today,
eschatology has had much study.  The early creeds do not spell these things out
in detail because, 1) they weren't the topic of concern, 2) there was
insufficient wisdom accumulated, 3) they didn't have the exegetical tools that
we have today.  Also, each age seems to have an air of revelation to it.  One
age has a well tended and cultivated garden in which a particular doctrine is
given growth.  It would be natural for the end of times to have the garden
appropriate for the growth of eschatology, wouldn't it?
>
tangents, never ending tangents,
Rex

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21343
From: nabil@cae.wisc.edu (Nabil Ayoub)
Subject: Re: Monophysites and Mike Walker

Hello src readers,

Again the misconception that Copts among other Oriental Orthodox
Churches believe in Monophysitism pops up again. We had a discussion
about it a while ago. 

In article <May.6.00.34.58.1993.15426@geneva.rutgers.edu> db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes:
>
>The proper term for what Mike expresses is Monophysitism.  This was a
>heresy that was condemned in the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD.  It
>grew up in reaction to Nestorianism, which held that the Son and Jesus
>are two different people who happened to be united in the same body
>temporarily.  Monophysitism is held by the Copts of Egypt and Ethipoia
>and by the Jacobites of Syria and the Armenian Orthodox. 

Then OFM comments :

>
>
>[These issues get mighty subtle.  When you see people saying different
>things it's often hard to tell whether they really mean seriously
>different things, or whether they are using different terminology.  I
>don't think there's any question that there is a problem with
>Nestorius, and I would agree that the saying Christ had a human form
>without a real human nature or will is heretical.  But I'd like to be
>a bit wary about the Copts, Armenians, etc.  Recent discussions
>suggest that their monophysite position may not be as far from
>orthodoxy as many had thought. 

With my appreciation to the moderator, I believe that further elaboration
is needed. This is an excerpt from an article featured in the first issue
of the Copt-Net Newsletter :

Under the authority of the Eastern Roman Empire of Constantinople (as opposed
to the western empire of Rome), the Patriarchs and Popes of Alexandria played
leading roles in  Christian theology.  They were  invited everywhere to speak
about the Christian faith. St. Cyril, Pope of Alexandria, was the head of the
Ecumenical Council which was held in Ephesus in the year 430 A.D. It was said
that the bishops of the Church of Alexandria did nothing but spend  all their
time in meetings. This leading role, however, did not fare well when politics
started to intermingle with  Church affairs.  It all started when the Emperor
Marcianus interfered with matters of faith in the Church. The response of St.
Dioscorus, the Pope of Alexandria who was later  exiled, to this interference
was clear: "You have nothing to do with the Church."  These political motives
became even more  apparent in Chalcedon  in 451, when the Coptic  Church  was
unfairly  accused of following  the  teachings of  Eutyches, who believed  in
monophysitism. This  doctrine maintains that the  Lord Jesus Christ  has only
one nature, the divine, not two natures, the human as well as the divine.

The Coptic  Church   has never  believed  in  monophysitism  the way   it was
portrayed in the Council of Chalcedon!  In  that Council, monophysitism meant
believing in one  nature.  Copts   believe that the Lord   is perfect in  His
divinity,  and He   is perfect in  His humanity,  but  His  divinity  and His
humanity were united in one nature called "the nature of the incarnate word",
which was reiterated by St. Cyril of Alexandria.  Copts, thus, believe in two
natures "human" and   "divine"  that are   united in   one "without mingling,
without confusion, and without alteration" (from the  declaration of faith at
the end of the Coptic divine liturgy).  These  two  natures "did not separate
for a moment or the twinkling of an eye" (also from  the declaration of faith
at the end of the Coptic divine liturgy).

The  Coptic Church was  misunderstood in the 5th century  at the  Council  of
Chalcedon.  Perhaps the Council  understood   the Church correctly, but  they
wanted to exile the  Church,   to  isolate it  and to  abolish the  Egyptian,
independent Pope. Despite  all of this,  the Coptic Church  has remained very
strict  and steadfast in its faith.   Whether it was   a  conspiracy from the
Western Churches to exile the Coptic Church  as a  punishment for its refusal
to be politically influenced, or whether Pope Dioscurus  didn't  quite go the
extra  mile to  make the  point that  Copts  are not  monophysite, the Coptic
Church has always felt a mandate  to reconcile "semantic" differences between
all  Christian  Churches.   This is   aptly  expressed by the  current  117th
successor  of  St. Mark, Pope Shenouda III:  "To the  Coptic Church, faith is
more  important  than  anything, and   others  must know that  semantics  and
terminology are of  little importance to us."  Throughout this  century,  the
Coptic Church has played  an important role  in the ecumenical  movement. The
Coptic Church is one of the founders of the World Council of Churches. It has
remained a member of that  council  since 1948 A.D.   The Coptic Church is  a
member  of the all  African Council of Churches  (AACC)  and the  Middle East
Council of  Churches (MECC).  The Church    plays an  important role   in the
Christian   movement   by   conducting dialogues   aiming  at  resolving  the
theological differences with the  Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Presbyterian, and
Evangelical Churches.

[...]

As a final note, the Oriental Orthodox and Eastren Orthodox did sign
a common statement of Christology, in which the heresey of Monophysitism
was condemned. So the Coptic Orthodox Church does not believe in
Monophysitism.

Peace,

Nabil

          .-------------------------------------------------------------.
         /  Nabil Ayoub                        ____/   __  /    ____/  /
        /  Engine Research Center             /       /   /    /      /
       /  Dept. of Mechanical Engineering    ___/    __  /    /      /
      /  University of Wisconsin-Madison    /       /   |    /      /
     /  Email:ayoub@erctitan.me.wisc.edu  _____/ __/   _|  _____/  /
    '-------------------------------------------------------------'

[As I mentioned in a brief apology, the comment quoted above from me
is confused.  I appear to say that Nestorius was monophysite.  As
Andrew Byler correctly stated it, the Nestorians and monophysites were
actually opposite parties.  The point I was making, which Nabil
explains in some detail, is that some groups that have been considered
heretical probably aren't.

Chalcedon was a compromise between two groups, the Alexandrians and
Antiochenes.  It adopted language that was intended to be acceptable
to moderates in both camps, while ruling out the extremes.  I agree
that there were extremes that were heretical.  However in the course
of the complex politics of the time, it appears that some people got
rejected who didn't intend heresy, but simply used language that was
not understood or even was mispresented.  And some seem not to have
jointed in the compromise for reasons other than doctrine.  There are
groups descended from both of the supposedly heretical camps.  This
posting discussed the descendants of the Alexandrians.  There are also
a remaining Nestorians.  Like some of the current so-called
monophysites, there is reason to believe that the current so-called
Nestorians are not heretical either.  They sheltered Nestorius from
what they saw as unfair treatment, but claim they did not adopt his
heresies, and in fact seem to follow more moderate representatives of
the Antiochene tradition.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21344
From: will@futon.webo.dg.com (Will Taber)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary

ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis) writes:

[ Much deletion.  He is trying to explain the Immaculate Conception
and the Assumption of Mary.]

>	'Original sin' is the only reason (fallen) humanity
>	dies. Adam and Eve would not have died had they
>	not fallen.

If this is true than why in the Genesis story is God concerned that
Adam and Eve might also eat from the Tree of Life and live forever and
be like gods?  Eating of the tree of life would not take away the
effects of eating of the Tree of Knowledge.  Is there any reason to
assume that they had already eaten of the Tree of Life and so had
already attained to eternal life?  If so, what basis is there for
saying that this was taken away from them?  To me the wages of sin are
a spiritual death, not necessarily a physical death.  I
can attest to the truth of this interpretation from my own experience.
I suspect that many others could attest to this as well. 

Peace
Will

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
| William Taber         | Will_Taber@dg.com 	  | Any opinions expressed |
| Data General Corp.    | will@futon.webo.dg.com  | are mine alone and may |
| Westboro, Mass. 01580 |                         | change without notice. |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| When all your dreams are laid to rest, you can get what's second best,   |
|	But it's hard to get enough.		David Wilcox               |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21345
From: MNHCC@cunyvm.bitnet (Marty Helgesen)
Subject: Public/Private Revelation (formerly Re: Question about Virgin Mary

Mark Ashley's account of private revelation does not, as some might
think, contradict my posting in which I said that the Catholic Church
believes that public revelation, on which Catholic doctrine is based,
ended with the death of St. John, the last Apostle.  In that posting
I made sure I used the word "public".  Public revelation contains
God's truth intended for everyone to believe.  The revelation contained
in the Bible is a significant subset of public revelation.  Private
revelation is revelation that God gives to an individual.  He may speak
directly to the individual, He may send an angel, or He may send the
Virgin Mary or some lesser saint.  The only person who is required to
believe a private revelation is the person to whom it is revealed.
Devotional practices may be based on reported private revelations,
but doctrines can not.

When an alleged private revelation attracts sufficient attention, the
Church may investigate it.  If the investigation indicates a likelihood
that the alleged private revelation is in fact from God, it will be
approved.  That means that it can be preached in the Church.  However,
it is still true that no one is required to believe that it came from
God.  A Catholic is free to deny the authenticity of even the most
well attested and strongly approved private revelations, such as those
at Fatima and Lourdes.  (I suspect that few if any Catholics do reject
Fatima and Lourdes, but if any do their rejection of them does not
mean they are not orthodox Catholics in good standing.)

I do not have at hand a list of the criteria the Church uses in
evaluating an alleged private revelation--it's not something I need
every day--but I know that one of the primary requirements is that
nothing in the alleged private revelation can contradict anything
known through public revelation
-------
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm   Internet: mnhcc@cunyvm.cuny.edu

"What if there were no such thing as a hypothetical situation?"

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21346
From: bruce@liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Subject: Re: Question from an agnostic

>>>>> On 2 May 93 13:53:23 GMT, damon@math.okstate.edu (HASTINGS DAMON TOD) said:

> A Christian friend of mine once reasoned that if we were never created, then
> we could not exist.  Therefore we were created, and therefore there exists a
> Creator.

> Is this statement considered to be a valid proof by many Christians (and
> followers of other religions, I suppose)?  [rest deleted]

Some variant is quite popular.  This, and other arguments, are
discussed in John Leslie Mackie's "The Miracle of Theism: arguments
for and against the existence of God".  Although Mackie ultimately
sides with "against", his arguments are, I think, quite fair to both
sides.  Brief discussions can be found in the alt.atheism FAQs.
--
Bruce              CMSR, University of Liverpool

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21347
From: will@futon.webo.dg.com (Will Taber)
Subject: Re: SATANIC TOUNGES


 pwhite@empros.com (Peter White) relates a story about a person who 
gives a message in tongues which consists entirely of the words pu'
ka.  He was asked to refrain from doing that.


>Well, Brother Puka controlled himself for a while, but a few weeks
>later, the church had invited a missionary in to speak. At the time of
>the meeting where tongues and interpretation were appropriate, who 
>should arise to speak but Brother Puka. And off he went as before,
>all the words were Puka. The pastor was about to apologize for this
>embarrassment when the missionary arose to speak saying that he
>was sorry that he did not have the interpretation but that he could
>give the translation. In a tribe where he had worked, they only had
>one word in the language, puka. Meaning was derived from the inflection
>and other voice qualities. Brother Puka had given a perfectly inflected
>and reasonable message.

Nice story but it sets off my urban legend (or is it charismatic
legend?) alarms.  Can the linguists on the net identify the language
from the description?  Or can they even attest that such a language
exists.  It seems to be odd enough (at least by the standards of
European languages) that if it exists, it should be reasonably well
known to linguists as an extreme case of something or other.

Or have I just overreacted to your basic shaggy dog story?

Will


---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
| William Taber         | Will_Taber@dg.com 	  | Any opinions expressed |
| Data General Corp.    | will@futon.webo.dg.com  | are mine alone and may |
| Westboro, Mass. 01580 |                         | change without notice. |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| When all your dreams are laid to rest, you can get what's second best,   |
|	But it's hard to get enough.		David Wilcox               |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21348
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary

>As the moderator noted, I think you mean the Assumption.  Catholics
>believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary went to Heaven body *and* soul at
>the end of her life.  This is unusual because the normal course of
>events is for your body to decay in the grave and stay that way until
>the Resurrection of the Dead.

Well, it wasn't that way for Enoch and Elijah, both of whom were
translated directly into heaven.  It's beyond my grasp why some object
that Mary, who was far greater than either Enoch or Elijah, should not
benefit from the same privelege they recieved.  She was after all,
Mother of God, full of grace, and immaculate.

>Historically, belief in the Assumption can be found in the writings of
>St. Gregory of Tours (late 6th century).

And in St. Germain of Constantinople and St. John of Damascus, and in
St. Andrew of Crete, among others.

And it should be noted that the Monophysite Chruches of Egypt and Syria
also hold to this belief as part of divine revelation, even though they
broke away from the unity of the Chruch in 451 AD by rejecting the
Council of Chalcedon.  It might be argued by some Protestants that the
Catholics and Orthodox made this belief up, but the Monophysites, put a
big hole in that notion, as they also hold the belief, and they split
from the Chruch before the belief was first annunciated in writing (as
far as is known, much has been lost from the time of the Fathers).

Andy Byler

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21349
From: rich0043@student.tc.umn.edu (Timothy Richardson)
Subject: Re: Seeking Christian opinion, all sorts.

Subject: Re: Seeking Christian opinion, all sorts.
From: Rob Steele, rsteele@adam.ll.mit.edu
Date: 5 May 93 06:52:54 GMT

>Do you mean that your fellow Christians tend to find you wacky?  Maybe  
>they're right.  You might be interested in Franky Schaeffer's books  
>about what philistines American Christians are: _Addicted to  
>Mediocrity_ and more recently _Sham Pearls for Real Swine_.

One day a few years ago Franky Schaeffer walked into a Greek Orthodox
Church.  He is now an Orthodox Christian.  So is his mother and if his
father, Fransis Schaeffer, had not passed away he too would have come
into the church.  
Franky, like many Americans who have recently found the Orthodox church,
described the experience as finally coming home after a long jouney
through a desert.  You should also read the book "Becoming Orthodox" by
Peter Gillquist.  It describes the long journey of some 2000 weary
Evangelical Protestants to the Orthodox church.   Come taste and see how
good the Lord is.

Timothy Richardson
rich0043@student.tc.umn.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21350
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: The Nicene Creed (was Re: MAJOR VIEWS OF THE TRINITY)

Michael Bushnell writes;

>The so-called Creed of Athanasius, however, has always been a Western
>creed, and has always had the filioque.  The Orthodox have said that
>they accept all that it says, with the exception of the filioque, but
>it is not "in use."

Which is exactly what I pointed out.  (Though I was wrong about your use
of the Creed, the 1913 Catholic Encylcopedia in which I read about it
said the Orthodox do use the Creed minus the filioque.  Apparently that
has changed.)  The Athanasian Creed has always had the Filioque, the
Nicene - Constantinopolitan did not.
	Of course the Orthodox did not delete the Filioque from the Nicene
Creed (it wasn't there to begin with), but they certainly did from the
Athanasian Creed, which did have it from the beginning.
	I might point out that the whole problem started over the difference in
ways of explaining the generation of the Blessed Trinity, the East
emphasizing the idea of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father
through the Son, and the West using proceeding from the Father and the
Son.  In fact, some, such as Tertullian, used both formulations (see
below)

	"Following, therefore, the form of these examples, I profess that I do
call God and His Word, - the Father and and His Son, - two.  For the
root and the stem are two things, but conjoined; the fountain and the
river are two kinds, but indivisible; the sun and the ray are two forms,
but coherent ones.  Anything which proceeds from another must
necessarily be a second to that from which it proceeds; but it is not on
that account separated from it.  Where there is second, however, there
are two; and where ther is third, there are three.  The Spirit, then, is
third from God and the Son, just as the third from the root is the fruit
of the stem, and third from the fountain is the stream from the river,
and thrid from the sun is the apex of the ray."
	-Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 8, 5 (about 213 AD)

and

	"I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father
through the Son"
	-Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 4, 1 (about 213 AD)

And as St. Thomas showed in his Summa Theologica Part 1, Question 36,
Articles 2 and 3, there is no contradiction between the two methods of
generation, and in fact, the two methods of reckoning the procession
emphasize what St. Augustine, among others taught, that the Holy Spirit
proceeds from the Father and the Son, but He proceeds from the Father in
a more preeminent way.

	"For whatever the Son has, He has from the Father, certainly He has it
from the Father that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him ... For the
Father alone is not from another, for which reason He alone is called
unbegotten, not, indeed, in the Scriptures, but in the practice of
theologians, and of those who employ such terms as they are able in a
matter so great.  The Son, however, is born of the Father; and the Holy
Spirit proceeds principally from the Father, and since the Father gives
to the Son all that He has without any interval of time, the Holy Spirit
proceeds jointly from both Father and Son.  He would be called Son of
the Father and of the Son if, which is abhorent to everyone of sound
mind, they had both begotten Him.  The Spirit was not begotten by each,
however, but proceeds from each and both."
	-St. Augustine of Hippo, The Trinity, 15, 26, 47 (400 to 416 AD)

So, in a sense, all of the formulations are correct (to the West at
least), because the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son, but
in proceeding from the Son, the orgin of that procession is the
procession from the Father, so the Holy Spirit is proceeding from the
Father through the Son, but as all that the Son has is from the Father,
the Holy Spirit can be said to proceed from the Father, without any
mention of the Son being necessary.
	In any case, I am happy to know that I follow in the beliefs of Pope
St. Leo I, St. Fulgence of Ruspe, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Pope St.
Damsus I, St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Epiphanius of Salamis, St. Ambrose
of Milan, St. Hilary of Poitiers, Tertullian, and others among the
Fathers, who all have very quotable quotes supporting the Catholic
position, which I enunciated above.
	As for the issue of the adoption of another Creed being forbidden, I
will point out that the Holy Fathers of Ephesus and Chalcedon both spoke
of the Creed of Nicea in their statement forbidding anyone "to produce,
write, or compose a confession of faith other than the one defined by
the Fathers of Nicea."  That Creed is a different Creed than that of
Constantinople, which is commonly called the Nicene Creed.  Not of
course in that they were condemning the adoption of the
Constantinopolitan Creed, which is but an enlargement upon the Creed of
Nicea, but that they were condemning the impious opinions of Nestorious,
who had adopted a radically different Creed from the one used by the
Church, which among other things denied the procession of the Holy
Spirit form the Son.  Thus, the additions of the Constantinopolitan
Creed were not thought to be in violation of this, and as the Council
Chalcedon also affirmed the doctrine of the procession of the Holy
Spirit from the Son, which Nestorius denied, they could hardly have been
against explaining in a fuller way the Creed, for they themselves
approved of previous additions to it.  And if the further explanations
of the Creed made in Constantinople were not denigrating of the work
done by the Holy Fathers of Nicea or in any way heretical, it follows
that the Council of Toledo was fully able to add what was not disputed
by the faithful to the Creed so as to combat the impieties of the Arians
in Spain, because the filioque was not in dispute in the Church until
many years later under Photius and others.  And that the filioque was
not disputed, I provide more quotes below.

	"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to
God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly
clear that He is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding
from it."
	-St. Cyril of Alexandria, The Treasury of the Holy and Consubstantial
Trinity, Thesis 34, (423-425 AD)

	"The Holy Spirit is not of the Father only, or of the Son only, but he
is the Spirit of the Father and the Son.  For it is written: `If anyone
loves the world, the Spirit of the Father is not in him'; and again it
is written: `If anyone, however, does not have the Spirit of Christ, he
is none of His.'  When the Father and the Son are named in this way, the
Holy Spirit is understood, of whom the Son himself says in the Gospel,
that the Holy Spirit `proceeds from the Father,' and that `He shall
receive of mine and shall announce it to you.'"
	-Pope St. Damasus I, The Decree of Damasus, 1 (382 AD)

	"The only-begotten Holy Spirit has neither the name of the Son nor the
appelation of Father, but is called Holy Spirit, and is not foreign to
the Father.  For the Only-begotten Himself calls Him: `the Spirit of the
Father,' and says of Him the `He proceeds from the Father,' and `will
receive of mine,' so that He is reckoned as not being foreign to the
Son, but is of their same substance, of the same Godhead; He is Spirit
divine, ... of God, and He is God.  For he is Spirit of God, Spirit of
the Father, and Spirit of the Son, not by some kind of synthesis, like
soul and body in us, but in the midst of Father and Son of the Father
and of the Son, a third by appelation....
	"The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit
breathes from the Father and the Son; and neither is the Son created nor
is the Spirit created."
	-St. Epiphanius of Salamis (which is on Cyprus), The Man Well-Anchored,
8 and 75 (374 AD)

	"Concerning the Holy Spirit, I ought not to remain silent, nor yet is
it necessary to speak.  Still, on account of those who do not know Him,
it is not possible for me to be silent.  However it is necessary to
speak of Him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the
Son, His Sources."
	-St. Hilary of Poitiers, The Trintiy, 2, 29 (356 to 359 AD)

	Thus, as I have pointed out before, Gaul, Spain, Italy, Africa, Egypt,
Palastine, and the lands of the Greeks, all of Christnedom at that time,
all have Fathers who can be cited to show that they confess the doctrine
expressed by the filioque.  I suggest to those of the Orthodox Church
that they come up with some of the Fathers, besides St. John of Damascus
who all will admit denied the filioque, to support their views.  It is
not enough to bring up the "proceeds from the Father" line of the Creed
or the Gospel of John, for that says what we believe also.  But it does
not say the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, only that He does
proceed from the Father.

Andy Byler

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21351
From: b8!anthony@panzer.b17b.ingr.com (new user)
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

In article <May.2.09.48.32.1993.11721@geneva.rutgers.edu>, db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes:
|> Beyt (BCG@thor.cf.ac.uk) writes:
|> 
|>
|> 4) "Nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]" (Rev. 21.27). Therefore,
|> babies are born in such a state that should they die, they are cuf off
|> from God and put in hell,

Oh, that must explain Matthew 18:

1) In that hour came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, "Who then is greatest in
the kingdom of heaven?"
2) And he called to him a little child, and set him in the midst of them,
3) and said, "Verily I say unto you, Except ye turn, and become as little
children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.
14) Even so it is not the will of your father who is in heaven, that one of these
little ones should perish.

Nice thing about the Bible, you don't have to invent a bunch of convoluted
rationalizations to understand it, unlike your arguments for original sin. Face
it, original sin was thought up long after the Bible had been written and has no
basis from the scriptures.

Anthony

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21352
From: tp0x+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Price)
Subject: Re: Serbian genocide Work of God?

In article <Apr.24.01.09.19.1993.4263@geneva.rutgers.edu> revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille) writes:
>James Sledd (jsledd@ssdc.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
>: Are the Serbs doing the work of God?  Hmm...
>:
>
>Are you suggesting that God supports genocide?
>Perhaps the Germans were "punishing" Jews on God's behalf?
>
>Any God who works that way is indescribably evil, and unworthy of
>my worship or faith.

You might want to re-think your attitude about the Holocaust after
reading Deuteronomy chapter 28.

      Tom Price   |    tp0x@cs.cmu.edu   |   Free will? What free will? 
 *****************************************************************************
  plutoniumsurveillanceterroristCIAassassinationIranContrawirefraudcryptology

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21353
From: kene@acs.bu.edu (Kenneth Engel)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

Let me tell you my story.
I grew up catholic. Up until I was 14, it wasn't an issue for me. Then I met
a born-again christian, a very sweet person, not proseletyzing(sp?), not 
imposing. I tried to get into being as christian as I could, as I felt I 
'should'.

But the more I tried, the more depressed I got. I felt guilty for some of my
own personal, honest feelings. I tried so hard to reconcile this conflict.
until I was 23.

Then I taught myself to think rationally. I read a lot of books, pro and con 
religion in general and, specifically, catholicism. I came to a crisis point,
then it finally clicked and now I am a staunch atheist. 

This is a very loose explanation, but it's the gist of it.

Now, (at 26) I feel better about myself, better self-esteem, a generally 
stronger person. I have well-defined goals. I have a strong and stable sense 
of morals and values. I am not a neo-nazi or a corrupt politicain, etc. I 
believe in human rights and 'live and let live' among other things. I am very 
anti-violent and anti-hatred. (This is to debunk the myth that atheists are
depraved.)
Religion has no place in my system.
Tough.

Bertrand Russell said that we cannot *know* god doesn't exist, we can't prove 
it. So, in that sense, we can only truly be agnostic. But, for all practical
purposes there is no god.

Thanqs 
ken engel
kene@acs.bu.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21354
From: ka2czu@cbnewsh.att.com
Subject: Christians in the Martial Arts

Greetings and Salutations!

I would like to get in touch with people who
(a) consider themselves Christians (you define it), and
(b) are in the Martial Arts

Some topics for discussion:
	- your particular martial art
	- your view of the relationship between
		Christianity and your art
	- your view of the relationship between
		*your* Christianity and your art
	- why should a Christian participate in MA
	- why shouldn't a Christian participate in MA
	- Biblical views of MA; pro or con.

For example, I heard from one fellow:
	"...I tried the Karate for Christ thing and it wasn't for me..."
	- why or why not?

As an aside, I am involved (in *NO* official way) with an
organization called the Christian Black Belt Association and
I would also like to distribute info regarding upcoming events
to *those who are interested*.  No, you won't be put on any
"mailing list" nor will your name be "sold".

However, if you ARE intested in an email list, let me know.

I am interested in email replies ONLY as this is cross-posted 
to groups I don't normally read.  If anyone wants a summary
or, of course, on-going discussion, then let me know.


Shalom,
Robert Switzer
ka2czu@cbnewsh.att.com
-- 
Bell Labs, 200 Laurel Ave., 2b-334, Middletown, NJ 07748-4801 USA (908)957-2923
...-.-    Amateur Radio Operator           KA2CZU   Robert Switzer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21355
From: sun075!Gerry.Palo@uunet.uu.net (Gerry Palo)
Subject: Re: Good Jewish Arguments

kwfinken@pooh.harpo.uccs.edu (Kevin W. Finkenbinder)  wrote:

>scott@born.phys.virginia.edu wrote:
>: 
>:[intro deleted...] 
>: 
>:       1) Jesus wasn't really descended from David as the Messiah was supposed
>: to have been. Joseph was, but Christians say that Joseph wasn't related to
>: Jesus truthfully.
>
>        If you look at the geneology of Christ in Luke 3 and the one in
>Matthew 1 you will notice that they trace different lines back to David.
>I have been told that one traces Mary's line back to David and the other
>traces Joseph's line back to David.  (Both of them go beyond David in
>history)  Acording to some of my Jewish friends, "Jewishness" is passed
>to a child by the mother and the legal rights of "Jewishness" are passed
>through the father.  If it is true that one of these geneologies is
>Mary's, then Christ's bloodline is from David through His mother.  This
>also means that Christ had all of the legal rights of a decendant of
>David as according to at least Roman law (and possibly Mosaic law as
>well, but I am not sure) Joseph was Christ's LEGAL FATHER.

The argument for Luke's genealogy being that of Mary is very weak. According
to Luke 3:23

   And when he began his ministry, Jesus himself was about 
   thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph,
   the son of Eli,

Aside from the fact that Mary is not mentioned, there are two possible
interpretations: either Joseph was her father or he was her brother.
Clearly this is not acceptable.  A third would be that Joseph, the son
of Eli, was her Father and just happened to have the name as the man
to whom she was betrothed. But that would seem to be grasping at
straws. The most straightforward interpretation is that Luke had no
intention of tracing Mary's genealogy (in which case he would have
named her) but that he traces her husband's, from David's son Nathan.

The Matthew descendant list most definitely traces down from David's
son, Solomon, to Joseph.  Matthew 1:16 reads:

   And to Jacob was born Joseph, the husband of Mary, by whom was born
   Jesus, who is called Christ. 

There are two apparent problems.  The first is, how to reconcile the
two paternal genealogies - which diverge with the sons of David,
Solomon and Nathan.  The second is, why is any genealogy of Joseph
relavent at all, if Joseph had nothing to do with it.  If Joseph was
not Jesus's physical father, then the original poster is quite
correct, that claims for Jesus's messianic heritage are not based on
truth but only on appearances, whatever Jesus's divine nature was.

The second problem is easy, in my mind.  We assume that Joseph was not
involved in the conception of Jesus in any way.  However, a Holy
Spirit capable of working a physical conception in Mary is also
capable of employing the physical agency of Joseph's seed in this
work.  In our materialistic times we interpret viginity and its loss
solely in terms of a physical act, whereas it is really a matter of
purity on a much higher level as well.  The important thing is that
neither Mary nor Joseph was conscious of any union between them (they
had not "known"each other).  Thus the first gospel's dedication of
half its opening chapter to the genealogy of Joseph is quite relevant
to Jesus, the Virgin birth not- withstanding.

To the first question there is an answer that creates, to begin with, more
problems than it resolves.  It is that the two evangelists are relating 
the births of two entirely different children of two entirely different
sets of parents.  Except for the names of the parents and the child, and 
the birthplace in Bethlehem there is no point in common between the two 
stories.  Matthew and Luke converge in their accounts only thirty years
later with the Baptism of Jesus in Jordan.  Rudolf Steiner offered his
explanation of how these accounts begin with two children and then converge
with their accounts of the one Jesus of Nazareth.  He did not derive his
resolution from biblical study or speculation, or from other external
documents, and the discussion of "how this could be" might bring us beyond
the limits of appropriateness for this newsgroup.  In any case, the
details are described in Steiner's "The Spiritual Guidance of the Human 
Being and of Humanity", "The Gospel of St. Luke", and "The Gospel of St.
Matthew". 

Whether or not Rudolf Steiner's methods and explanation are accepted
as valid, at least this interpretation resolves the apparent
contradictions of the two genealogies while leaving the text intact.

As for the passing of one's Jewishness through the mother, this was
never an issue with Jesus. No one ever questioned his or Mary's
Jewishness.  The issue of the genealogies has to do with his paternal
line of descent from David, the king.

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21356
From: kene@acs.bu.edu (Kenneth Engel)
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell

|> Imagine the worst depth of despair you've
|> ever encountered, or the worst physical pain you've ever experienced.
|> Some people suffer such emotional, physical, and mental anguish
|> in their lives that their deaths seem to be merciful. But at least
|> the pain does end in death. What if you lived a hundred such lives,
|> at the conclusion of one you were instantly reborn into another?
|> What if you lived a million, a billion years in this state?
|> What if this kept going forever?


Did this happen to Jesus? I don't think so, not from what I heard. He lived
ONE DAY of suffering and died. If the wages of sin is the above paragraph, then
JESUS DIDN'T PAY FOR OUR SINS, DID HE?

I'd be surprised to see the moderator let this one through, but I seriously
want a reasonable explanation for this.

ken

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21357
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <May.6.00.35.17.1993.15441@geneva.rutgers.edu> loisc@microsoft.com (Lois Christiansen) writes:
>In article <Apr.30.03.11.27.1993.10101@geneva.rutgers.edu> FSSPR@acad3.alaska.edu wrote:

>You might visit some congregations of Christians, who happen to be homosexuals,
>that are spirit-filled believers, 

Gifts of the Spirit should not be seen as an endorsement of ones behavior.
A lot of people have suffered because of similar beliefs.  Jesus said
that people would come to Him saying "Lord, Lord," and proclaiming
the miraculous works they had done in His name.  Jesus would tell
them that they were workers of iniquity that do not know Him, and to
depart from Him.  

That is not to say that this will happen to everyone who commits a homosexual
sin.  If the Holy Spirit were only given to the morally perfect, He would
not be given to me, or any of us.  God can forgive any sin, if we repent.
But people should be careful not to think, "God has given me a gift of
the Spirit, it must be okay to be gay."  That is dangerous (see also hebrews
6 about those who have partaken of the Holy Spirit and of the powers of 
the world to come.)

>The Lord IS working in our community (the homosexual community, that is).  He's
>not asking us to change our sexual nature,

Jesus doesn't ask us to change our own nature.  We cannot lift ourselves
out of our own sin- but we must submit to His hand as He changes our
nature.  Practicing homosexual acts and homosexual lusts violates the
morality that God has set forth.  

If you don't believe that, and think those of us who do are just ignorant,
then at least consider us weak in the faith and be celebate for our sake's.
Is practicing homosexuality worth the cost of a soul, whether it be the
homosexual's or the one considered "ignorant?"

Link Hudson.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21358
From: saw8712@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Steve A. Ward)
Subject: Re: Mormon Temples

mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server) writes:

>One thing I don't understand is why being sacred should make the
>temple rituals secret.  

On of the attributes of being sacred in this case is that they
should not be spoken of in a "common manner" or "trampled under
feet" such as the Lords name is today.  The ceremonies are
performed in the temple because the temple has been set aside
as being as sacred/holy/uncommon place.  We believe that the 
ceremonies can only be interpreted correctly when they
are viewed with the right spirit- which in this case is in the
temple.  So from our point of view, when they are brought
out into the public, they are being trampled under feet,
because of misinterpretations and mocking, and it is therefore
offensive to us.

Please do not assume that because of my use of the words
'we' and 'our' that I'm an official spokesman for the LDS
church.  I am merely stating what I believe is the general
feeling among us.  Others feel free to disagree.

--
Steve Ward
saw8712@bcstec.ca.boeing.com 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21359
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: Re: What WAS the immaculate conception

maxwell c muir writes:

   Just a quick question. If Mary was Immaculately concieved, so she
   could be a pure vessel, does this mean that she was without sin
   and, therefore, the perfect (meaning sinless) female human being?
   Is this why she is held so highly in the Catholic Church despite
   it's basically patriarchical structure?

She was immaculately conceived, and so never subject to Original Sin,
but also never committed a personal sin in her whole life.  This was
possible because of the special degree of grace granted to her by God.

She is regarded so highly because of her special relationship to God,
and everything that flows from that relationship.

The Catholic Church sees her as the new Eve.  (The Fathers in the
early Church use this particular figure a lot.)

Eve is the mother of all the living in a genetic sense.  Mary is the
mother of all the living in the order of grace.  As sin came through
Eve, so Grace -- Jesus Christ -- came through Mary.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21360
From: jblanken@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (James R. Blankenship)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's e

The only reason for the death penalty is revenge?? If you are going to
try to refute a position, try to refute the whole position or acknosledge
that you are only speaking to small piece of the problem. Broad sweeping
"the only reason, " etc on as tough nut to crack as the death penalty
reallly doesn't help much.

Every year the FBI releases crime stats showing an overwhelming amount of
crime is committed by repeat offenders. People are killed by folks who
have killed (who knows how many times) before. How aobut folks who are for
the death penalty, not for revenge, but to cut down on recidivism?


Jim

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21361
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: Serbian genocide Work of God?

note: i am not the original poster, i am just answering because i
think this is important.

In article <May.5.02.50.17.1993.28624@athos.rutgers.edu> db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes:
>revdak@netcom.com writes:
[evil result of human sinfulness, rather than the will of God]
>In a certain sense yes.  But in the sense that God allows evil to
>happen, when obviously (He being God) He could have not had it happen,
>does in a certain sense mean that He wills it to happen.  God does not
>condone evil, but instead uses it for good, as you say, however, what
>God desires, must be seperated from what actually happens.  For example,
>"God desires that all should be saved" (1 Timothy 2.4), however, it is
>quite obvious that nowhere near all are saved.  Was God's will thwarted?
> No, because His will cannot be escaped, for even when it appears that
>it is your will doing something, it is actually the will of God which by
>His grace has disposed us to do as He wishes.  So we come to the age old
>question, why does evil occur?  To which we must answer that God allows
>evil to occur, though He does not condone it, so that His ultimate plan
>may be brought to sucess.  Personally, I suggest reading the parts of
>the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas that deal with the knowledge of God
>to get a good grasp on this whole idea.

whoo.  i'm going to have to be very careful with my language here.  i
think God is voluntarily giving up his omniscience in this world so
that we can decide on our own where we go -- free will.  in this sense
God allows evil to occur, and in this sense can be "held responsible"
as my chaplain says.  however, his will is, of course, that all be
saved.  he's not going to save us "by himself" -- we have to take a
step in his direction before he will save us.  read that last sentence
carefully -- i'm not saying we save ourselves.  i'm saying we have to
ACCEPT our salvation.  i do not believe in predestination -- it would
appear from what you say further down that you do.  

[stuff deleted]
>I am not saying that anyone deserves punishment more than someone else.
>I am simply pointing out that God could be using the Serbians and
>Croatians as instruments of His punishment, as he did with the
>Israelites against the Cannanites.

ok -- i have trouble with that, but i guess that's one of those things
that can't be resolved by argument.  i accept your interpretation.

[more deleted]
>>The issue is not questioning why God has made the world in the way God
>>so chooses, it is whether _I_ am discerning the world in the way God
>>intends it.  The debate is about whether we should not oppose the Serbians
>>in their "ethnic cleansing" because they might be "doing the will of God."
>
>And I said Christians should not be participants in such wars and
>slaughters. That does not mitigate the fact that God allows this evil to
>continue, for He is patient and willing that none should perish, so He
>waits for those whom He has foreknown to turn to Him from their evil.
			     ^^^^^^^^^
this is what indicates to me that you may believe in predestination.
am i correct?  i do not believe in predestination -- i believe we all
choose whether or not we will accept God's gift of salvation to us.
again, fundamental difference which can't really be resolved.

[yet more deleted]
>I am not saying that the evil befalling the Bosnians is justified by
>their guilt.  I am saying that it is possible that God is punishing them
>in this way. In no way is this evil justified, bu that does not mean
>that God cannot use evil to further His purposes.  I am not accusing the
>Bosnians, though they may very well be guilty of great sins, but that is
>up to God to judge.  We are all defendants when the time comes for our
>judgement by God.  Let us all sincerely hope and pray that we will have
>Jesus Christ as our advocate at that judgement.

yes, it is up to God to judge.  but he will only mete out that
punishment at the last judgement.  as for now, evil can be done by
human beings that is NOT God's will -- and the best we can do is see
taht some good comes out of it somehow.  the thing that most worries
me about the "it is the will of God" argument is that this will
convince people that we should not STOP the rape and killing when i
think that it is most christ-like to do just that.  if jesus stopped
the stoning of an adulterous woman (perhaps this is not a good
parallel, but i'm going to go with it anyway), why should we not stop
the murder and violation of people who may (or may not) be more
innocent?

>Andy Byler

vera
*******************************************************************************
I am your CLOCK!     |  I bind unto myself today    | Vera Noyes
I am your religion!  |  the strong name of the	    | noye@midway.uchicago.edu
I own you!	     |  Trinity....		    | no disclaimer -- what
	- Lard	     |	- St. Patrick's Breastplate | is there to disclaim?
*******************************************************************************

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21362
From: gchin@ssf.Eng.Sun.COM (Gary Chin)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's e

In article 28727@athos.rutgers.edu, 62johnson@cua.edu (Yusef Al-Tariq) writes:
>Who's law is it that a wedding has to happen in a church?  the only reqirement
>is that you and the bride agreee to marry each other.  How also can you say "
>"christian wedding" when the proces of marriage is nt really discussed in the
>bible.  why mus t a person get a civil marriage also?  The only standards i
>look to are those imposed upon me by god... not of society.

If you want to live with someone, you can.
If you don't want to have a civil marriage, don't.
If you don't want to have a wedding in a church, don't.
If you want to call that a marriage, go right ahead.

I hope that the young people that are around you, don't follow your example.


|-------------------|
| Gary Chin         |
| Staff Engineer    |
| Sun Microsystems  |
| Mt. View, CA      |
| gchin@Eng.Sun.Com |
|-------------------|

[If the original message claims that marriage is not discussed in the
Bible, I have to disagree.  Various aspects of marriage are discussed
in some of Paul's letters, Ephesians 5 sees marriage as a symbol of
God's relationship with the church.  If it means specifically that the
marriage ceremony isn't described, then that seems to be true.  But I
think what most people mean by Christian marriage is not so much that
it takes place in a church as that the parties undertake the various
commitments to each other that are associated with marriage in the
Bible.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21363
From: jwindley@cheap.cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Mormon temples

mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server) writes:
| One thing I don't understand is why being sacred should make the
| temple rituals secret.

The "so sacred it's secret" explanation is a bit misleading.  While
there is a profound reverence for the temple endowment, there is no
injunction against discussing the ceremony itself in public.  But
since public discussion is often irreverent, most Mormons would rather
keep silent than have a cherished practice maligned.

But there are certain elements of the ceremony which participants
explicitly covenant not to reveal except in conjunction with the
ceremony itself.

| Granted, the Gnostic "Christians"
| had their secret rituals, but these seem to have been taken entirely
| from pagan pre-Christian mystery religions.

There are other interpretations to Christian history in this matter.
One must recall that most of what we know about the Gnostics was
written by their enemies.  Eusebius claims that Jesus imparted secret
information to Peter, James, and John after His resurrection, and that
those apostles transmitted that information to the rest of the Twelve
(Eusebius, _Historia Ecclesiastica_ II 1:3-4).

Irenaeus claims this information was passed on to the priests and
bishops (_Against Heresies_ IV 33:8), but Eusebius disagrees.  He
claims the secret ceremonies of the Christian church perished with the
apostles.  Interestingly enough, Eusebius refers to the groups which
we today call Gnostics as promulgators of a false gnosis (Eusebius,
op. cit., III, 32:7-8).  His gripe was not that thay professed *a*
gnosis, but that they had the *wrong* one.

Writings dealing with Jesus' post-resurrection teachings emphasize
secrecy -- not so much a concealment as a policy of not teaching
certain things indiscriminately.  In one story, Simon Magus opens a
dialog with Peter on the nature of God.  Peter's response is "You seem
to me not to know what a father and a God is: But I could tell you
both whence souls are, and when and how they were made; but it is not
permitted to me now to disclose these things to you" (_Clementine
Recognitions_ II, 60).  If any one theme underlies the _Recognitions_
it is the idea that certain doctrines are not to be idly taught, but
can be had after a certain level of spiritual maturity is reached.

Now one can approach this and other such evidence in many ways.  I
don't intend that everyone interpret Christian history as I do, but I
believe that evidence exists (favorably interpreted, of course) of
early Christian rites analogous to those practiced by Mormons today.

| Neither New Testament
| Christianity nor Biblical Judaism made a secret of their practices.

But if Judaism and Christianity had such ceremonies, would you expect
to read about them in public documents?  One can search the Book of
Mormon and other Mormon scripture and find almost no information on
temple worship.  Yes, you could establish that Mormons worship in
temples, but you would probably be hard pressed to characterize that
worship.  On that basis, can we conclude that the Bible explains *all*
practices which might have taken place, and that absence of such
descriptions proves they did not exist?

Mormon scholar Dr. Hugh Nibley offers us a list of scriptures from
which I have taken a few:

1. "It is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of
heaven, but to them it is not given" (Matt. 13:11).

2. "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given"
(Matt. 19:11).

3. "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them
now" (John 16:12).

4. "The time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs,
but I shall shew you plainly of the Father" (John 16:25).

5. "... unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter"
(1 Cor. 3:1-2).

6. "Many things ... I would not write with paper and ink; but I ...
come unto you and speak face to face" (2 Jn. 1:12).

(Nibley, _Since Cumorah_, pp. 92-94)

Again, these can also be interpreted many different ways.  I believe
they serve to show that not all doctrines which could have been taught
were actually taught openly.

| I have heard that Joseph Smith took the entire
| practice (i.e. both the ritual and the secrecy surrounding the ritual)
| from the Freemasons.  Anybody in the know have any authoritative
| information on whether or not this claim is true?

Historically, Joseph Smith had been adiministering the temple
endowment ceremony for nearly a year before joining the Freemasons.
There is diary evidence which supports a claim that the rite did not
change after Smith became a Mason.  It can be argued that Smith had
ample exposure to Masonic proceedings through the burlesque of his
time and through his brother Hyrum (a Mason), though no specific
connection has yet been established.

My conversations with Masons (with respect to temple rite
transcriptions which have appeared on the net) have led me to believe
that the connection from Masonry to Mormonism is fairly tenuous.  As
our moderator notes, most of what was similar was removed in the
recent revisions to the temple ceremony.  I believe that critics who
charge that Mormon rites were lifted from Freemasonry do not have
adequate knowledge of the rites in question.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Jay Windley  *  University of Utah  *  Salt Lake City
                    jwindley@asylum.cs.utah.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21364
From: aidler@sol.uvic.ca (E Alan Idler)
Subject: Re: Mormon Temples

mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server) writes:

>saw8712@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Steve A. Ward) writes:

>>dan@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>[Dan's question about Mormon Temple rituals deleted for brevity]
>> 
>>Just thought I would interject this, and I believe you Dan when you say
>>that you don't mean to offend:  For us LDS temple goers, the temple
>>ceremonies are very sacred.  So much so that anyone who goes there
>>promises never to divulge them.  So how much can you trust someone
>>who is telling you about the cerermony? 

>One thing I don't understand is why being sacred should make the
>temple rituals secret.  There are lots of sacred things in
>Christianity, including the Sacred Scriptures themselves, but there is
>nothing secret about these things.  

Is it appropriate for the Lord not to reveal certain 
things before the world (i.e., publish them widely)?

These things sacred to Himself.  He may place any 
pre- or post-conditions He feels are necessary.

Moreover, there are precedents in scripture where
knowledge of sacred things is withheld:

1. After the Transfiguration Jesus instructed
Peter, James, and John to "tell the vision to no 
man, until the Son of man be risen again from 
the dead" (Matt. 17:9).  
If we were living at the time of Savior, there
would be no (public) record of this event.

2. A faithful friend of Paul experiences a vision 
of "paradise" when he "heard unspeakable words, 
which it is not lawful for a man to utter"
(2 Cor. 12:4).
This person heard something which Paul can not 
write to the Corinthians (and us).

3. There is an incident recorded in the Book of
Mormon where words uttered by "babes" were 
"forbidden that there should not any man write
them (3 Nephi 26:16, the entire text follows
for those of you without access to the BOM).

3 Nephi 26:16
Behold, it came to pass on the morrow that the 
multitude gathered themselves together, and they
both saw and heard these children; yea, even 
babes did open their mouths and utter marvelous
things; and the things which they did utter were
forbidden that there should not any man write them.

Some LDS scholars speculate that these words
which could not be written are the sacred
portions from temple we are to withhold from 
the world (but it could be something else).

>I
>can understand why Mormons would limit temple access to only faithful
>Mormons, but I have never understood the emphasis on shrouding temple
>ritual in mystery.  

There is much we can discuss about the temple 
ordinances.  We can discuss regarding baptisms
and other vicarious ordinances for the dead.
We can discuss certain concepts regarding the
endowment ("the ritual").
However, there are certain elements I can not
discuss with anyone (including other saints)
outside of the temple.
As a portion of the endowment, we receive the
tokens and signs that will permit us access
to Heaven.  I must keep this knowledge sacred 
and respect the conditions under which it is
revealed to me.

A IDLER

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21365
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

[4) "Nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]" (Rev. 21.27). Therefore,
babies are born in such a state that should they die, they are cuf off
from God and put in hell, which is exactly the doctrine of St. Augustine
and St. Thomas.  Of coures, having only original sins on thier souls,
they suffer the lightest punishment, the loss of the vision oand
presence of God, but that does not change the undeniable fact that they
cannot possibly come to a forgivenss of original sin, nor can they
inherit eternal life.  "That," as St. Augustine said, "Is what the
Pelagian heretics taught."  Which is why he said later, "If you want to
be a Christian, do not teach that unbaptized infants can come to a
forgivenss of original sin."]

Doesn't the Bible say that God is a fair god?  If this is true, how can this
possibly be fair to the infants?

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21366
From: mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary


	Two follow up's to Mark's last posting:

	1.  As far as current investigations, the Church recently declared the
	    crying statue and corresponding messages from Mary at Akita,
	    Japan as approved (I found this out about a month ago.)

	2.  Again in the proof department, start with the appearances of Mary
	    at Fatima.  Among other things, there were pictures taken of the
	    "miracle of the sun" that appeared in some major American newspaper
	    (The New York Times, I believe) as well as most of the major
	    European newspapers.  

	    I could talk (or post) for hours on this topic, but... 
		(I have a thesis to write).
						God Bless,
							- Mike Walker
							 
P.S.  Anyone want info, I have more.  mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21367
From: mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker)
Subject: Re: Portland earthquake

archau@saturn.wwc.edu (Austin C Archer) writes:

>I am interested in views about the non-event of May 3. Seriously, how can a 
>Christian discriminate between "messages from God" which are to be taken 
>seriously, and those which are spurious?  Is there a useful heuristic which 
>would help us avoid embracing messages which, by their non-fulfillment are 
>proven to be false, thus causing the name of Christ to be placed in 
>disrepute? Is this a problem at all?

>I believe that a careful understanding of scripture can help us here. It 
>seems to me that anytime we are proven by events to be mistaken, it points 
>to a serious failure in understanding God's will. It should result in a 
>reevaluation of what we accept as truth.

>I must hasten to add that I was always skeptical, even cynical, about 
>these "prophesies" as I tend to be concerning all such. But clearly, many 
>Christians put much stock in them. If the Church represents Christ in the 
>world, then Christians must avoid being made the laughing-stock of the 
>world, lest we dishonor Him. Further, the more often we cry "wolf", the 
>less seriously we tend to be taken.

>Any comments?


	Good point -- it is very true that these "false" predictions are
dangerous--we are warned (more than once) in scripture about false prophtets.

	However, as is often the case with other issues, one cannot let those
who falsly report such "visions" as a reason against believing in any of them
(I did not get the impression you were asserting this, by the way...I consider
my response not so much a response to your posting but a response to the topic
as a whole).

	Example:  The Appearances of Mary at Fatima, Portugal in 1917.

	Among other things, she predicted the conversion of Russia to Atheism
	(something that happened less than a year later w/ the Bolshevik
	revolution).  She also predicted the second world war (that is, predicte	predicted that it would occur during the papacy of a certain pope, who
	was not the current one.  It happened just like she said.)

	She warned there would be "fire in the sky" as a warning that the 
	second world war was about to start.  About a week before Germany
	invaded, weathermen (and women, I suppose) all over Europe, from
	England to Spain to Eastern Europe, reported the most spectacular
	reddish color in the sky ever recorded.  To this day some try to 
	explain it off as the northern lights, and the relation to Mary's
	prediction simply coincidence.  You all can decide for yourselves.

	Mary predicted that the Atheistic Russia would spread her evils all
	over the world and persecute religion.  

	She said many other things as well, too numerous to list here.  Every
	single one has been realized.  	One can only use the term "coincidence"
	so many times in the same explanation before its use becomes 
	ridiculous.  

	SO...yes, there are many false prophets and many false reports. There
	are true ones, too.  We must always remain open to that.  Fatima was
	one example.  There is another one, currently occuring--the 
	apparitions that have been taking place at Medjurgorje, Yugoslavia
	(or whatever its called now).  Mary has been appearing every day for
	eleven years now.  It's time the world started listening.

	More info available to any who want it.
						Peace in Christ Our Lord,
						- Mike Walker
						  mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21368
From: aaronc@athena.mit.edu (Aaron Bryce Cardenas)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

news@cbnewsk.att.com writes:
>Arrogance is arrogance.  It is not the result of religion, it is the result
>of people knowing or firmly believing in an idea and one's desire to show
>others of one's rightness.  I assume that God decided to be judge for our
>sake as much as his own, if we allow him who is kind and merciful be the 
>judge, we'll probably be better off than if others judged us or we judged 
>ourselves.               ^^^^^^ ^^^      ^^                     ^^ ^^^^^^
 ^^^^^^^^^
1 Cor 11:31-32 "But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 
When we are judged by the ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ Lord, we are being discipled so
that we will not be condemned with the world."

1 Cor 5:3 "Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit.
And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were
present."          ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^

1 Cor 2:15-16 "The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he
himself is not     ^^^^^^^^^ subject to any man's      ^^^ judgement:  'For
who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?'  But we have the
mind of Christ."

Jude :14-15 "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men:  'See,
the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge
everyone, and to   ^^^^ convict all the ungodly of  ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^ all
the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words
ungodly sinners have spoken against him.'"

Arrogance is a sin.  Although a desire to show others of one's rightness may
be a sign of arrogance in some cases,  it may be only a sign that they are
following the Bible in others:

Jude :22-23 "Be merciful to those who doubt; snatch others from the fire and
save them; to others show mercy, mixed with  ^^^^^^ fear -- hating  ^^^^ even
^^^^ the clothing stained by corrupted flesh."


>If I find someone arrogant, I typically don't have anything to do with them.  

I hope you don't find me arrogant, then.  This sounds like a bad practice --
ignoring what certain people say because you perceive them as arrogant.

James 1:19 "My dear brothers, take note of this:  Everyone should be quick to
listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry,"

- Aaron

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21369
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: Christianity and repeated lives


 > ...there is nothing in Christianity that precludes the idea of
 > repeated lives on earth.

There is a paragraph in the New Testament which in my opinion, clearly makes
a positive inference to reincarnation. I don't remember which one it is off of
the top of my head, but it basically goes like this: Jesus is talking with the
apostles and they ask him why the pharisees say that before the messiah can come,
Elijah must first come. Jesus replies that Elijah has come, but they did not 
recognize him. It then says that the apostles perceived that he was refering to
John the Baptist. This seems to me to clearly imply reincarnation. Can anyone
offer a reasonable alternative interpretation? I would be very interested to 
hear it.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21370
From: koberg@spot.Colorado.EDU (Allen Koberg)
Subject: Re: SATANIC TOUNGES

In article <May.6.00.34.49.1993.15418@geneva.rutgers.edu> marka@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley) writes:
>In article <May.2.09.50.21.1993.11782@geneva.rutgers.edu> mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>>I have seen the claims, but I don't know if there are any
>>authenticated cases of people making prolonged speeches in
>>real languages they don't know. From my observations, "speaking
>>in tongues" in practice has nothing at all do with this.
>
>I have a simple test. I take several people who can speak
>only one language (e.g. chinese, russian, german, english).
>Then I let the "gifted one" start "speaking in toungues".
>The audience should understand the "gifted one" clearly
>in their native language. However, the "gifted one" can
>only hear himself speaking in his own language.
>

There seem to be many points to the speaking in tongues thing which
are problematic.  It's use as prayer language seems especially troubling
to me.  I understand that when you pray in tongues, the spirit is doing
the talking.  And when you pray, you pray to God.  And the Spirit is
God.  So, the Spirit is talking to Himself.  Which is why I only go
by the Pentecost use where it's an actual language.

Moreover, the phrase "though I speak with the tongues of men and angels"
used by Paul in I Cor. is misleading out of context.   Some would then
assume that there is some angelic tongue, and if when they speak, it
is no KNOWN language, then it is an angelic tongue.

Hmmm...in the old testament story about the tower of Babel, we see how
God PUNISHED by giving us different language.  Can we assume then that
if angels have their own language at all, that they have the SAME one
amongst other angels?  After all, THEY were not punished in any manner.

So why do these supposed angelic tongues all sound different FROM ONE
ANOTHER?  It's disturbing to think that some people find ways to 
justify jabbering.

But I'll buy the idea that someone could talk in a language never learned.

Trouble is, while such stories abound, any and all attempts at
verification (and we are to test the spirit...) either show that
the witness had no real idea of the circumstances, or that outright
fabrication was involved.  The Brother Puka story in a previous post
seems like a "friend of a friend" thing.  And linguistically, a two
syllable word hardly qualifies as language, inflection or no.

Much as many faith healers have trouble proving their "victories" (since
most ailments "cured" are just plain unprovable) and modern day
ressurrections have never been validated, so is it true that no
modern day xenoglossolalia has been proved by clergy OR lay.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21371
From: dxf12@po.cwru.edu (Douglas Fowler)
Subject: Giving "spiritual gifts"


     I just thought I'd share a nice experience before my exam today.
I was walking down the streets on our campus, and a beggar came up and asked
me for any spare change I might have.  I had a dollar or so that I gave her,
and - not wanting to give away all my money to strangers (I generally give
a dollar as that will buy a little food at McDonalds or something) - I offered
her some "spiritual gifts," as I called them, rather than gifts of money.
I talked of how great I felt that God had made such a pretty day, and how
nice it was to give to people - she then said she was getting married soon.
She talked about how she and her husband had very little (they may not have
even had a house, for all I know), but that they felt a very special love in
the Lord, an unselfish kind of caring.  It warmed my heart to know that 2
people can have so little monetarily, and realize that spiritually they are
indeed very rich.  A good lesson for all of us who say we want more, more,
more; what we really need cannot be counted, or sold, or bought.
-- 
Doug Fowler: dxf12@po.CWRU.edu  Heaven is a great big hug that lasts forever
        "And when that One Great Scorer comes to mark against your name;
   He writes, not whether you've won or lost, but how you played the game"
                      --Grantland Rice

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21372
From: daniels@math.ufl.edu (TV's Big Dealer)
Subject: Re: Variants in the NT Text (cont.)


	I wish to echo what D. Andrew Kille wrote.  I know of no published form
in English of the D-type recension of "Acts".  Of course, Bezae is quite bizarre
in the gospels as well.  Only D-type texts share Bezae's strange readings.
	[By the way, "D" stands for Codex Claromontanus elsewhere.]
					Frank D

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21373
From: salaris@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrabbits)
Subject: Re: Satan kicked out of heaven: Biblical?

In article <May.7.01.09.04.1993.14501@athos.rutgers.edu>, easteee@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
> Hello all,
>      I have a question about Satan.  I was taught a long time ago
> that Satan was really an angel of God and was kicked out of heaven
> because he challenged God's authority.  The problem is, I cannot
> find this in the Bible.  Is it in the Bible?  If not, where did it
> originate?
> 
Satan was one of God's highest ranking angels, like Uriel, Raphael,
Michael, and Gabriel.  In fact, his name was Satanel.  He did challenge
God's authority and got kicked out of heaven.  A lot of the mythology
of Satan (he lost the -el suffix when he fell) comes from the
Book of Enoch and is not found in the bible.

Read the Book of Enoch, available thru bookstores, or get the book
called "Angels: an endangered species" (I think).


--
Steven C. Salaris                We're...a lot more dangerous than 2 Live Crew
salaris@carcs1.wustl.edu         and their stupid use of foul language because
				 we have ideas.  We have a philosophy.
					      Geoff Tate -- Queensryche

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21374
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

In article <May.7.01.09.59.1993.14571@athos.rutgers.edu> mayne@nu.cs.fsu.edu writes:
>In article <May.5.02.50.42.1993.28665@athos.rutgers.edu> Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu (Fil Sapienza) writes:
[why are atheists atheists/ believes it could be the result of
"brokenness"]

>This is condescending at best and a slightly disquised ad hominem
>attack. This attitude on the part of many theists, especially the
>vocal ones, is one reason for the hostility you sense. How do you
>like it when atheists say that people turn to religion out of
>immature emotionalism?

i agree -- if you are going to find out anything from people who don't
share your beliefs, do not attack them or condescend to them and hope
to get a neutral picture of them.  come to them with an open mind.

>I don't believe that atheists are generally any more "broken"
>than anybody else. Any cause and effect is likely to be the
>other way. There is an emotional price to pay for being different,
>hearing one's beliefs (or lack thereof) condemned, and one's
>motives and character attacked.

well, you do believe in something, as i see it, even if it is a sort
of "anti-belief" (no negative connotation meant; i mean simply that
you believe that God _does not_ exist).  christians can also feel that
sense of "difference", however, when they are associated with "those
weird televangelists who always talk about satan".  if you'll excuse
the cliched sound of this, everyone has to deal with his/ her
differences from other people.  i can understand how being an atheist
could be hard for you; being a christian is sometimes hard for me.

>I became an atheist when I got old enough to reason because there
>was just no good reason to believe the religion I had been taught.
>This was very painful because of the pressure I was placed under by
>my family and friends. I wanted to fit in, believe, and be accepted.
>I tried, but finally the cognitive dissonance was just too great.

you should not have to repress how you feel -- you should be able to
discuss it without fear.  i think there are admirable things to learn
from any belief, which can enrich your own -- by asking myself the
questions that atheists may ask me, i can learn the answers and become
stronger in my faith.  if my faith can't support knowing the answers
to those questions, it is weak and untrue. 

>I have sympathy for gays growing up in repressive environments and
>having to hide and sometimes at first try to deny a part of themselves
>because I've been there. Only in my case it was my rationality instead
>of sexuality which I was forced to try to repress.

in some way the pressures were different, of course, because you
"chose" your beliefs -- or are you saying that they were not your
choice, but born of necessity?  [please, no flames about whether or
not gay people "choose" their lifestyle -- that's elsewhere in this
newsgroup]

> I must say that I
>wasn't hurt by my experiences in church any more than some of my friends
>who didn't become atheists. I was just hurt differently.

i'm not sure i understand this sentence -- could you explain?

[moderator points out that many/ most atheists aren't "hostile", they
just cease believiing in xiantiy/ religion]

>True. Consider also that people like Pat Robertson and many of the
>Christian extremists in soc.religion.christianity naturally evoke
>hostility by their attacks on anyone who disagrees and their attempts
>to force their views on others. You are known by the company you keep.
>Christians trying to preach in alt.atheism should not be surprised by
>hostility.

ouch, yes.  part of being a christian is accepting _everyone_ with an
open heart -- including people of "our own camp" with whom we
completely disagree.  by the same token, i believe that accusation and
suspicion are not the best way to reach out to those not of our faith,
nor is it effective to try to browbeat people into accepting our
religion.  i have a different idea of mission: be what i am, a
christian who is happy in her faith, and if others see that and want
to know about either the happiness or the religion, i'll share what i
know without pressure and let them make their own decisions.  at some
point you just have to agree to disagree -- acceptance of diversity,
not uniformity, is the way to sow peace....

>Bill Mayne

vera noyes

*******************************************************************************
I am your CLOCK!     |  I bind unto myself today    | Vera Noyes
I am your religion!  |  the strong name of the	    | noye@midway.uchicago.edu
I own you!	     |  Trinity....		    | no disclaimer -- what
	- Lard	     |	- St. Patrick's Breastplate | is there to disclaim?
*******************************************************************************

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21375
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: Satan kicked out of heaven: Biblical?

In article <May.7.01.09.04.1993.14501@athos.rutgers.edu> easteee@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>Hello all,
>     I have a question about Satan.  I was taught a long time ago
>that Satan was really an angel of God and was kicked out of heaven
>because he challenged God's authority.  The problem is, I cannot
>find this in the Bible.  Is it in the Bible?  If not, where did it
>originate?

i did a workshop on this for an episcopalian student gathering a
couple months ago because i wanted to know the answer too.  as far as
i could tell, although that story was never specifically _told_ in the
bible, many references are made to it, primarily in the new testament.
in the old testament there is actually an entirely different view of
satan as a (excuse the pun) "devil's advocate" for yahweh.  see the
book of job.  getting back to the fallen angel story, there are _no_
references to "lucifer" in the bible except for a mistranslation of
"the morning star" in the king james version (isaiah 14:12), which
probably referred to a babylonian monarch much in the same was as "the
sun king" referred to louis xiv.  

all in all, i don't know where the story _came from_; it may have been
rolling around for a long time, or milton (_paradise lost_) may have
invented it.  sorry for the sketchiness of the rest of this, but i am
in a hurry and need to eat lunch!  feel free to email me about the
other stuff i found out....  (although a lot of it is just the result
of a bible concordance program called "quickverse" -- it's really
lousy, by the way -- don't buy it.) 

>Wondering,
>Eddie
>______ __   ___  ___           o  __   ___  |    Western  Kentucky    |
>  /   /__) /__  /__  /     )  /  /__) /__   |       University        |
> /   /  \ (___ (___ (__/__/  /  /  \ (___   |  EASTEEE@WKUVX1.BITNET  |

hope this helped!
vera
______
je cherche une ame, qui			of course i don't agree with  
pourra m'aider				mylene farmer's religious views;
je suis					i just think they're interesting.
d'une generation desenchantee		(vera noyes)
    - mylene farmer			noye@midway.uchicago.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21376
From: ejalbert@husc3.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: Monophysites and Mike Walker

In article <May.6.00.34.58.1993.15426@geneva.rutgers.edu>, db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes:
>>		- Mike Walker 
>> 
>>[If you are using the standard formula of fully God and fully human,
>>that I'm not sure why you object to saying that Jesus was human.  I
>>think the usual analysis would be that sin is not part of the basic
>>definition of humanity.  It's a consequence of the fall.  Jesus is
>>human, but not a fallen human.  --clh]
> 
I differ with our moderator on this.  I thought the whole idea of God coming
down to earth to live as one of us "subject to sin and death" (as one of
the consecration prayers in the Book of Common Prayer (1979) puts it) was
that Jesus was tempted, but did not succumb.  If sin is not part of the
basic definition of humanity, then Jesus "fully human" (Nicea) would not
be "subject to sin", but then the Resurrection loses some of its meaning,
because we encounter our humanity most powerfully when we sin.  To distinguish
between "human" and "fallen human" makes Jesus less like one of us at the
time we need him most.

> [These issues get mighty subtle.  When you see people saying different
> things it's often hard to tell whether they really mean seriously
> different things, or whether they are using different terminology.  I
> don't think there's any question that there is a problem with
> Nestorius, and I would agree that the saying Christ had a human form
> without a real human nature or will is heretical.  But I'd like to be
> a bit wary about the Copts, Armenians, etc.  Recent discussions
> suggest that their monophysite position may not be as far from
> orthodoxy as many had thought.  Nestorius was an extreme
> representative of one of the two major schools of thought.  More
> moderate representatives were regarded as orthodox, e.g. Theodore of
> Mopsuestia.  My impression is that the modern monophysite groups
> inherit the entire tradition, not just Nestorius' version, and that
> some of them may have a sufficient balanced position to be regarded as
> orthodox.  --clh]

First, the Monophysites inherited none of Nestorius's version -- they 
were on the opposite end of the spectrum from him.  Second, the historical
record suggests that the positions attributed to Nestorius were not as
extreme as his (successful) opponents (who wrote the conventional history)
claimed.  Mainly Nestorius opposed the term Theotokos for Mary, arguing
(I think correctly) that a human could not be called Mother of God.  I mean,
in the Athanasian Creed we talk about the Son "uncreate" -- surely even 
Arians would concede that Jesus existed long before Mary.  Anyway, Nestorius's
opponents claimed that by saying Mary was not Theotokos, that he claimed
that she only gave birth to the human nature of Jesus, which would require
two seperate and distinct natures.  The argument fails though, because
Mary simply gave birth to Jesus, who preexisted her either divinely,
if you accept "Nestorianism" as commonly defined, or both natures intertwined,
a la Chalcedon.

Second, I am not sure that "Nestorianism" is not a better alternative than
the orthodox view.  After all, I find it hard to believe that pre-Incarnation
that Jesus's human nature was in heaven; likewise post-Ascension.  I think
rather that God came to earth and took our nature upon him.  It was a seperate
nature, capable of being tempted as in Gethsemane (since I believe the divine
nature could never be tempted) but in its moments of weakness the divine nature
prevailed.

Comments on the above warmly appreciated.

Jason Albert

[There may be differences in what we mean by "subject to sin".  The
original complaint was from someone who didn't see how we could call
Jesus fully human, because he didn't sin.  I completely agree that
Jesus was subject to temptation.  I simply object to the idea that by
not succumbing, he is thereby not fully human.  I believe that you do
not have to sin in order to be human.

I again apologize for confusing Nestorianism and monophysitism.  I
agree with you, and have said elsewhere, that there's reason to think
that not everyone who is associated with heretical positions was in
fact heretical.  There are scholars who maintain that Nestorius was
not Nestorian.  I have to confess that the first time I read some of
the correspondence between Nestorius and his opponents, I thought he
got the better of them.

However, most scholars do believe that the work that eventually led to
Chalcedon was an advance, and that Nestorius was at the very least
"rash and dogmatic" (as the editor of "The Christological Controversy"
refers to him) in rejecting all approaches other than his own.  As
regular Usenet readers know, narrowness can be just as much an
impediment as being wrong.  Furthermore, he did say some things that I
think are problematical.  He responds to a rather mild letter from
Cyril with a flame worthy of Usenet.  In it he says "To attribute also
to [the Logos], in the name of [the incarnation] the characteristics
of the flesh that has been conjoined with him ... is, my brother,
either the work of a mind which truly errs in the fashion of the
Greeks or that of a mind diseased with the insane heresy of Arius and
Apollinaris and the others.  Those who are thus carried away with the
idea of this association are bound, because of it, to make the divine
Logos have a part in being fed with milk and participate to some
degree in growh and stand in need of angelic assistance because of his
fearfulness ...  These things are taken falsely when they are put off
on the deity and they become the occasion of just condemnation for us
who perpetrate the falsehood."

It's all well and good to maintain a proper distinction between
humanity and divinity.  But the whole concept of incarnation is based
on exactly the idea that the divine Logos does in fact have "to some
degree" a part in being born, growing up, and dying.  Of course it
must be understood that there's a certain indirectness in the Logos'
participation in these things.  But there must be some sort of
identification between the divine and human, or we don't have an
incarnation at all.  Nestorius seemed to think in black and white
terms, and missed the sorts of nuances one needs to deal with this
area.

You say "I find it hard to believe that pre-Incarnation that Jesus's
human nature was in heaven."  I don't think that's required by
orthodox doctrine.  It's the divine Logos that is eternal.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21377
From: ab4z@virginia.edu (Andi Beyer)
Subject: Translations

Which Version of the Bible do you consider to be the most
accurate translation?

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21378
From: salaris@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrabbits)
Subject: Satan and MTV

Somewhere, someone told me that Satan was the angel in charge of
music in heaven, and on top of that, he was the most beautiful
of the angels.  Isn't it funny that these days how MTV has become
the "bible" of music and beauty these days.  MTV controls what bands
are popular, no matter how bad they are.  In fact, it is better to
be politically correct - like U2, Madonna - than to have any
musical talent.  Then of course, you have this television station
that tells us all how to dress.  Think about it, who started the
retro-fashion craze??  MTV and Madonna.  Gag.

Anyway, just food for thought.  It is really my own wierd theory.

If Revelation was to come true today, I think MTV would the "ever
changing waters" (music and fashion world) that the beast would
arise from, and Madonna will be the whore of Babylon, riding the
beast and drinking the blood of the martyrs.

Hmmmm....great idea for a book/movie.....


--
Steven C. Salaris                We're...a lot more dangerous than 2 Live Crew
salaris@carcs1.wustl.edu         and their stupid use of foul language because
				 we have ideas.  We have a philosophy.
					      Geoff Tate -- Queensryche

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21379
From: kbanner@philae.sas.upenn.edu (Ken Banner)
Subject: Re: SATANIC TOUNGES

In article <May.5.02.53.10.1993.28880@athos.rutgers.edu> koberg@spot.Colorado.EDU (Allen Koberg) writes:

>.....................................................There is dis-
>crepancy even among charismatic organizations as to the proper use
>of tongues.  Be it revelatory with interpretation, for prayer use,
>or for signifying believers (which I doubt since any one can do it).
>Pentecostals (Assembly of God, Church of Christ), seem to espouse all
>three.  Neo-pentecostals tend to view prayer use and as a sign as the
>uses.  Speaking in tongues during a service is not usually done by
>neo-pentecostals because for the most part, they still attend Protestant
>churches.  Non-denominational churches seem to view the use as a sign
>as merely optional, but recommended.

Koberg,

	Just a couple of minor corrections here...

	1)  The Churches of Christ do not usually believe in speaking in
tongues, in fact many of them are known for being strongly opposed to
Pentecostal teaching.  You are probably thinking of Church of God in
Christ, the largest African-American Pentecostal denomination.

	2)  I'm not sure what you mean by "signifying believers"  but it
should be pointed out that the Assemblies of God does not now, nor has it
ever, held that speaking in tongues is the sign that one is a Christian. 
The doctrine that traditional Pentecostals (including the A/G) maintain is
that speaking in tongues is the sign of a second experience after becoming
a Christian in which one is "Baptized in the Holy Spirit"  That may be
what you were referring to, but I point this out because Pentecostals are
frequently labeled as believing that you have to speak in tongues in order
to be a Christian.  Such a position is only held by some groups and not the
majority of Pentecostals.   Many Pentecostals will quote the passage in
Mark 16 about "these signs following them that believe" but they generally
do not interpret this as meaning if you don't pactice the signs you aren't
"saved".

	3)  I know it's hard to summarize the beliefs of a movement that
has such diversity, but I think you've made some pretty big
generalizations here.  Do "Neo-Pentecostals" only believe in tongues as a
sign and tongues as prayer but NOT tongues as revelatory with a message? 
I've never heard of that before.  In fact I would have characterized them
as believing the same as Pentecostals except less likely to see tongues as
a sign of Spirit Baptism.  Also, while neo-Pentecostals may not be
inclined to speak in tongues in the non-Pentecostal churches they attend,
they do have their own meetings and, in many cases, a whole church will be
charismatic.

Ken Banner
Dept. of Religious Studies
University of Pennsylvania
kbanner@philae.sas.upenn.edu 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21380
From: BOCHERC@hartwick.edu (Carol A. Bocher)
Subject: Re:Major Views of the Trinity

Ann Jackson (ajackson@cs.ubc.ca) wrote on 5 May:

>In article <May 2.09.50.06.1993.11776@geneva.rutgers.edu>
>Jim Green writes:

>>Can't someone describe someone's Trinity in simple declarative
>>sentences with words that have common meaning?

>The answer to this question appears to be "no".

I would like to submit the following which helped me enormously.
If it has already been posted, I apologize.

It seems that during the Middle Ages, it was customary for pastors to 
explain the Trinity to their parishoners by analogy to water.
Water is water, but can exist in three forms--liquid, ice and vapor.
Thus it is possible for one essence to exist in three forms.

And recently, the pastor of my church drew an analogy, which I
also found useful--A woman is often percieved by others in three
ways, depending on their relationship to her--a mother, a wife and
an employee in a business.

Thus, it seems clear to me that the essence of God can subsist in
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit or, depending on one's particular
need for Him.

Carol Bocher

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21381
From: todd@nickel.laurentian.ca
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christiani

> Any one who thinks that Homosexuality and Christianity are compatible should 
> 
> ck       
> out:  
>         Romans 1:27
>         I Corinthians 6:9           
>         I Timothy 1:10
>         Jude 1:7        
>         II Peter 2:6-9
>         Gen. 19
>         Lev  18:22
> (to name a few of the verses that pertain to homosexuality)
> In Christ's Love,
> Bryan Whitsell

I was waiting for this. I think your question should be rephrased. The many
verses of the Bible which condem homosexuality (by our beliefs) have been
shoved down the throats of homosexuals for a long time by (well-meaning?)
Christians. The question is how do they interpret these verses. Any discussion
of any issue (this or any other issue) requires a proof of your case as well
as a disproof of the opposing view. We are already familiar with those verses
and many have proven to themselves that these condem homosexual behaviour. We
must now establish reasons for not believing this to be true based on the
interpretation of these scriptures given by someone who has come to grips with
them.

Todd...

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21382
From: moy@acf2.nyu.edu (moy)
Subject: Apology

I responded to a post last week and it carried somewhat of a hostile
tone for which I am apologizing for. It is not my intent to  create
contriversy or to piss people  off. To those who I offend, I'm sorry

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21383
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: "National repentance"

Concerning Christians praying for coporate forgiveness of national sins, 
Michael Covington claims the following of C.S. Lewis:

> C. S. Lewis made the same point in an essay after World War II,
> when some Christian leaders in Britain were urging "national repentance"
> for the horrors (sins???) of World War II.
> --
> :-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    *****
> :-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  *********
> :-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  *
> :-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **
<><

I was surprised when I heard this same kind of remark from a fellow grad. 
student I know, especially since he had seminary training.  I have read the 
same essay and do not find Lewis making any such claim.  Rather, Lewis is 
condemning the use of such coporate prayer efforts as platforms to make 
political jabs at opponents, feigned as confessions of guilt (ie., Lord please 
forgive us for allowing "insert political issue/idea/platform" to exist in our
country, it is wrong and we ask your forgiveness.).  I would be interested in
knowing what part of the essay you feel condemns national repentance (please
quote).

Jonathan Waugh
Graduate Research Associate, Pulmonary Medicine Div.
The Ohio State University
SAMP, Rm 431, 1583 Perry St.
Columbus, OH 43210
jwaugh@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21384
From: bfinnert@chaph.usc.edu (Brian Finnerty)
Subject: Mary's assumption

A few points about Mary's being taken into heaven at the end of her life on
earth:

One piece of evidence for Mary's assumption into heaven is the fact
that no Christian church ever claimed to be the sight where she was
buried. Some Christian churches claimed to be located at the final
resting places of Peter, Mark, and other saints, but no one ever
claimed to possess the body of Mary, the greatest of the saints. Why?
Because everyone knew that she had been taken up into heaven.

Although there is no definitive scriptural proof for the assumption of
Mary, some passages seem suggestive, like the passage in Revelation
that describes a woman giving birth to a Son and later being crowned
in the heavens. Of course, the woman in this passage has other
interpretations; she can also be taken a symbol for the Church.

The assumption of Mary makes sense because of her relationship to
Christ.  Jesus, perfect God and perfect man, fulfilled the
requirements of the law perfectly.  Under the law God gave to us, we
are to honor our mother and father, and Christ's act of taking his
mother into heaven is part of his fulfillment of that law. Also, he
took his flesh from her, so it seems appropriate that he decide not to
allow her flesh to rot in the grave.

One last point: an ex-Catholic attempted to explain Catholic doctrine
on the assumption by asserting it is connected to a belief that Mary
did not die. This is not a correct summary of what Catholics believe.
The dogma of the assumption was carefully phrased to avoid saying
whether Mary did or did not die. In fact, the consensus among Catholic
theologians seems to be that Mary in fact did die. This would make
sense: Christ died, and his Mother, who waited at the foot of the
cross, would want to share in his death.

Brian Finnerty

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21385
From: gideon@otago.ac.nz (Gideon King)
Subject: Should Christians fight? / Justifiable war

I posted this a couple of weeks ago, and it doesn't seem to have appeared  
on the newsgroup, and I haven't had a reply from the moderator. We were  
having intermittent problems with our mail at the time. Please excuse me  
if you have seen this before...

Should Christians fight?

Last week Alastair posted some questions about fighting, and whether there  
are such things as "justifiable wars". I have started looking into these  
things and have jotted down my findings as I go. I haven't answered all  
his questions yet, and I know what I have here is on a slightly different  
tack, but possibly I'll be able to get into it more deeply later, and post  
some more info soon.

Our duty to our neighbour:

Do good to all men (Gal 6:10)
Love our neighbour as ourselves (Matt 22:39)

Act the part of the good Samaritan (Luke 10) toward any who may be in  
trouble. We will therefore render every possible assistance to an injured  
man, and therefore should not be part of any organisation which causes  
people harm (even medical corps of the army etc).

Christians are by faith "citizens of the commonwealth of Israel"  
(Ephesians 2:11-12), and also recognise that "God rules in the kingdoms of  
men", and therefore we should not be taking part in any of the struggles  
of those nations which we are not part of due to our faith.

We are to be "strangers and pilgrims" amongst the nations, so we are just  
passing through, and not part of any nation or any national aspirations  
(this can also be applied to politics etc, but that's another story). We  
are not supposed to "strive" or "resist evil" (even "suffer yourselves to  
be defrauded") it is therefore incosistent for us to strive to assist in  
preserving a state which Christ will destroy when he returns to set up  
God's kingdom.

Our duty to the state.

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's and unto God  
the things which be God's" (Luke 20:25).
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power  
but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever resisteth  
the power, resisteth the ordinance of God" (Rom 13:1-2).
"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake; whether  
it be to king as supreme... for so is the will of God that with well doing  
ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men" (1 Pet 2:13-15)

These scriptures make it clear that submission to the powers that be is a  
divine command, but it is equally clear from Acts 5:19-29 that when any  
ordinance of man runs counter to God's law, we must refuse submission to  
it. The reason for this is that we are God's "bond servants" and His  
service is our life's task. An example of the type of thing is in Col  
3:22-23 where bondservants were to "work heartily as unto the Lord" - so  
also we should work as if our boss was God - i.e. "Pressed down, shaken  
together, and running over"... oops - a bit of a side track there...

In the contests between the nations, we are on God's side - a side that is  
not fighting in the battle, but is "testifying" to the truth.

When we believe in God and embrace His promises, we become "fellow  
citizens with the Saints and of the Household of God", and are no longer  
interested in associations of the world. Think of this in relation to  
unions etc as well. Paul tells us to "lay aside every weight" that we may  
run "the race that is set before us", and if we are wise, we will discard  
any association which would retard our progress - "Thou therefore endure  
hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. No man that warreth entangleth  
himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who hath  
chosen him to be a soldier" (2 Tim 2:3-4).

One of these entanglements he warns about is "be ye not unequally yoked  
together with unbelievers". One of the obvious applications of this is  
marriage with unbelievers, but it also covers things like business  
partnerships and any other position where we may form a close association  
with any person or persons not believing the truth about God (in this case  
the army). The principle comes from Deut 22:10 - remember that as well as  
them being different animals of different strengths, one was clean and one  
unclean under the law. These ideas are strongly stressed in 2 Cor 6:13-18  
- I suggest you read this. The yoking also has another aspect - that of  
servitude, and Jesus says "take my yoke upon you", so we are then yoked  
with Christ and cannot be yoked with unbelievers. We have already seen  
that we are bondservants of Christ, and Paul says "become not ye the  
bondservants of men (1 Cor 7:23 RV).

An example from the Old Testament: the question is asked in 2 Chr 19:2  
"Shouldest thou help the ungodly...?". The situation here is a good  
example of what happens when you are yoked together with unbelievers.  
Jehoshaphat was lucky to escape with his life. Here are the facts:
1. He had made an affinity with Ahab, who had "sold himself to work  
wickedness before the Lord" (1 Kings 21:25).
2. When asked by Ahab to form a military alliance, he had agreed and said  
"I am as thou art, my people as thy people" (1 Kings 22:4) - an unequal  
yoking.
3. He sttod firm in refusing the advice of the false prophets and insisted  
on hearing the prophet of the Lord (trying to do the right thing), he  
found that he was yoked and therefore couldn't break away from the evil  
association he had made.

God says to us "Come out from among them and be ye separate, and touch not  
the unclean thing, and I will receive you and ye shall be my sons and  
daughters" (2 Cor 6:17).

This is more or less what I have found out so far - I'm still looking into  
it, as I don't think I've answered all the questions raised by Alastair  
yet. Heres a summary and a few things to think about:

The Christian in under command. Obedience to this command is an essential  
factor in his relationship with Christ (John 15:10,14).

Total dedication to this course of action is required (Romans 12:1-2).

Disobedience compromises the close relationship between Christ and his  
followers (1 Pet 2:7-8).

We are to be separated to God (Rom 6:4). This involves a master-servant  
relationship (Rom 6:12,16).

No man can serve two masters (Matt 6:24,13,14).

All that is in the 'Kosmos' is lust and pride - quite opposed to Gos (1  
John 2:16). Christs kingdom is not of this world (i.e. not worldly in  
nature) - if it was, his servants would fight to deliver him. If Christ is  
our master and he was not delivered by his servants because his kingdom  
was not of this world, then his servants cannot possibly fight for another  
master.

Strangers and pilgrims have no rights, and we cannot swear allegiance to  
anyone but God.

The servant of the Lord must not war but be gentle to all (2 Tim 2:24) -  
this does not just apply to war, but also to avoiding strife throughout  
our lives. There is a war to be waged, not with man's weapons (2 Cor  
10:3-4), but with God's armour (Eph6:13-20).

I'll probably post some more when I've had time to look into things a bit  
further.

--
Gideon King                         | Phone +64-3-479 8347
University of Otago                 | Fax   +64-3-479 8529
Department of Computer Science      | e-mail gideon@farli.otago.ac.nz
P.O. Box 56                         |
Dunedin                             | NeXT mail preferred!
New Zealand                         |                         

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21386
From: simon@giaeb.cc.monash.edu.au
Subject: St. Maria Goretti

Heres the life of St. MAria Goretti, posted with kind permission of
the editor of the Australian Catholic Magazine "Morning Star".

Hope you like it.

    Put up with anything to prevent sin St. Maria Goretti



    Maria was born on October 16th 1890 to Luigi and Assunta Goretti,
    the  eldest  daughter  in the family of seven. She was a cheerful
    girl, always imitating her parents.  She had but one disire,  but
    one wish: to receive our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

    The date was finally set for little Maria to receive our Lord  on
    the feast of Corpus Christi. For Maria, time seemed like an eter-
    nity as she  slowly  neared  the  great  day.   When  it  finally
    arrived, Fr. Jerome( the priest who was to celebrate the Mass and
    give the children their First Holy Communion) delivered a  sermon
    on	the  immense love of Jesus Christ for them and the great love
    we should have in return for Him. He then warmly  urged  them  to
    die rather than commit a mortal sin.

    Maria humbly approached the Altar of God and  received  the  Holy
    Eucharist.	Her  only  sadness  was  the  thought of her father's
    absence, who died some time beforehand. As for the	rest  of  the
    day,  Maria remained under the spell of the divine visit; that is
    until

				   -4-







    her thoughts changed to when she could go next to Holy Communion.
    Thus ended the happiest day of Maria's life.

    Over the next twelve months, Maria had changed  from  a  giggling
    little girl into a quiet young lady with responsibilities. As her
    mother went out into the fields in place of  her  husband,	Maria
    took  on the ironing, cooking, washing and other motherly duties.
    She was doing this not only for her own family, but also for  the
    Serenellis, a father and son who lived with the Goretti's, owning
    a share in the farm. Although Maria was poorer than all the other
    children, she by far surpassed them in virtue. In all thi ngs she
    did the Holy Will of God.

    During the month of June,  Alessandro  Serenelli(the  son)	twice
    made advances upon Maria when he chanced to be alone with her. On
    both occasions Maria managed to  struggle  free  of  Alessandro's
    strong  grip, but on the second, he threatened to kill her if she
    even uttered a word to her mother. From this day on, Maria	lived
    in terror, fearing lest Alessandro attack again.


    On July 5th 1902, Alessandro left work in the fields  to  "get  a
    handkerchief,"  as	he  claimed. He went to the storeroom beneath
    the house where Maria, who was outside on the  landing  with  the
    baby,  could  hear him fumbling about in with tools. She wondered
    what he was doing. It was later learned that he was sharpening  a
    91/2"  blade. He went to the house and called for Maria. She told
    him she wouldn't go to him unless she knew why she was needed. He
    stormed out to the landing and dragged her up to her room. Mar ia
    instantly realized what he was up to. "No, No, No! Do  not	touch
    me!  It  is a sin, you will go to Hell!" At this point Alessandro
    held the knife over Maria's chest, who was now on the floor.

    "Will you or will you not?" Maria gathered all her energy.	"No I
    will  not,	Alessandro,  no!"   She had chosen her martyrdom over
    sin, God over Satan.  Overcome with rage, Alessandro plunged  the
    knife  into   Maria's  breast fourteen times.  Finally he came to
    his senses and thought Maria was dead.  Frantically he threw  the
    knife behind a closet and locked himself in his room.  The crying
    of the baby Teresa	on  the  landing  brought  the	attention  to
    Assunta  and the father of Alessandro. As the baby was unattended
    and was in danger of falling off, they ran to the house  to  find
    Maria,  who,  covered in blood, was dragging herself to the door.
    When asked what happened she said Alessandro  stabbed  her.   "He
    wanted to make me do wrong and I would not."

    The ambulance arrived, then the police who took Alessandro	away.
    As	the  ambulance	carried  Maria to the hospital, a large crowd
    followed on foot.  The doctors at the  hospital held no hope  for
    poor  little Maria.  The same Fr. Jerome who gave Maria her First
    Communion

				   -5-







    came to administer the last rites and to give her Holy  Viaticum.
    He asked Maria if she would forgive her murderer.  "Yes.  For the
    love of Jesus I forgive him.  I wish for him to one day  join  me
    in	Paradise.   May  God forgive him, for I alread y have." Maria
    died at about three o'clock.

    Alessandro was tried  and  found  guilty  of  Maria's  death  but
    because  of  his  age  he  was  sentenced to only thirty years in
    prison.  After eight  years of being a violent prisoner and show-
    ing  no regret for his crime, he saw in a dream, in the  midst of
    a field of flowers, Maria holding out a bunch of white lilies  to
    him.  Soon later he wrote to the local bishop, begging God's par-
    don for the grave sin he had committed.  He later gave  testimony
    in	Maria's  beatification in 1947.  Less than three years later,
    on Ju ne 24th 1950, Maria was canonised.  Assunta Goretti was the
    first mother ever to be present at her daughter's canonisation.

    May St. Maria Goretti help	us  to	be  pure  and  grant  us  the
    strength to die rather than commit a mortal sin.

    Saint Maria Goretti, pray for us.


    by Brendan Arthur

-- 
Internet: simon@giaeb.cc.monash.edu.au  
Viva Cristo Rey !! Long Live Christ the King.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21387
From: erh0362@tesla.njit.edu
Subject: Mormon beliefs about bastards


    Could anyone enlighten me on how the Mormon church views 
children born out of wedlock?  In particular I'm interested to know if any 
stigma is attached to the children as opposed to the parents.  I'm especially 
keen to learn if there is or is not any prohibition in the Mormon faith on 
bastards entering heaven or having their names entered in the big genealogical 
book the Mormons keep in Salt Lake City.  If this is an issue on which the 
"official" position has changed over time, I'm interested in learning both old 
and new beliefs.  E-mail or posting is fine.  All information or pointers are 
appreciated.

Elliotte Rusty Harold		Department of Mathematics
elharo@shiva.njit.edu		New Jersey Institute of Technology
erh0362@tesla.njit.edu		Newark, NJ 07102

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21388
From: mpaul@unl.edu (marxhausen paul)
Subject: Re: "National repentance"

mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:

>I heard on the radio today about a Christian student conference where
>Christians were called to "repent" of America's "national" sins, such
>as sexual promiscuity.

>How can I repent of _someone else's_ sin?   I can't.

>And when I claim to "repent" of someone else's sin, am I not in fact
>_judging_ him?  Jesus equipped us to judge activities but warned us
>not to judge people. "Judge not that ye be not judged."

Strictly speaking, you're right - we can't repent _for_ somebody else,
for what they've done.  I guess I don't think it's out of line to talk
about a generalized repentence for our contribution to or participation
in "The sins of society" , or for our tacit approval (by our silence) of
sinful attitudes or practices....it may be that we're also just plain
begging for mercy, hoping God will withhold his hand of judgement on
our whole country for the sake of a few, much as Abraham sought to do
for the sake of Lot.  (Hmmm, the results there were pretty cautionary...)

A few times lately when I've observed some either out-and-out sinful 
activity, or just some self-destructive activity, I've gotten a strong
impression that many folks really don't know any better.  Christ's pity
on the crowds as being "like sheep without a shepherd" rings true to me.
If these folks don't have a clue, do I bear _any_ responsibility for my
not having communicated a better way?  Worse still; have I expressed 
judgement and disgust at their doings, and thus alienated them from any 
positive relationship whereby I might pass along anything positive?  
I _know_ I've got something to repent about on that score.

Anyway, it's a real interesting question.  
--
paul marxhausen .... ....... ............. ............ ............ .......... 
 .. . .  . . . university of nebraska - lincoln .  . . .. . .  .. . . . . . . .
 .     .    .  .   .     .   .  .    .   .  .   .    .   .  grace .   .    .  . 
   .         .       .      .        .        .      .        .   happens .     

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21389
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

In article <May.7.01.09.44.1993.14556@athos.rutgers.edu> muirm@argon.gas.organpipe.uug.arizona.edu (maxwell c muir) writes:

>In all candor, I would be happy to be proven wrong [about believing  
>in atheism].  Problem is, I will have to be _proven_ wrong.

In mentioning some nonsense about psychology :) and atheism, Bob Muir asks
the following question.   

>	Do I sound "broken" to you?

I answer in the affirmative.  Now this answer might sound a little
intellectually dishonest to Bob, but I think I have been accused before
of that heinous crime and am man enough to take it.  !-)  What thinking
person has not at one time or other been accused of it?   Is it
politically correct for Christians to be the only besieged group
permitted the luxury of arrogance?   

Now I have a question for Bob.  Why in the world would any self-respecting
atheist want to subscribe to a Christian news group?  I have a 
difficult enough time keeping up with it, and I think I know something
about the subject.     

Bob reminds me of my roommate.  In order to disbelieve atheism, he says 
he will need to be proven wrong about it.  Well, I don't even waste 
my time trying.  I tell him that he'll just have to take my word for it. 
In response, he tells me he will say an "atheist's prayer" for me. 

Good luck, Bob.  And, best regards.
  
-- 
Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock 
Catechist
gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21390
From: mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker)
Subject: Re: Satan kicked out of heaven: Biblical?

easteee@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:

>Hello all,
>     I have a question about Satan.  I was taught a long time ago
>that Satan was really an angel of God and was kicked out of heaven
>because he challenged God's authority.  The problem is, I cannot
>find this in the Bible.  Is it in the Bible?  If not, where did it
>originate?

>Wondering,
>Eddie

	The quick answer:  Revelation 12:7-9

	"And there was war in heaven.  Michael and his angels fought against
	the dragon and his angels who fought back.  But he [the dragon] was
	not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven.  The great
	dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent, called the devil and
	Satan, who leads the whole world astray.  He was hurled down to the
	earth, and his angels with him."

	The earlier part of chapter 12 deals (very symbolically) with why
	Satan rose up in battle against Michael and the good angels in the
	first place.

	Hope this clears it up.  
						- Mike Walker

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21391
From: mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker)
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin


	

	Just a quick reminder:  

	The way you are interpreting those passages is your opinion.  You make
	it sound as if your opinion is somehow an undisputable fact.

	Many would interpret the passages you cite very differently.

	(Many have--several of the great theologians you mentioned do that 
	very thing.  These were people who had much more expertise in the
	interpretation of scripture than you or me or probably anyone reading
	this newsgroup.  To say that all of them are wrong and you are right
	is, in my opinion, (notice those last three words) coming pretty darn
	close to the sin of pride.  

	In the future I would suggest you not be so absolutist in your 
	interpretations, especially when contradicting highly respected
	doctors of Christianity.

					- Mike Walker
					  mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
					  (Univ. of Illinois)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21392
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In <May.7.01.08.16.1993.14381@athos.rutgers.edu> whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell) writes:

>Any one who thinks that Homosexuality and Christianity are compatible should check  
>out:
>	Romans 1:27
>	I Corinthians 6:9
>	I Timothy 1:10
>	Jude 1:7
>	II Peter 2:6-9
>	Gen. 19
>	Lev  18:22
>(to name a few of the verses that pertain to homosexuality)

Homosexual Christians have indeed "checked out" these verses.  Some of
them are used against us only through incredibly perverse interpretations.
Others simply do not address the issues.

You would seem to be more in need of a careful and Spirit-led course
in exegesis than most of the gay Christians I know.  I suggest that
you stop "proof-texting" about things you know nothing about.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		I say "You are gods, sons of the
mls@panix.com			Most High, all of you; nevertheless
    - or -			you shall die like men, and fall
mls@ulysses.att..com		like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21393
From: daveshao@leland.stanford.edu (David Shao)
Subject: Divorce

I deleted much of the following article in order to discuss the 
specific issue of whether it is acceptable to divorce.  

In article <May.7.01.10.03.1993.14583@athos.rutgers.edu> crs@carson.u.washington.edu (Cliff Slaughterbeck) writes:
>
>Along the way, she was married, happily, to a wonderful and
>supportive husband and gave birth to two sons.  Still, everything was not
>perfect for Jane, since she could never open up the deepest part of her
>soul to her husband.  She always found that she could be much closer to
>her women friends than to her husband, as good and loing as a husband as
>he might be.  She struggled very much with this until at the age of 38, she
>decided that she was a lesbian.  When she came home to announce this 
>understanding of herself, her husband told her that he had come to the same
>understanding several years before and was waiting for her to come to that
>realization in her own time.  Her children ages 9 and 11 at the time were
>also extremely supportive of her.  As the youngest put it, "that just 
>means that you love people very much."  Jane and her husband agreed to
>divorce but remain friends and still consider each other as part of the
>extended family to this day.

>One of the interesting things that Jane said in this whole discussion was
>"Homosexuality is not about what goes on in the bedroom."  She found that
>she was much more able to have a deep, committed relationship with a woman
>than a man.  Sex, in her mind, is only a part of the whole relationship.
>The key thing is how one interconnects with other people.  She made a
>specific point to say that it was not that she had never met a good man,
>since she was married to a wonderful man for a dozen years.  (Take a few
>seconds and honestly ponder that thought and it's implications!!!)

I have thought about the implications, and it is scary.  

We have a whole generation of families broken up because some men have 
decided that is is okay to leave their wives and children for the
thrill of a younger, more attractive woman.  If we accept that it is
legitimate for Jane to have divorced, how can we not accept anyone's
decision to divorce because he has found someone with whom he can
have a more "deep, committed relationship."

Marriage is not a state of being, it is a mutual journey in life.
Love is not a passive feeling, it must be actively willed.

Is it acceptable for an older executive to dump his wife of many 
years who stayed home to care for the children because he
can't be happy sexually unless he is with a beautiful
young blonde?  The real solution for both in the couple to
make a renewed effort.  

Hold fast to the faith.  Has not the Lord repeatedly compared His
relation to His people as a faithful and enduring husband?  We
learn something very deep and very mystical when we marry and
remain faithful through times of trial.

My spouse has a brain tumor that has left her partially paralyzed.
If it were to resume growing (it is in remission, thanks be to God!)
then perhaps the time would come when we could not have sexual
relations.  That's life...the Lord would certainly not give me
permission to seek someone else to satisfy my "needs."  

The idea that it is alright to divorce if a couple "grows apart"
seems to me to lead to such a monstrous destruction of the meaning
of marriage that I feel we must make every effort to avoid any hint
of compromise.  We have become so petty and small-minded that
some husbands are threatening to divorce their wives unless the
wives lose weight!

I praise the Lord for guiding me to marry my wife.  She married me
anyway despite the possibility that I could have a terrible illness.
And it turned out that she was the one with the brain tumor, but
had I known I wouldn't have cared either.  And maybe I'll be in
a car accident tomorrow and become paralyzed from the neck down.
A married couple should deal with these situations with the help
of the Lord, not divorce and run away from them.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21394
From: llcoolj@athena.mit.edu (Alfred Eaton)
Subject: Re: Mormon temples

I was wondering if anyone knew any changes to the temple
ceremony within the last fifty years....
Also, why do you think they were made (revelation, 
assimilation to mainstream Christianity, etc.)?
I know that the God Makers was published quite a while
ago.  Could rituals have been changed since then?

I am also very interested in the influence of Freemasonry
on early Mormonism, especially in the Smith family and 
in the Nauvoo settlement.  Info on any new studies would 
be appreciated.

Thanks, 

Freddie Eaton
llcoolj@athena.mit.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21395
From: muirm@argon.gas.organpipe.uug.arizona.edu (maxwell c muir)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

Can someone cite Biblical references to homosexuality being immoral, other
than Leviticus? So far, when I ask, around here, I get the verses from
Leviticus spouted at me, but the whole rest of that book tends to be
ignored by Christians (haven't seen any stonings in a _long_ time :-).

Later,
Max (Bob) Muir

[The list was posted not long ago, as I recall, aside from Lev, commonly
cited passages are:

the story of Sodom.  Note however that this was a homosexual rape, and
there's no disagreement that that is wrong.  I take an intermediate
position on this: note that Sodom is referred to elsewhere in the
Bible for its sinfulness.  It doesn't seem to have been known
specifically for homosexuality.  Rather, I think it was considered a
cesspool of all sins. However from what we know of Jewish attitudes,
homosexuality would have contributed to the horror of the action
described.  (It almost seems to have been contrived to combine about
as many forms of evil in one act as possible: homosexual rape of
guests, who were actually angels.)  But this story is not specifically
about homosexuality.

In the NT, the clear references are all from Paul's letters.  In Rom
1, there is a passage that presupposes that homosexuality is an evil.
Note that the passage isn't about homosexuality -- it's about
idolatry.  Homosexuality is visited on people as a punishment, or at
least result, of idolatry.  There are a number of arguments over this
passage.  It does not use the word "homosexuality", and it is referring
to people who are by nature heterosexual practicing homosexuality.
So it's not what I'd call an explicit teaching against all homosexuality.
But it does seem to support what would be a natural assumption anyway,
that Paul shares the general negative Jewish attitude towards 
homosexuality.

The other passages occur in lists of sins, in I Cor 6:9, and I Tim
1:10.  Unfortunately it's not entirely clear what the words used here
mean.  There have been suggestions that one has a broader meaning,
such as "wanton", and that another may be specifically "male
prostitute".  Again, we don't have here a precise teaching about
homosexuality, but it is at least weak supportive evidence that Paul
shared the OT's negative judgement on homosexuality.

Jude 1:7 is sometimes cited, however it's probably not relevant.  The
context in Jude involves angels.  Since those who were almost raped in
Sodom were angels, it seems likely that "strange flesh" refers to
intercourse with angels.

As you can see, the NT evidence is such that people's conclusion is
determined by their approach to the Bible.  Conservatives note that
the passages from Paul's letters imply that he accepted the OT
prohibition.  This is enough for them to regard it as having NT
endorsement.  Liberals note that there's no specific teaching, and no
clear definition of what is being prohibited or why (is the concern in
Rom 1 the connection of homosexuality to pagan worship?  what exactly
do the words in the lists of sins mean?).  Thus some believe it is
legitimate to regard this as a attitude Paul took with him from his
background and not a specific teaching of the Gospel.

This is an explosive topic, which tends to result in long
dissertations on the exact meaning of various Greek words.  But it's
clear to me that that's mostly irrelevant.  What it really comes down
to is whether people are looking to the Bible for law or whether they
believe that such as approach is inconsistent with the Gospel.  This
appears to depend upon one's reaction to the message of the Bible as a
whole, as well as one's perception of the needs of the church today.
This is a difference of approach at least as serious as the difference
between Protestant and Catholic in the 16th Cent, and one where both
sides believe that the Bible is so obviously on their side that they
keep thinking all they have to do is quote a few more passages and the
other side will finally come to their senses.  That makes things
very frustrating for a moderator, who realizes that such an optimistic
outcome is not very likely...

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21396
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: God, morality, and massacres

A listmember (D Andrew Killie, I think) wrote, in response to the
suggestion that genocide may sometimes be the will of God:

 > Any God who works that way is indescribably evil,
 > and unworthy of my worship or faith.

Nobuya "Higgy" Higashiyama replied (as, in substance, did others):

 > Where is your source of moral standards by which you judge God's
 > behavior?

It is often argued that we have no standing by which to judge God's
actions.  Who is the clay to talk back to the potter? But we find a
contrary view in Scripture. When God proposes to destroy the city of
Sodom (Genesis 18), Abraham says:

 + Suppose that there are some good men in the city.
 + Will you destroy the righteous along with the wicked?
 + Far be it from you, Lord, to do such a thing!
 + Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

I am told that the Hebrew is actually a bit stronger than this, and
can perhaps be better rendered (dynamic equivalence) as

 + Shame on you, Lord, if you do such a thing!

There are those who say that the definition of "good" is "whatever
God happens to want." But if that is so, then the statement that God
is good has no meaning.  It simply says that God does what He wants.
That being the case, no one can either love or obey God because He
is good. The only motive left for obeying Him is that He is
powerful. Just as it makes sense to obey a dictator, even when he
tells you to round up all Jews and exterminate them, because if you
defy him you might end up in the gas chamber yourself, so it makes
sense to obey God, because He has the power to punish you if you
don't. This ethical theory I take to be in radical contradiction to
Genesis 18 and to Christianity in general.

Any theory that makes our moral judgements worthless makes any
further discussion of morality (or of the goodness of God)
meaningless. However, it does not follow that our moral judgements
are always infallible in particular cases, still less our judgements
in particular cases about the course of action most likely to
achieve a good result.

When I read the Scriptural accounts of the actions of God in
history, those actions often seem to me very different from what I
might expect of a God who loves us and desires what is best for us.
Moreover, leaving the Scriptures aside, and considering the natural
world, I find that Nature is often very different from what I might
expect if it were the work of a benevolent deity.  (Origen said:
"Those who believe that the Author of Nature is also the Author of
the Scriptures must expect to find in the Scriptures the same sort
of difficulties that they find in Nature.")

Now, that some such difficulties should exist is not in itself an
argument against the existence, power, wisdom, and goodness of God.
On the contrary, their ABSENCE would be such an argument. Suppose
that I am watching Bobby Fisher play chess, and suppose that every
time he makes a move, I find myself nodding and saying: "Good move!
Just what I was expecting him to do.  Same move I would have made if
I were playing." That would be a sign that Fisher is no better a
chess player than myself. Given that he is better, I expect that at
least some of his moves will have me thinking, "Now, what do suppose
induced him to do that?" or even, "Boy, that was a real slip -- he's
just thrown the game away!" Similarly, if God understands the
workings of the universe better than I do, it is to be expected that
sometimes it will look to me as if He has made a mistake.

One difference between Fisher at the chessboard and God at the
controls of the universe is that I can see the end of the chess
game. If Fisher wins, I revise my earlier inference that it was
carelessness that made him lose his queen 23 moves earlier.
However, if he loses, and particularly if I can see that there was a
time when he had an opportunity for a checkmate in two moves and did
not take it, then I know that he is not as good a player as I had
thought.

With God, on the other hand, I shall not in this life see the total
result of some of His actions. Therefore, my grounds for judging
that I have seen a bad move on His part must always be far shakier
than my grounds for making a similar judgement about Fisher.

     *****     *****     *****     *****     *****

In the book of Genesis, we read that Joseph's ten older brothers,
who (with good reason) found  him insufferable, conspired to sell
him into slavery in Egypt. There he eventually became Viceroy, and
when there was a famine in Canaan, he was able to provide for his
family. When his brothers nervously apologized, he told them: "Do
not worry. You meant to do me evil, but God turned it into good."

I once heard a rabbi speak on this text. He said:

        The history of the Jews is largely a history of events
   that look like catastrophes that threaten the continued
   survival of the religion, or the people, or both. But,
   amazingly, those events turn out to be the saving of the Jews
   and of Judaism.
        The sale of Joseph by his brothers looked like the breakup
   of the family.  But in fact, it ended with a reconciliation of
   the quarrel between them. The famine that drove the family out
   of Canaan looked like a misfortune for them.  But in fact, if
   they had stayed in Canaan, they would almost certainly have
   intermarried with the Canaanites and been assimilated into
   their culture.  Their oppression by the Egyptians a few
   generations after their arrival in Egypt again looked like a
   disaster. But God used it to bring them out of Egypt, and into
   the Promised Land.
        Here the people built a Temple, and regularly offered
   sacrifices. But the Babylonians captured Jerusalem and Judea,
   destroyed Temple and city and countryside, and deported most of
   the people to Babylon. You might have thought that that would
   be the end of the people and the religion. But it was not.
   Living in Canaan, the people had been under constant danger of
   assimilation.  Again and again, they had turned from the
   worship of the LORD to the worship of the Canaanite fertility
   cults, with their ritual prostitution and ritual human
   sacrifice. The Babylonian captivity put a stop to that. Never
   again did the Jews show any interest in polytheism or idolatry.
   Neither the worship of the Canaanites mor that of the
   Babylonians ever again had a foothold among them.
        Nor is that all. Judaism had been in danger of becoming
   simply a system of sacrifices and Temple observances. The only
   prescribed acts of worship consisted of coming to Jerusalem
   every so often and offering a sacrifice. During the Captivity,
   with the Temple gone, the Jews invented the synagogue, a place
   of meeting for reading and study and discussion of the
   Scriptures. They came to realize clearly, what they were in
   danger of forgetting while they continued to live in Judea,
   that God is not simply a local or tribal deity, not just the
   controller of the land of Canaan, or the patron of the Jewish
   people, but the Creator of the world, and the Ruler and Judge
   of all humans everywhere.
        Time passed, and the Babylonian Empire was replaced by
   that of the Persians, and then that of the Greeks, or rather
   the Macedonians. The ruler, Antiochus Epiphanes, was determined
   to stamp out Judaism, and to this end he made the reading and
   the study of the Torah punishable by death. Again, one might
   think that this would be the end of Judaism. But it was not.
   The people met for worship, and instead of reading the Torah
   portion appointed for the day, they would read some passage
   from the prophets that had a similar theme, and then discuss
   that.  Before this time, the Torah, the so-called Five Books of
   Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy)
   were the only books read and studied in the synagogue.  If it
   had not been for Antiochus, the books of the prophets would
   probably have been forgotten altogether. His hatred for Judaism
   saved them.

        [Other examples here omitted for brevity's sake.]

        Some of you may remember that Julie Andrews first became
   famous as Eliza Doolittle in the stage production of MY FAIR
   LADY. When Warner Brothers undertook to make a movie of it,
   everyone expected that Julie, who had been so magnificent on
   stage, would play the same role in the movie. Instead, the
   studio decided to go with an established screen star, and cast
   Audrey Hepburn.  Julie Andrews was naturally crushed. But she
   later realized that if she had played the screen role, she
   would have been type-cast for life as an Elize Doolittle type.
   It would have been a disaster for her. As it was, Walt Disney
   offered her the role of Mary Poppins, and she won an Oscar for
   it.  At the presentation, she stood there, smiling, and looking
   at Walt Disney, she said, "And now, my special thanks to the
   man who made all this possible -- JACK WARNER!" It was the most
   memorable line of the evening.
        In a similar spirit, we Jews might thank the men who in
   the providence of God have preserved Judaism, and kept it alive
   to this day, beginning with Joseph's brothers, and continuing
   with two Pharaohs, with Nebuchadnezzar, with Antiochus
   Epiphanes....

After the formal meeting had broken up, one woman came up to him
privately and said, "You were talking about the Holocaust, weren't
you?" He answered, "If that is an example that came to your mind,
then you are right, I was talking about it to you. But I would not
talk about it to everyone, for not everyone can bear it." I assume
that he meant that, without the Holocaust, there would have been no
state of Israel.

Someone hearing the rabbi's lecture might leap to the conclusion
that God is dependent on the wickedness of men to accomplish His
purposes -- or at least that the rabbi thought so. He might then  go
on to suppose that the wickedness is in fact God's doing -- that He
stirred up Joseph's brothers to a murderous hate against him, and
that when the Israelites were in Egypt, God hardened Pharaoh's
heart, so that he oppressed the people, and would not let them go.
And this raises questions about how an action can be considered
wicked and at the same time be considered something that God has
brought about.

I suggest another way of looking at it. Consider a sculptor who has
a log of wood from which he proposes to carve a statue. But the log,
instead of having a smooth even grain throughout, has a large knot
that spoils the appearance of the surface. The sculptor considers
the wood for a while, and then carves a statue that features the
knot, that makes that particular interruption in the grain and color
of the wood correspond to some feature of the statue, so that
observers will say: "How fortunate the sculptor was in finding a
piece of wood with a knot like that in just the right place. Its
presence is the crowning touch, the thing that makes the statue a
great work of art." In reality, the knot, far from being what the sculptor was
looking for, was a challenge to his skill. If the wood had not
contained that flaw, he would still have made a great work of art,
but a different one. So, if Joseph's brothers had not sold him, God
would still have brought about His purposes for the Jewish people,
but He would have done so in another manner. If Judas had not
betrayed Jesus, if Caiaphas and his fellow leaders had not rejected
Jesus, but had rather acknowledged Him as the Annointed of God, if
Pilate had followed his conscience rather than his fears and had set
Jesus free, it might appear that there would have been no
Crucifixion, and therefore no Redemption, and therefore no
Salvation. Not so. God did not need Judas' sin to redeem us. If
Judas had done right, then God in Christ would still have reconciled
the world to Himself.  We do not know how, just as we do not know
how Michelangelo would have painted the Sistine Chapel if its
interior had instead been shaped like Grand Central Station, and
just as we do not know how Bobby Fisher would have won his fourth
game agianst Spassky if Spassky had refused the exchange of bishops
and had attacked Fisher's knight instead (don't bother to look up
the game in question--I am making up this example, but the point is
none the less valid).

Thus, we may say both (1) that God used, say, the cowardice of
Pilate to accomplish His purposes, and (2) that the said cowardice
was not God's doing, and that Pilate would not have thwarted God's
plans by behaving justly and courageously.

What, then, are we to make of the place where God says to Moses, "I
will harden Pharaoh's heart, so that he will not let the people go"?
Some Christians have taken this to mean that Pharaoh was a puppet
with God pulling the strings, and that his stubbornness and cruelty
were not his own work, but the work of God in him. I suppose rather
that what God was telling Moses was something like this: "If you see
that Pharaoh is not willing to let the people go, do not be
discouraged, or suppose that the situation is out of my control. My
purposes will not be thwarted. If Pharaoh chooses to hear you and
let the people go, well and good. If he does not, I will fit his
resistance into my plans, and fit it so perfectly that future
historians and theologians will suppose that I would have been
thrown for a loss if Pharaoh had obeyed me."

To return to the question that started this all off. Is it possible
that the Serbs, in slaughtering the Moslems of Bosnia, are
instruments of God's will?
     First point. What they are doing is wrong, just as what
Joseph's brothers did was wrong, just as what Judas did was wrong.
They intend it for evil. If God somehow brings good out of it, that
does not make them any less subject to just condemnation and
punishment.
     Second point. Of course, God will bring good out of it. But not
the same good that He would have brought if the Serbians had
refrained from the sins of robbery and rape and murder. Nor does the
good He purposes excuse us from the duty of doing what is right.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21397
From: tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard)
Subject: Re: Question from an agnostic

Hi Damon,  No matter what system or explanation of creation you wish
to accept, you always have to start with one of two premises, creation
from nothing, or creation from something.  There are no other
alternatives.  And if we accept one or the other of those two
premises, then again there are two alternatives, either creation was
random, or was according to some plan.
   If it was random, I am unable to accept that the complex nature of
our world with interrelated interdependent organisms and creatures
could exist as they do.  Therefore I am left with creation under the
control of an intelligence capable of devising such a scheme.  I call
that intelligence God.
   I also prefer the "Creatio ex nihilo" rather than from chaos, as it
is cleaner.
   There is obviously no way to prove either or neither.  We are and
we must have come from somewhere.  Choose whatever explanation you
feel most comfortable with, Damon.  You are the one who has to live
with your choice.
Shalom,                                  Len Howard

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21398
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Subject: Re: Christianity and repeated lives

In article <May.7.01.09.36.1993.14545@athos.rutgers.edu> danc@procom.com (Daniel Cossack) writes:
>JEK@cu.nih.gov writes:
>>The Apostle Paul (Romans 9:11) points out that God chose Jacob
>>rather than Esau... If we admit the possibility that they had lived previous
>>lives, and that (in accordance with the Asiatic idea of "karma")
>
>And following Romans to 9:13, "As it is written, Jacob have I loved,
>but Esau have I hated."  How could God have loved and hated (in the
>past tense) those that are not yet born, neither having done good
>or evil?

Woah...The context is about God's calling out a special people (the Jews) to
carry the "promise."  To read the meaning as literal people is to miss Paul's
entire point.  I'd be glad to send anyone more detailed explanations of this
passage if interested.

====================================          
Ted Kalivoda (tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu)
University of Georgia, Athens
Institute of Higher Ed. 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21399
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Deuterocanonicals, esp. Sirach

Dave Davis writes:

> Let my state my point as provocatively as possible. :-)
 
> After going through several study Bibles, I'm leaning heavily towards >the 
> assertion that _Sirach_ ('The Wisdom of Ben Sira' or 'Ecclesiasticus')
> is directly referenced by _James_ - in fact, I think 
> Sirach is more directly referenced by James than _Job_ or _Ruth_ is 
> referenced in any NT verse I've seen.

Good point.  The New Testament does not quote Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther,
Ruth, Job, Ecclesiastes, or Song of Songs, just as it does not quote
from the Deuterocanon.  But if the non-quotation of the former does not
disqualify them, neither does the non-quotation of the later.  And the
Wisodm of Solomon was quite clearly an influence on St. Paul, especially
in the letter to the Romans (cf especially Romans 1.18-32 and Wisdom
13-14).

[stuff deleted]

>I think everyone would agree that principles that cannot be 
>consistently applied are not very useful as principles. 
>So, if we are to exclude them (not accord them the authority of
> Scripture) we would appear to require other reasons. What might these 
> reasons be? Tradition (always a fav. with Episcop.) ? Tradition is >equivocal
> on this subject. Sirach, I believe, is in Vaticanus & Sinaiticus
> I don't know if it is listed in the Muratorian canon 
> (the oldest list I know of).  Sirach (and the others) are discussed 
> by the Fathers, as Scripture, but not unanimously.
 
True.  Not all accepted them as Scripture, though niether were all the
books of the New Testament so accepted, which puts to the lie the whole
argument of the books being excluded because they were debated and not
universally accepted.  Hebrews, the Apocalypse, 2 Peter, Esther, and
others were debated at various times, but eventually retained.  As for
the Codexes you mention, both Vaticanus and Sinaitcus include the
Deuterocanon, bothe of the New and Old Testaments, and Vaticanus (I
think) inlcudes 1 Clement, the Shepard of Hermas, and the Epistle of
Baranabas.  As for the Muratorian Canon, it deals with the New Testament
only, though it is very valuable in its witness to those books.

> My interim conclusion is that Protestant exclusion of 
> (at least one of) these writings is one of those 'traditions
> of men' one hears of so often. They were excluded during the
> Reformation, and that appears to be the reason many people
> continue to exclude them.

>Any takers?  I can be reasonable. (If all else fails :-)
>Show me where I'm wrong.

	You're not wrong!  It is a `tradition of men' to exlcude them, as I
will explain below.

"That nothing be read in the Church under the nmae of Divine Scripture,
except the canonical Scriptures, and the canoncial Scriptures are -
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth,
Four books of Kingdoms [being 1&2 Samuel and 1&2 Kings], Two books of
Paralpomenon [being 1&2 Chronicles], Job, the Psalter of David, the Five
books of Solomon [being Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of
Solomon, and [misatributed to him] the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach],
The books of the Twelve (Minor) Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah [being
Jeremiah, the Lamentations, Baruch, and the Letter, all of which were
formerly counted as one], Ezekiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Two
books of Ezra [being Ezra and Nehemiah], Two books of Maccabees.  And of
the New Testament: Four books of the Gospel, One book of the Acts of the
Apostles, Thirteen letters of Paul the Apostle, One Letter of the same
to the Hebrews, two of Peter the Apostle, Three of John, One of the
Apostle Jude, One of the Apostle James, One book of the Apocalypse of
John."
	-Council of Hippo, Statute 36, (393 AD)

	This same list was promulgated again at the Third Council of Carthage
(397 AD), and at the Sixth Council of Carthage (419 AD) - at which
council the same list was enumerated with the words "Because we have
recieved from the Fathers that these are the books to be read in the
Church."  Which ought to quiet those who assert "in the name of Holy
Scripture we do understand those books of whose authority there was
never any doubt in the Church," as the Episcopal Church does in removing
the Deuterocanon from the realm of Scripture.  (Though the Episcopalians
hold them in high regard and read them in the Church, they are not
counted as Scripture by them, and may not be used to prove dogma.  The
Lutherans hold out similarly.)
	Earlier mention of the so-called Apocrypha as divine scripture can also
be found, and below I inlcude only a portion of the quotes calling it
divine scripture that could be found among the writings of the Fathers.

"And this is the reason why the Law of the old Testament is reckoned as
consisting of twenty-two books: so that they may correspond to the
number of letters [in the Hebrew alphabet].... It is to be noted also
that by adding to these Tobias and Judith, there are twenty-four books,
corresponding to the number of letters used by the Greeks."
	-St. Hillary of Poitiers, "Commentaries on the Psalms," prologue, 15 (365 AD)

"The twenty-two books according to the Hebrews are .... Jeremiah, with
Lamentations and the Letter, reckoned as one .... and [also] there is
Maccabees."
	-Origen, "Commentaries on the Psalms," Psalm 1 (245 AD)

"Divine Scripture, addressing itself to those who love themselves and to
the boastful .... says most excellently [Baruch 3.16-19 follows]."
	-St. Clement of Alexandria, "The Instuctor of Children," 2, 3, 36, 3, (203 AD)

"....I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament ... Proverbs of
Solomon, and also Wisdom ..."
	-St. Melito of Sardes, fragment found in Eusebius' "History of the
Church," and dating from crica 177 AD, Book 4, 26, 14

"It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine
Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must
shun.  The list of the Old Testament .... Wisdom, one book;
Ecclesiasticus, one book .... Tobit, one book .... Judith, one book; of
Maccabees, two books."
	-St. Damasus I, Pope, "The Decree of Damsus," section 2 (382 AD)

	I would think this enough, though more can be shown, that the Church
has always accepted the deutero-canon, though parts have been disputed
by various persons.  For if disputes involving the New Testament
deutero-canon does not disqulaify those books (i.e. Hebrews, James, 2
Peter, 2&3 John, Jude, Revelation) in Protestant eyes, than neither
should it disqulaify the Old Testament books.  And I must point out that
the Jews only drew up their canon in 90 AD, 60 years after the founding
of the Christian Religion upon the Cross.  Why should we adhere to a
canon that was drawn up by the faithless, in reaction to the Chrsitian
use of the Greek Septuagint, which includes the deutero-canon?  As early
as 150 AD, St. Justin had already accused the Jews of mutilating the
Canon of Scripture by their removal of certain books.  Protestants
apparently prefer to think that God's revelation was limited by a decree
of the Jews in the ordering of their (the Jews') faithless canon, and
that he could not use other people, like the Apostles, in drawing up the
canon.  The Apostles were most certain users of the Septuagint, as some
80% of the Old Testament quotes use the wording of the Septuagint, and
not the Hebrew.  And the Septuagint includes the Deuterocanon.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21400
From: mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker)
Subject: Re: Deuterocanonicals, esp. Sirach

wagner@grace.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) writes:

>The deutero-canonical books were added much later in the church's
>history.  They do not have the same spiritual quality as the
>rest of Scripture.  I do not believe the church that added these
>books was guided by the Spirit in so doing.  And that is where
>this sort of discussion ultimately ends.

>David H. Wagner
>a confessional Lutheran		"Now thank we all our God


	Whoah  whoah  whoah  WHOAH!!!   What?!?

	That last paragraph just about killed me.  The Deuterocanonicals have
	ALWAYS been accepted as inspired scripture by the Catholic Church,
	which has existed much longer than any Protestant Church out there.
	It was Martin Luther who began hacking up the bible and deciding to
	REMOVE certain books--not the fact that the Catholic Church decided
	to add some much later--that is the reason for the difference between
	"Catholic" and "Protestant" bibles.  

	Sorry for the tone--but that comment really irked me.
					- Mike Walker
					  mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
					  (Univ. of Illinois)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21401
From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Subject: Re: Should Christians fight? / Justifiable war

In article gideon@otago.ac.nz (Gideon King) writes:

>I posted this a couple of weeks ago, and it doesn't seem to have appeared  
>on the newsgroup, and I haven't had a reply from the moderator. We were  
>having intermittent problems with our mail at the time. Please excuse me  
>if you have seen this before...
>
>Should Christians fight?
>
>Last week Alastair posted some questions about fighting, and whether there  
>are such things as "justifiable wars". I have started looking into these  
>things and have jotted down my findings as I go. I haven't answered all  
>his questions yet, and I know what I have here is on a slightly different  
>tack, but possibly I'll be able to get into it more deeply later, and post  
>some more info soon.

May I suggest the book: "Ethics" by Dr. Norm Geisler, of Dallas Theological
Seminary.  In it, he goes over all the arguments pro and con and in-between,
and comes up with a very reasonable answer.  If I have time, and there is
enough interest, I may post his position.

Jon Noring

-- 

Charter Member --->>>  INFJ Club.

If you're dying to know what INFJ means, be brave, e-mail me, I'll send info.
=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.com        |                          |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   | FRED'S GOURMET CHOCOLATE |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | CHIPS - World's Best!    |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 417-4101   |                          |
=============================================================================
Who are you?  Read alt.psychology.personality!  That's where the action is.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21402
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Is OT Valid????

Peir-Yuan Yeh asks:

>I wonder if the OT is not exactly like Jewish history.  Are they the
same >or part of them are the same?  How about Torah? Are the first five
books >of OT as the same as Torah?????

Yes, yes, and yes.  Jewish history as recorded in the Old Testament and
as shown by archaeology are the same.  Kings, revivals, Temples, and all.

The Torah, as far as I know, is the five books of Moses.  Then come the
Prophets (all the Prophets, plus Joshua, Judges, 1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings)
and the Writings (Psalms, Proverbs, Lamentations, Ruth, Esther, Ezra,
Nehemiah, Ecclesiates, Song of Songs, 1&2 Chronicles, Job).

And the veracity of Isaiah, which you quoted to your Moslem friend is
quite well known.  A complete manuscript exists that dates back to past
200 BC, and is kept in a Museum in Israel.  It was found among the Dead
Sea Scrolls, which greatly enhanced our knowledge of the veracity of the
Old Testament, as they date back to around the time of Christ, whereas
before, the oldest complete manuscript in Hebrew was from around 900 AD.

Your Moslem friend is sorely mistaken, but understandably so.  If Jesus
was crucified, and atoned for our sins, he must have been God, for only
the death of God could atone for the sins of all humanity.  And as
Isaiah predicts, the messiah will be called "the mighty God."  And if he
was God, then he must have rose, for as St. Paul wrote, it was not
possible that death could hold him.  And if Jesus rose from the dead,
your Moslem friend would have little reason to be a Moslem.  Which is
why he denies the authenticity of the Old Testament.

Andy Byler

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21403
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Revelations - BABYLON?

Rex (REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov) writes:

>It is also of interest to note that in 1825, on the occasion of a
jubilee, Pope >Leo the 12th had a medallion cast with his own image on
one side and on >the other side, the Church of Rome symbolized as a
"Woman, holding in >her left hand a cross, and in her right a cup with
legend around her, >'Sedet super universum',  'The whole world is her
seat."

	You read more into the medal than it is worth.  The Woman is the
Church.  Catholics have always called our Church "Holy Mother Church"
and our "Mother."  An example would be from St. Cyprian of Carthage, who
wrote in 251 AD, "Can anyone have God for his Father, who does not have
the Church for his mother?"
	Hence the image of the Church as a woman, holding a Cross and a Cup,
which tell of the Crucifxition of Our Lord, and of the power of His
Blood (the grail legend, but also, more significantly, it shows that
"This is the Cup of the New Covenant in my blood, which shall be shed
for you and for many." (Luke 22.20), the Cup represents the New Covenant
and holds the blood of redemption).  The fact that the woman is holding
both and is said to have the whole world for her seat, is that the
Catholic Church is catholic, that is universal, and is found throughout
the world, and the Church shows the Crucifixtion and applies the blood
of redemption to all mankind by this spread of hers, thorugh which the
Holy Sacrafice of the Mass, can be said and celebrated in all the
nations as Malachi predicted in Malachi 1.11, "From the rising of the
sun to its setting, my name is great among the gentiles, and everywhere
there is sacrafice, and there is offered to my Name a clean oblation,
for my Name is great among the gentiles, says the Lord of hosts."  And
so we acknowledge what St. Paul wrote "For as often as you eat this
bread and drink this cup, you show the Lord's death until he comes." (1
Corinthians 11.26)

	You are quite right about the identification of "Babylon the Great,
Mother of all Harlots" with Rome.  I think we simply disagree as to what
time period of Rome the Apostle John is talking about.

Andy Byler

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21404
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Revelations - BABYLON?

Hal Heydt writes:

>That was only the fall of the *Western* Empire.  The *Eastern* Empire
>continued for another 1000 years--and a key element in it's fall was
>the *Christian* sack of Constantinople.

Note that I said the fall of Rome, not of the Empire.  The Roman Empire
lasted until 1453, with its transfered capital in Constantinople.  The
main reason for it's fall was not so much the sack of Constantinople by
the men of the 4th Crusade (who were not Christians - they had been
excommunicated down to the last man after attacking the Christian city
of Zara in Croatia), but rather the disastorous defeat in the battle of
Mazinkert.  After the Turks breached the frontier, it was only a matter
of time before the Empire fell, the inability of the Empire to hold onto
the rim of Anatolia, with the Ottomans and Rum Seljuks in the middle
should be quite obvious to any student of history.  The sack of
Constantinople only hastened the inevitable along.  For if the Greeks
had wanted to save their empire, why would they not cooperate with the
Crusaders when they came to do battle with the Saracens in the 1st-3rd
Crusades?  Because of their obstinacy over cooperating with people they
considered heretics, even though those "heretics" were fighting for the
cause of the Empire and Christendom in doing battle with the Turkish
hordes in Anatolia, Edessa, Lebanon, Palastine, and Syria, the some
hordes who were to later sack Constantinople, and overrun a third of
Europe (the Balkans, Hungary, the Ukraine, the Caucasus, etc.)

Andy Byler

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21405
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: Translations

In article <May.9.05.41.02.1993.27540@athos.rutgers.edu> ab4z@virginia.edu (Andi Beyer) writes:
>Which Version of the Bible do you consider to be the most
>accurate translation?

Well, knowing Greek and Hebrew, I'm probably not as picky about translations
as I would be if English translations were my only source of information.
BUT...

(1) Any verse that comes out substantially different in different trans-
lations is almost certainly unclear in the original. 

(2) It is very bad practice to "shop" for a translation that fits your own
doctrinal positions.

Personally, I still like the RSV.  NRSV and NASV are also very good.

I have a strong preference for editions that do _not_ indent the beginning
of each verse as if verses were paragraphs.  The verse numbering is a
relatively modern addition and should not be given undue prominence.

-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21406
From: muddmj@wkuvx1.bitnet
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

> But, haven't "all sinned, and come short of the glory
> of God" (Romans 3:23)?
> Those that cite this scripture to claim that even
> babes require baptism neglect that "sin is not imputed
> when there is no law" (Romans 5:13).
>
> Therefore, until someone is capable of comprehending
> God's laws they are not accountable for living them.
> They are in the book of life and are not removed until
> they can make a conscious decision to disobey God.
>
> A IDLER

If babies are not supposed to be baptised then why doesn't the Bible
ever say so.  It never comes right and says "Only people that know
right from wrong or who are taught can be baptised."
        What Christ did say was :

        "I solemly assure you, NO ONE can enter God's kingdom without
         being born of water and Spirit ... Do not be surprised that I
         tell you you must ALL be begotten from above."

Could this be because everyone is born with original sin?



Mike

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21407
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Monophysites and Mike Walker

Nabil Ayoub writes:

>As a final note, the Oriental Orthodox and Eastren Orthodox did sign a
>common statement of Christology, in which the heresey of >Monophysitism
was condemned. So the Coptic Orthodox Church does not >believe in
Monophysitism.

Sorry!

What does the Coptic Church believe about the will and energy of Christ?
 Were there one or were there two (i.e. Human and Divine) wills and
energies in Him.

Also, what is the objection ot the Copts with the Pope of Rome (i.e. why
is there a Coptic Catholic Church)?  Do you reject the supreme
jurisdiction of the 263rd sucessor of St. Peter (who blessed St. John
Mark, Bishop of Alexandria was translator for) and his predecessors?  Or
his infallibility?  Or what other things perhaps?

Andy Byler

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21408
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Serbian genocide Work of God?

Vera Shanti Noyes writes;

>this is what indicates to me that you may believe in predestination.
>am i correct?  i do not believe in predestination -- i believe we all
>choose whether or not we will accept God's gift of salvation to us.
>again, fundamental difference which can't really be resolved.

Of course I believe in Predestination.  It's a very biblical doctrine as
Romans 8.28-30 shows (among other passages).  Furthermore, the Church
has always taught predestination, from the very beginning.  But to say
that I believe in Predestination does not mean I do not believe in free
will.  Men freely choose the course of their life, which is also
affected by the grace of God.  However, unlike the Calvinists and
Jansenists, I hold that grace is resistable, otherwise you end up with
the idiocy of denying the universal saving will of God (1 Timothy 2.4). 
For God must give enough grace to all to be saved.  But only the elect,
who he foreknew, are predestined and receive the grace of final
perserverance, which guarantees heaven.  This does not mean that those
without that grace can't be saved, it just means that god foreknew their
obstinacy and chose not to give it to them, knowing they would not need
it, as they had freely chosen hell.
							  ^^^^^^^^^^^
People who are saved are saved by the grace of God, and not by their own
effort, for it was God who disposed them to Himself, and predestined
them to become saints.  But those who perish in everlasting fire perish
because they hardened their heart and chose to perish.  Thus, they were
deserving of God;s punishment, as they had rejected their Creator, and
sinned against the working of the Holy Spirit.

>yes, it is up to God to judge.  but he will only mete out that
>punishment at the last judgement. 

Well, I would hold that as God most certainly gives everybody some
blessing for what good they have done (even if it was only a little),
for those He can't bless in the next life, He blesses in this one.  And
those He will not punish in the next life, will be chastised in this one
or in Purgatory for their sins.  Every sin incurs some temporal
punishment, thus, God will punish it unless satisfaction is made for it
(cf. 2 Samuel 12.13-14, David's sin of Adultery and Murder were
forgiven, but he was still punished with the death of his child.)  And I
need not point out the idea of punishment because of God's judgement is
quite prevelant in the Bible.  Sodom and Gommorrah, Moses barred from
the Holy Land, the slaughter of the Cannanites, Annias and Saphira,
Jerusalem in 70 AD, etc.

> if jesus stopped the stoning of an adulterous woman (perhaps this is
not a >good parallel, but i'm going to go with it anyway), why should we
not >stop the murder and violation of people who may (or may not) be more
>innocent?

We should stop the slaughter of the innocent (cf Proverbs 24.11-12), but
does that mean that Christians should support a war in Bosnia with the
U.S. or even the U.N. involved?  I do not think so, but I am an
isolationist, and disagree with foreign adventures in general.  But in
the case of Bosnia, I frankly see no excuse for us getting militarily
involved, it would not be a "just war."  "Blessed" after all, "are the
peacemakers" was what Our Lord said, not the interventionists.  Our
actions in Bosnia must be for peace, and not for a war which is
unrelated to anything to justify it for us.

Andy Byler

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21409
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

Eugene Bigelow writes:

>Doesn't the Bible say that God is a fair god [sic]?  If this is true,
how can >this possibly be fair to the infants?

What do you mean fair?  God is just, giving to everyone what they
deserve. As all infants are in sin from the time of conception (cf
Romans 5.12, Psalm 1.7), they cannot possibly merit heaven, and as
purgatory is for the purging of temporal punishment and venial sins, it
is impossible that origianl sin can be forgiven.  Hence, the unbaptized
infants are cut off from the God against whom they, with the whole of
the human race except Mary, have sinned.  Which is why Jesus said,
"Truly, truly I say to you, no one can enter the Kingdom of God unless
he is born of water and Spirit" which is the true meaning of born again
(John 3.5).  Thus, as infants are in sin, it is very fair for them to be
cut off from God and exlcuded from heaven.

As St. Augustine said, "I did not invent original sin, which the
Catholic faith holds from ancient time; but you, who deny it, without a
doubt are a follower of a new heresy."  (De nuptiis, lib. 11.c.12)

Andy Byler

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21410
From: lieuwen@allegra.att.com (Dan Lieuwen)
Subject: Re: The obvious isn't politically correct.

The last state church was in Massachusetts.  Sam Adams, the patriot-brewmaster,
during his tenure as governor after the Revolutionary War got it passed.
I believe it was eliminated around 1820.

dan

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21411
From: wjhovi01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

bruce@liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens) suggests different levels of acceptance of
homosexuality:
> 
> 1) Regard homosexual orientation as a sin (or evil, whatever)
> 2) Regard homosexual behaviour as a sin, but accept orientation
> (though presumably orientation is unfortunate) and dislike people who
> indulge
> 3) As 2, but "love the sinner"
> 4) Accept homosexuality altogether.

I would add 4': our churches should accept homosexual orientation but hold all
people to certain standards of sexual behavior.  Promiscuity, abuse of power
relationships, harrassment, compulsivity are equally out of place in the lives
of homosexual as of heterosexual people.

Of course, this would bring up the dread shibboleth of homosexual marriage,
and we couldn't have that! :-)

billh

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21412
From: aaronc@athena.mit.edu (Aaron Bryce Cardenas)
Subject: Re: Ethnicity in Worship

Jerryl Payne writes:
>To sublimate a culture for the sake of what you perceive as unity seems
>antithetical to the very message of inclusion that you preach.

I agree, with the exception that I don't preach ignoring our cultures.

> The body as a whole must be unified. The question is, shall we be a
>melting pot, boiling ourselves down to one "legitimate" expression, or
>shall we be more like a stew, maintaining the textural integrity of the
>expressed diversity while upholding the unity of thought?   It released
>all churches from the use of the Latin Mass (unity) to allow them to
>speak to the people in the common language (diversity). 

In Revelation 2-3, we see that in the first century church, there was one
congregation in each major city.  So there was one unified church.  Now in
each city, there were people of different cultures.  Naturally, they
formed something of a stew, with different members having different
heritages.  Nevertheless, they were ONE body.  They met together,
sometimes as smaller groups in their homes and sometimes in bigger groups
in places such as the temple courts.

Now in a particular city, then and now, you will find that there is a
common language associated with that region.  For instance, in Rome, Latin
was spoken.  In the United States today, English is spoken.  So it would
make sense that congregations in different cities would speak the common
language and not necessarily Latin.

Naturally, you would expect the lead evangelist to preach in the common
language.  In the first century church, there were probably many people
in the congregation who could speak a given tongue to translate the
message for people of foreign ethnic groups.  Today, however, you don't
see people speaking in tongues to translate sermons, even in so-called
Pentacostal churches.  We do have a modern day equivalent though --
bi-lingual speakers.  Now in the unified church of which I am a member -
sometimes called the International Churches of Christ, when we all meet
together on Sundays, there are headphones on people who don't speak
English from which they hear an ongoing translation of the sermon in their
native tongue.  Neat idea, huh?

Now, we meet in different size groups in a random sort of way on Sundays,
so sometimes there will be a meeting of only Haitians or of Spanish-
speaking people, for example, who will hear an evangelist preach in their
native language.  In addition, we meet in small groups a couple of times
during the week for Bible discussion groups and Devotionals.  So someone
who speaks a different language will almost always be with people who also
speak his language (assuming the congregation is large enough) for those
meetings.

As for the people who speak the common language, they can keep in touch
with their culture, if they want, but they will also have equally deep
friendships among their church relationships with people of many various
nationalities.  

>Has the purpose of the church been thwarted by this action?

The action of letting Catholics worship in a native language instead of
Latin?  Indeed not!  See my second paragraph in response to the second
clipping of your article.

However, if you mean the action of forming denominations based on a
culture, then the purpose of the church has been indeed thwarted.

I'll assume the second possiblility when answering your next clipping.

>Rather I believe it has been enhanced, for Paul exhorts us to become as
>one of them that we might reach them. Thus, if a person or group of
>people feel more comfortable "among their own", shall we not give them a
>place where they can feel comfortable [with their heritage] and still
>l[ove God?] {[my guess - Aaron]}

You have met some needs of people, certainly, by helping them to be proud
of their cultural heritages when most denominations didn't.  Yet you have
largely isolated yourselves from having quality "Christian" friendships
outside your nationality (and your denomination).

We shall certainly give people a place to feel comfortable with their
heritage.  However, we will do this in a way that does not destroy church
unity, but rather encourages friendships among all disciples.

>This is the approach of some of the groups that you cite. 

It sounds like these groups have wonderful intentions, but they are going
about things in the wrong way.  And names like the African Methodist
Episcopal Church still make me cringe, although not as much as before.

I understand that there was more racism in the past that caused such
groups to be formed, but now we should try to unite.  I know that it's
hard for many people on this newsgroup to imagine there being only one
body of people on earth, but it is quite possible, and I am working to
make it happen.  However, what might be a smaller step towards unity,
would be taking the word "African" out of your denomination's name.  Then
perhaps someday a long time off, you can also remove the "Methodist
Episcopal" part also, and simply be part of "the Church".

>With regard to inclusivity, I note tht your .sig emits from MIT. As you
>know, the 'tute is religiously and culturally diversified, and not
>everyone who comes there is immediately comfortable with English, much
>less American culture. What shall be the conduct of the campus churches
>then:  shall there be one church, for the sake of unity? Or shall the
>organizations like KCF be useful in helping students new to America make
>the transition in culture, language, and thought?

There shall be one church, for the sake of unity, AND it shall be useful
in helping students new to America make the transition in culture,
language, and thought.  We shouldn't make a new denomination to try to
solve problems.  The whole denominational mindset only causes more
problems, sadly.  

>In the AME church, we retain African cutlure at the root of our
>expression, but we are by no means exclusive. Since you live in
>Cambridge, I invite you to visit the local assembly there:

Thank you for the invitation.  That shows me that you indeed have the
heart to spread the gospel of Jesus as well as take part in your cultural
heritage.  Thank you also for responding to my post.  I know (all too well)
how they can be very time-consuming.

The whole idea of celebrating your culture is paved with good intentions,
but I still feel that you must restore and preserve unity at the same
time.  My own church, the Boston church, has the acapella singing that you
mentioned in your post, yet doesn't limit expression of my Mexican
culture, even though I am in the MIT Campus ministry and not the Spanish
(speaking) Zone.  I have made a commitment to God that I will go to the
Sunday services of my church, because I know that my brothers and sisters
here are fully devoted in love for God as his disciples.

I don't believe in tongues, as you may have already picked up on, because
of my understanding of Biblical Christianity.  However, I am certainly
willing to visit your congregation provided that it doesn't interfere with
my normal worship.  Since you also live in Cambridge, I also extend an
invitation to you to visit our services as often as you like.  You can
meet the MIT students at the Student Center (across from 77 Mass. Ave.) at
9AM on Sundays to leave for worship or simply call me after Wednesday
night to find out where the service will be held on a particular day.
My number is 225-7598, but will be 354-1357 in a few weeks from now and
for the rest of the summer.  Our service normally last from 10AM to noon,
but occasionally are later or earlier (1-3 times per year).  

>Let us always strive to reach all with the gospel by any means necessary.
>As we move from milk to meat, the petty things of the world that
>temporally separate us will dissolve away, and we shall stand with our
>naked realizations that God has shed His grace on all of us, His
>delightful creation.

Definitely!

Let's also strive to grow in obedience to the Lord through being men and
women after God's own heart.

+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
|  Aaron Bryce Cardenas           |  ___NET-net__(617)-225-7598___  |
|  MIT Undergraduate Student      |   U.S. :   Aaron B. Cardenas    |
|  Environmental Engineering - IE |  Snail :  290 Mass. Ave. #242   |
|    -- aaronc@athena.mit.edu     |   Mail :  Cambridge, MA 02139   |
+---------------------------------+-----------(Good for two weeks)--+
|  "Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs.    |
|    Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving   |
|    thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our    |
|    Lord Jesus Christ."   -- Ephesians 5:19-20                     |
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21413
From: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christiani

In article <May.9.05.41.18.1993.27552@athos.rutgers.edu> todd@nickel.laurentian.ca  
writes:
> The question is how do they interpret these verses. We
> must now establish reasons for not believing this to be true based on the
> interpretation of these scriptures given by someone who has come to grips with
> them.

I see no other way of interpreting them other than homosexuyality
being wrong.  Please tell me how these verses can be interpreted in
any other way.  I read them and the surrounding text.

In Christ's Love,
Bryan

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21414
From: rich0043@student.tc.umn.edu (Timothy Richardson)
Subject: Re: Mary's assumption

In article <May.9.05.41.32.1993.27562@athos.rutgers.edu> Brian Finnerty,
bfinnert@chaph.usc.edu writes:
> One last point: an ex-Catholic attempted to explain Catholic doctrine
> on the assumption by asserting it is connected to a belief that Mary
> did not die. This is not a correct summary of what Catholics believe.
> The dogma of the assumption was carefully phrased to avoid saying
> whether Mary did or did not die. In fact, the consensus among Catholic
> theologians seems to be that Mary in fact did die. This would make
> sense: Christ died, and his Mother, who waited at the foot of the
> cross, would want to share in his death.

The above article is a good short summary of traditional Christian
teaching concerning the death of Mary.  
Also very good is "Re: Question about the Virgin Mary" by Micheal D.
Walker.  He tells the story very well.
I would like to add that in the Eastern Orthodox Church we celebrate "The
Dormition (or falling asleep) of the Theotokos (the mother of God)".  The
Icon for this day shows Mary lying on a bed surrounded by the Apostles
who are weeping.  Christ, in his resurrected glory, is there holding what
seems to be a small child.  This is, in fact, Mary's soul already with
Christ in Heaven.  The Assumption of Mary is one more confirmation for us
as Christians that Christ did indeed conquer death.  It forshadows the
general resurrection on the last day.  The disciples were not surprised
to find Mary's body missing from the grave.  She was the Mother of the
Savior.  She was the first of all Christians.  She gave birth to the Word
of God.  If it were not for her we would not be saved.  This is why we
pray in the Orthodox Church, "Through the prayers of the Theotokos,
Savior save us."

Timothy Richardson
rich0043@student.tc.umn.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21415
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: If There Were No Hell

In article <May.7.01.07.10.1993.13776@athos.rutgers.edu> mdw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (mark.d.wuest) writes:
>In article <May.5.02.51.25.1993.28737@athos.rutgers.edu> shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker) writes:
>>Q: If you knew beyond all doubt that hell did not exist and that
>>   unbelievers simply remained dead, would you remain a Christian?

Interesting question, esp since I remember *wishing* with all
my heart that this *were* true so that I wouldn't have to be a 
"good Christian" anymore.  "Christianity" was terribly hard, the
only reward was Heaven and (maybe, sometimes, if I was really
good) acceptance; I wanted a way out.

>If you knew this "beyond all doubt", then you would be foolish to be
>a disciple of a man who claimed it did exist. The truth is, you can
>not be Jesus' disciple and disagree with him at the same time, not
>allowing him to be your "Lord".

What Jesus has done for me since I found Him (some 6 months ago) 
I do not want to lose.  Period.  

That said, I originally interpreted the What-If as "if Christ
never mentioned Sheol and weeping and gnashing of teeth, if
Christ preached that those who did not follow him died and stayed
dead and at that point forever ceased to exist...."

>>....Fear-based religion is not a faith-relationship with the
>>One Who made us all.  I follow Christ because it's a great way
>>to LIVE life.  And I could care less what really happens after
>>I die.  .....
>
>So is being a Buddhist a great way to live life. I'm not converting,
>though.

I believe that we can only be complete through Christ. 
Do you think that Buddhists can also be complete?

-jen

-- 

#include <stdisclaimer>  //  jenk@microsoft.com  // msdos testing

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21416
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary

In article <May.6.00.34.46.1993.15415@geneva.rutgers.edu>
 news@cbnewsk.att.com writes:
>Basically the teaching on infallibility
>holds that the pope is infallible in matters of faith and doctrine, the
>college of bishops is likewise infallible, and the laity is as well.

Not exactly correct, but nice try.  The Catholic doctrine of infallibility
refers to freedom from error in teaching of the universal Church in 
matters of faith or MORALS.  It is this teaching which is taken as 
doctrine. 


-- 
Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock 
Catechist
gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21417
From: flirt@camelot.bradley.edu (Karen Lauro)
Subject: Re: How I got saved...

>Well, I was certainly turned off by that first paragraph of oft-used
>platitudes. I can't count the times I've heard those common tactics
>anymore...'you may not believe it but that doesn't change the fact
>that it's true'...the old analogy about trusting your parents...sheesh.
>Need I point out how parents can show children that they are right?
>That difference in capability alone crushes that analogy, as any 'facts'
>about Christianity I have seen turned out to be beliefs. What I seek is
>fact--knowledge--if I can get it, and evidence for a belief if I can't.
>So far from Christians I have received neither...

Before becoming a Christian I too had problems when I asked one to explain
it to me...The actual evidence is not always what you see on a person's 
outside. It should be but is not always.
	A very specific, somewhat miraculous example of the truth of God
working to help His followers is soemthing that happened to me. For nearly
4 years after an accident I had severe complications from a triple 
fracture in my left leg and surgery--pins put in, then removed. The bone 
itself was perfectly healed. No infectoin that could be detected. Yet I 
was in constant pain and it my ankle and foot were always swollen and
bluish. More complicatios developed in my other leg, none of which could
be explained by the best specialists and most sophisticated tests in te
northern Illinois region. We went everywhere--no one could explain it.
Durin gthat summer (June 19, 1991 to be exact) I gave my life and heart
to Christ and vowed to relinquish control over my life (which i never
really had anyway) because of what he did for me on the cross and the 
fact that my whole life was screwed up by me trying to fix it. I was facing
the possibility of a lifetime in a wheelchair (I was confined to one in 
order to save my legs from any further damage since the cause of my problems
were unknown, had been in it for about 2 1/2 months before that day).
	I found it ore than coincidental that less than 2 weeks after
I put my faith where my mouth was, one more in the long line of doctors
and not even an orthopeodic specialist, diagnosed my problems with no
difficulty, set me on the path to an effective cure, and I was walking
and running again without the pain that had stopped me from that for
4 years. The diagnosis was something he felt the other doctors must have
"overlooked" because it was perfectly obvious from my test results.
	Maybe this doesn't hit you as miraculous. But to me it really
is. Imagine an active 17 year old being told she may not be able to
walk mcuh longer...and is now a happy 18 year old who can dance and run
knowing that the problem was there all along and was "revealed" just
after she did what she knew was right. As the song says...
	"Our God is an awesome God...."

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21418
From: Bjorn.B.Larsen@delab.sintef.no (Bjorn B. Larsen)
Subject: Re: SATANIC TOUNGES

In article <May.6.00.34.49.1993.15418@geneva.rutgers.edu>
marka@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley) writes:

> [ citing article <May.2.09.50.21.1993.11782@geneva.rutgers.edu>
> mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) }

> I have a simple test. I take several people who can speak
> only one language (e.g. chinese, russian, german, english).
> Then I let the "gifted one" start "speaking in toungues".
> The audience should understand the "gifted one" clearly
> in their native language. However, the "gifted one" can
> only hear himself speaking in his own language.
> Works everytime. 8-)

This thread si starting to get really silly. Such nonsense do not
belong in s.r.c and it really hurts me to read some of the posts on
this issue.

We chose to believe whetever we want, but we are not allowed to define
our own Christianity. we see in parts. If you see something that I do
not see, or vice versa, it does not give me the right to play jokes on
your belief!

There is no wonder that your "miracle" does not work. You designet it
yourself, and even if you were able to collect a group of people like
the one you describe, I see no reason why your "miracle" should really
happen. God is the one who does miracles, not humans!

After all we are all on the same way, or at least, we are all headed
for the same goal, following different paths. Remember that we are
going to spend eternity together. If I can not stand your view here on
earth, how can I possibly stand spending eternity together with you?

Tongues is a question of belief. Not wether you believe in Jesus, but
if you believe that He is able to give you this gift. Just as any
other of the gifts mentioned in the Bible. But there is no evidence in
the Bible that people who do not accept these gifts are in any way
better than others.

> Perhaps I would believe the "gifted ones" more if they were
> glorifying God rather than themselves. Then perhaps we'd
> witness a real miracle.

Maybe some of the people who have received spiritual gifts are more
interested in glorifying themselves than glorifying God, I don't know.
But if this is the case, it still does not suggest that the gifts are
faked.

In the Bible you will find that Jesus did not always do miracles. He
said that "I do nothing, except what my father tells me." Perhaps it
woulkd be for the best of all if we where all able to live by that
example!

In Him,
Bjorn
--
______________________________________________________________________
               s-mail:                 e-mail:
|   |   |      Bjorn B. Larsen         bjorn.b.larsen@delab.sintef.no
|__ |__ |      SINTEF DELAB
|  \|  \|      N-7034 TRONDHEIM        tel: +47-7-592682 / 592600
|__/|__/|_     NORWAY                  fax: +47-7-591039 / 594302
______________________________________________________________________

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21419
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: Re: What WAS the immaculate conception?

Marida Ignacio writes:

   STILL, the Angel Gabriel's greetings was:
   "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you.
   Blessed art thou amongst women".

   Even Mary was confused about this greeting.

There are various explanations for her reaction to the angel's
greeting.  One is that she grasped what the angel was getting at, that
she was to be the mother of the Messiah.  And knew what this entailed,
all the suffering.  This gave her a moment's pause.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21420
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

Regarding the consequences of the original sin:

Catholics believe that what Adam primarily lost by his sin, for
himself and the human race, was sanctifying grace.  This is basically
a share in the Divine life.  Take a rock and make it able to talk:
what God does to a human being through sanctifying grace is similar.
It makes such a one able to live on a plane that is above the powers
of any possible creature.  This is the "everlasting life" that the New
Testament speaks of.

What Christ did when he came was to restore this life of sanctifying
grace to the human race.  He instituted the Sacraments as the means by
which this life is given to people, and its increase fostered.

The absence of sanctifying grace at death means automatic exclusion
from Heaven.  The nature of Heaven is such that it's impossible for a
human being to have any part in it without the gift of sanctifying
grace.  To use my example, it would be like taking that rock and
attempting to hold a conversation with it: rocks cannot talk.  Neither
can human beings live in Heaven without sanctifying grace.

This all obviously applies equally well to infants or adults, since
both have souls.  Infants must be baptized, therefore, or they cannot
enter into Heaven.  They too need this form of life in them, or they
cannot enter into Heaven.

Turning it around, infant baptism is good supporting evidence for the
Catholic belief in sanctifying grace.  Unless Baptism causes some
change in an infant's soul, there is no particular reason to insist on
the practice.  Yet infant Baptism was probably practiced by the
Apostles themselves, and was *certainly* part of the Church shortly
thereafter.

There is evidence for infant Baptism in the New Testament itself: 1
Cor 1:16, Acts 16:15, 16:33, 18:8, also Acts 11:14.  It is known for
sure that at least one disciple of the Apostle John was baptized as an
infant: St. Polycarp (because of a remark he makes in the acts of his
martyrdom).  St. Justin Martyr mentions men and women baptized as
infants.  There is direct evidence in St.  Irenaeus's "Against
Heresies", and in Tertullian's "On Baptism".  All these so far
mentioned are in the first 170 years after our Lord's death.  After
that, there starts to be tons of evidence for the practice.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21421
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: the ancient canon of the Roman rite

The following is a juxtaposition of part of an ancient text known as
"de Sacramentis", usually attributed to St. Ambrose of Milan, and the
canon of the traditional Catholic Mass of the Roman rite.  The
conclusion from this comparison is that the central part of the
traditional Roman canon was already fairly well in place by sometime
in the late 4th century.

Taken from "The Mass of the Western Rites", by the Right Reverend Dom
Fernand Cabrol, Abbot of Farnborough, 1934, without permission.
Excerpted from Chapter VI: THE MASS AT ROME, FROM THE FIFTH TO THE
SEVENTH CENTURIES.  The paragraph at the end is from the book, not me.

Sorry about the long lines.

Joe Buehler

-----

TEXT OF DE SACRAMENTIS          ROMAN CANON                     ROMAN CANON
(about 400 AD)                  (1962 AD)                       (English translation)

                                Te igitur ...                   (omitted here)
                                Memento Domine ...
                                Communicantes ...
                                Hanc igitur oblationem ...

Fac nobis (inquit sacerdos),    Quam oblationem tu Deus, in     Do thou, O God, deign to
hanc oblationem ascriptam,      omnibus, quaesumus,             bless what we offer, and
ratam, rationabilem,            benedictam, adscriptam,         make it approved,
acceptabilem, quod figura       ratam, rationabilem,            effective, right, and
est corporis et sanguinis       acceptabilemque facere          wholly pleasing in every
Jesu Christi.                   digneris: ut nobis corpus et    way, that it may become
                                sanguis fiat dilectissimi       for our good, the Body
                                Filii tui Domini nostri Jesu    and Blood of Thy dearly
                                Christi.                        beloved Son, Jesus Christ
                                                                our Lord.

Qui pridie quam pateretur,      Qui pridie quam pateretur,      Who, the day before He
in sanctis manibus suis         accepit panem in sanctas ac     suffered, took bread into
accepit panem, respexit in      venerabiles manus suas: et      His holy and venerable
caelum ad te, sancte Pater      elevatis oculis in ccelum,      hands, and having raised
omnipotens, aeterne Deus,       ad Te Deum Patrem suum          His eyes to Heaven, unto
Gratias agens, benedixit,       omnipotentem, tibi gratias      Thee, O God, His Almighty
fregit, fractum quae            agens, benedixit, fregit,       Father, giving thanks to
apostolis suis et discipulis    deditque discipulis suis        Thee, He blessed it, broke
suis tradidit dicens:           dicens: accipite et             it, and gave it to His
accipite et edite ex hoc        manducate ex hoc omnes: hoc     disciples, saying: Take ye
omnes: hoc est enim corpus      est enim corpus meum.           all and eat of this:
meum, quod pro multis                                           For this is my Body.
confringetur.

Similiter etiam calicem         Simili modo postquam            In like manner, when the
postquam caenatum est,          caenatum est, accipiens et      supper was done, taking
pridie quam pateretur,          hunc praeclarum calicem in      also this goodly chalice
accepit, respexit in            sanctas ac venerabiles manus    into His holy and
caelum ad te, sancte pater      suas item tibi gratias          venerable hands, again
omnipotens, aeterne Deus,       agens, benedixit deditque       giving thanks to Thee,
gratias agens, benedixit,       discipulis suis, dicens:        He blessed it, and gave it
apostolis suis et discipulis    accipite et bibite ex eo        to His disciples, saying:
suis tradidit, dicens:          omnes: Hic est enim calix       Take ye all, and drink of
accipite et bibite ex hoc       sanguinis mei, novi et          this: For this is the
omnes: hic est enim sanguis     aeterni testamenti:             Chalice of my Blood of the
meus.                           mysterium fidei; qui pro        new and eternal covenant;
                                vobis et pro multis             the mystery of faith,
                                effundetur in remissionem       which shall be shed for
                                peccatorum.                     you and for many unto the
                                                                forgiveness of sins.

                                Haec quotiescumque feceritis    As often as you shall do
                                in mei memoriam facietis.       these things, in memory of
                                                                Me shall you do them.

Ergo memores gloriosissimae     Unde et memores, Domine, nos    Mindful, therefore, O
ejus passionis et ab inferis    servi tui, sed et plebs tua     Lord, not only of the
resurrectionis, in caelum       sancta, ejusdem Christi         blessed Passion of the
ascensionis, offerimus tibi     Filii tui Domini nostri, tam    same Christ, Thy Son, our
hanc immaculatam hostiam,       beatae passionis necnon et      Lord, but also of His
hunc panem sanctum et           ab inferis resurrectionis,      resurrection from the
calicem vitae aeternae;         sed et in caelos gloriosae      dead, and finally His
                                ascensionis: offerimus          glorious ascension into
                                praeclarae majestati tuae de    Heaven, we, Thy ministers,
                                tuis donis ac datis, hostiam    as also Thy holy people,
                                puram, hostiam sanctam,         offer unto Thy supreme
                                hostiam immaculatam, Panem      majesty, of the gifts
                                sanctum vitae aeternae, et      bestowed upon us, the
                                Calicem salutis perpetuae.      pure Victim, the holy
                                                                Victim, the all-perfect
                                                                Victim: the holy Bread of
                                                                life eternal and the
                                                                Chalice of unending
                                                                salvation.

et petimus et precamur, ut      Supra quae propitio ac          And this do Thou deign to
hanc oblationem suscipias in    sereno vultu respicere          regard with gracious and
sublimi altari tuo per manus    digneris: et accepta habere,    kindly attention and hold
angelorum tuorum sicut          sicuti accepta, habere          acceptable, as Thou didst
suscipere dignatus es munera    dignatus es munera pueri tui    deign to accept the
pueri tui justi Abel et         justi Abel, et sacrificium      offerings of Abel, Thy
sacrificium patriarchae         patriarchae nostri Abrahae,     just servant, and the
nostri Abrahae et quod tibi     et quod tibi obtulit summus     sacrifice of Abraham our
obtulit summus sacerdos         sacerdos tuus Melchisedech      patriarch, and that which
Melchisedech.                   sanctum sacrificium,            Thy chief priest
                                immaculatam hostiam.            Melchisedech offered unto
                                                                Thee, a holy sacrifice and
                                                                a spotless victim.

                                Supplices te rogamus,           Most humbly we implore
                                omnipotens Deus: jube haec      Thee, almighty God, bid
                                perferri per manus sancti       these offerings to be
                                Angeli tui in sublime altare    brought by the hands of
                                tuum in conspectu divinae       Thy holy angel unto Thy
                                majestatis tuae: etc.           altar above; before the
                                                                face of Thy Divine
                                                                Majesty; etc.

There is no doubt that we have here two editions of the same
text; and as that of De Sacramentis is localised in Upper Italy
and dated about the year 400, it is the most ancient witness we
possess as to the principal parts of the Roman canon, which only
appear in the Sacramentaries some time after the seventh
century. The question as to whether the Roman canon is not older
even than that of De Sacramentis is discussed by
liturgiologists.  Mgr. Batiffol is of this opinion, but we, on
the contrary, think that the former bears traces of closer
composition, of a more carefully guarded orthodoxy, and that
consequently it is a text corrected from De Sacramentis. We
shall see, in studying the list of names in the Memento of the
living and that of the dead, that Mgr. Batiffol argues with good
reason that he can date these fragments from the pontificate of
Symmachus (498-514). We thus have the state of the Roman Mass,
or at least of the chief parts of the canon, at the beginning of
the fourth century.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21422
From: tomault+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Galen Ault)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

In article <May.5.02.50.42.1993.28665@athos.rutgers.edu> Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu (Fil Sapienza) writes:
>I am interested in finding out why people become
>atheists after having believed in some god/God.
>In conversing with them on other groups, I've
>often sensed anger or hostility.   Though I don't
>mean to imply that all atheists are angry or hostile,
>it does seem to be one motivation for giving up
>faith.  Thus, some atheism might result from 
>broken-ness.

I'd like to field this one, if I may.  Although I am a believer in and follower
of Christ, my experiences with religion haven't been all that positive.  In
fact, there was one point in my life when, for about three days, I simply
_couldn't_ believe in the existence of God.  Anyway, when I look back upon the
troubles I've had, they seem to fall into two categories -- impulses to
unbelief that resulted from logical contradictions, and impulses to unbelief
that resulted from frustration with God.

The first category doesn't occur to me much anymore, as I have worked through
most of the arguments for the non-existence of God.  But way back when, these
would cause me some problems, and I would have to struggle with my faith to
continue to believe.  I can see where others less stubborn than I (and I do
mean stubborn.  Stubborness has often been the only thing standing between
me an atheism from time to time) would fail.

The second category arises out of some long-term personal difficulties and
the struggle to live my life as God would have me live it WITHOUT living my 
life as others would tell me how God would have me live it.  A good example of
this is my struggle with the more radical Christians I meet.  I am not, nor
have I ever been, "on fire for Chirst," and I don't think I ever want to be.
Nevertheless, I am not "lukewarm" about my faith, so I don't really
fit in with the mainstream either.  Quite naturally, I feel a lot of anxiety
about my dislocation within Christian society, and it can lead to a lot of
internal tension, when I want to do what I _know_ is right,
but when another part of me believes that what I want to do is wrong because
all the other Christians think so to.  Quite naturally, this tension has a
destructive effect on my relationship with God, and during all of this internal
strife, there's atheism sitting there like the promised land -- no rules, no
responsibilities, no need to live up to anyone's expectations but my own.
Complete freedom.  Of course, it's all an illusion, but nevertheless, it's a
very appealing illusion, especially when the so-called "people of God" are
behaving like total twits.  I can easily understand why someone would go
that route, and would be hostile to ever coming back.

IMHO, many of the former-Christians-turned-atheists-who-are-now-actively-
hostile-to-Christianity are so because their experience with Christ and God
wasn't a very peaceful one, but one of mind-control and "shut-up-and-do-what-
you're-told-because-we-know-what's-best-for-you-because-it's-God's-will-and-
you're-to-young-to-know-what-God's-will-is-yet" courtesy of some of Christ's
more overzealous followers.  

A final reason why people become atheists is because Christians do not have a
very good reputation right now.  One of the things that attracted people to
Christianity in the ancient days was the love that Christians obviously had
for one another and the world around them.  Unlike the rest of the world,
Christian communities actively cared for their poor, and the Christian rich
did not trod on the backs of their poorer brothers, but bent down to help
them.  Christians were known for living exemplary lives, even if they were
thought to be traitors to the state because they wouldn't sacrifice to the
emporer.  Nowadays, courtesy of the media and some Christian leaders who lost
Christ on their way to power, people see Christians as sexually-repressed
hippocritical busibodies who want to remake society into a facist version of 
their own moral view.

There are a lot more reasons why people become atheists, but I don't have time
to go into them right now.



Tom Ault

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21423
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: God, morality, and massacres


 JEK@cu.nih.gov ()  James Kiefer  writes:

  (stuff deleted)

    [First point. What they are doing is wrong, just as what
Joseph's brothers did was wrong, just as what Judas did was wrong.
They intend it for evil. If God somehow brings good out of it, that
does not make them any less subject to just condemnation and
punishment.
     Second point. Of course, God will bring good out of it. But not
the same good that He would have brought if the Serbians had
refrained from the sins of robbery and rape and murder. Nor does the
good He purposes excuse us from the duty of doing what is right.]


So what you're saying then, is that God exercises direct control, or
influence upon humanity. He doesn't control our every thought or action,
but takes what we do, whether it be intended for evil or not, and turns
it into something good. It seems to me, that this idea conflicts with
the belief that God gave humans FREE WILL. As far as I can determine,
it is impossible to reconcile these two different ideas. If God were to
exert his influence upon anyone or anything at anytime, he would be 
impeding upon someone's free will. Unless, of course, you believe that
God did not give us complete and unabated free will, but rather, some sort
of conditional free will. Something that allows us to make our own choices
and control our own lives except when God wants to use us to fulfill some
good purpose of his own by "hardening our heart" or controlling us in some
other way. I hear alot of people who look at various events, mostly 
catastrophies or things like the AIDS epidemic and make comments about
God's will. I have a very difficult time understanding why people believe
that God controls anything that happens on this planet. Except, possibly
when being asked to through someone's prayer. According to the Bible,
Pharoah was going to let Moses' people go after one or two plagues, but
God kept hardening his heart so Moses could cast all 7 plagues upon the
Egyptians, the last plague causing the death of many innocent children.
So then, God impeded upon Pharoah's free will and used him as a puppet.
God did this not just to free the Hebrews, but to free them in some sort
of a grand fashion. I suppose from the Hebrew's point of view, this could
be seen as turning something bad into good, but I'm sure the Egyptians didn't
see it this way. All of your examples of how God turned something bad into
something good are based upon showing favortism to one group of people over
another. After all, it's only good based upon your point of view. Why does
God, who is supposed to be the god of all of humanity, play favorites?    

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21424
From: jcj@tellabs.com (jcj)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

In article <May.7.01.09.44.1993.14556@athos.rutgers.edu> muirm@argon.gas.organpipe.uug.arizona.edu (maxwell c muir) writes:
>
>I think you should give up the amatuer psysochology :).
>...
>	In all candor, I would be happy to be proven wrong. Problem is,
>I will have to be _proven_ wrong.
>	Do I sound "broken" to you?

Absolutely not.  I went through a "journey" of lukewarm Christianity,
agnosticism, atheism, agnosticism, and now (although I know my faith
is less than what it should be) Christianity again.  I think it's a path
many of us take.

Jeff Johnson
jcj@tellabs.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21425
From: tony@minster.york.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Revelations - BABYLON?

Woo! So far, we've had the following interpretations of the figure of
the `Whore of Babylon' in Rev 17 & 18:

a) The United States of America
b) MHO dB) which was as a figure of the fallen spiritual powers who
   corrupt and oppress human society
c) Historical Jerusalem
d) Historical Rome

Dare I suggest that the passage might be many layered in meaning? How
about * The prophecy reveals God's judgement on the corrupt & idolatrous
state oppressing his chosen people (d) * That God's judgement extends
_especially_ to his once chosen city (c) because, despite that City's
special call, it still rejected God's grace at the decisive time (Rev
11:8? - also isn't Rev19:24 equally suggestive of Rome as Jerusalem?) *
That the USofA is guilty of many of the crimes of Rome/Babylon (a) and
is equally subject to God's judgement * That the Good Book(TM) actually
encompasses _all_ these viewpoints by revealing the corrupting spiritual
powers warring against mankind through the very society that we've
created. (b)

Clever, huh? (<-- Flame here!) No need to argue at all! 

I think Mary's view has a lot of sense because there seems to be a
deliberate contrast between Rev 17/18 and Rev 21/22 - the mortal
Jerusalem chosen by God but never (historically) fulfilling its vocation
and the new Jerusalem perfected (outside of history) purely by God's
grace. eg Details like Rev 17:1 `.. who sits on many waters' cf Rev 22
the single stream in the new Jersualem `the river of life flowing from
the throne of God and of the Lamb.'

Rex - didn't understand your post - what's the relevance of Babylonian
mystery religions to all this? Please elaborate your ideas about OT &
the Book of Rev? Why do you freak at the idea of a primarily `spiritual'
interpretation of Rev? I'd mail, but I can't get thru:
	unknown or illegal user: REFLEX@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
Something you're not telling us?

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21426
From: wytten@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dale Wyttenbach)
Subject: Question about hell

What is the basis of the idea of hell being a place of eternal
suffering?  If it is Biblical, please reference.

Here's my train of thought: If God is using the Earth to manufacture
heavenly beings, then it is logical that there would be a certain
yield, and a certain amount of waste.  The yield goes to Heaven, and
the waste is burned (destroyed) in Hell.  Why is it necessary to
punish the waste, rather than just destroy it?

Peace and joy,

Dale Wyttenbach

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21427
From: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes)
Subject: Re: Monophysites and Mike Walker

In article <May.9.05.38.52.1993.27378@athos.rutgers.edu> nabil@cae.wisc.edu (Nabil Ayoub) writes:

>As a final note, the Oriental Orthodox and Eastren Orthodox did sign
>a common statement of Christology, in which the heresey of Monophysitism
>was condemned. So the Coptic Orthodox Church does not believe in
>Monophysitism.

This is a point that seems to have been overlooked by many. The ending of a 
1600 year old schism seems to be in sight.

The theologians said that the differences between them were fundamentally 
ones or terminology, and that the Christological faith of both groups was 
the same.

Some parishes have concelebrated the Eucharist, and here in Southern Africa 
we are running a joint theological training course for Coptic and Byzantine 
Orthodox. 

There are still several things to be sorted out, however. As far as the 
Copts are concerned, there were three ecumenical councils, whily the 
Byzantine Orthodox acknowledge seven.

============================================================
Steve Hayes, Department of Missiology & Editorial Department
Univ. of South Africa, P.O. Box 392, Pretoria, 0001 South Africa
Internet: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za         Fidonet: 5:7101/20
          steve.hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
FAQ: Missiology is the study of Christian mission and is part of
     the Faculty of Theology at Unisa

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21428
From: news@cbnewsk.att.com
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <May.7.01.08.16.1993.14381@athos.rutgers.edu> whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu writes:
>Any one who thinks that Homosexuality and Christianity are compatible should check  
>out:
>	Romans 1:27
>	I Corinthians 6:9
>	I Timothy 1:10
>	Jude 1:7
>	II Peter 2:6-9
>	Gen. 19
>	Lev  18:22
>(to name a few of the verses that pertain to homosexuality)
>
But wouldn't that go for any sin.  My father told me when he was growing
up Catholics were not allowed to associate with anyone who was divorced.
There are a few verses prohibitting divorce.  Somehow, divorce became
acceptable (even in Catholicism anullments).  Certainly it is no longer
a sin to associate with a divorced person.  The point is that each person
has their own temptations to deal with.  Paul repeatedly talks about the
"thorn" in his side, some think it refers to lust, others pride, but
who knows.  Whatever the thorn was, apparently it was not "compatible"
with Christianity, yet does that make his epistles any less?  The Bible
warns us against judging, greed, anxiety, impure thoughts, bearing grudges,
etc., etc.  I suppose we should seek out all the so-called Christians
who have entertained impure thoughts and oust them.  All those who have
given in to greed, get 'em outta here.  Jesus pointed out that he
was the physician for the sinners.  Any attempts to make homosexuals
feel unwelcome because of our discomfort with homosexuality is incompatible
with Christianity.  Is our hatred so deep that rather than see someone
try to become closer to Jesus, we need to keep them away.  Does Jesus need
us to screen out those guilty of a particular sin.  Do we really mistrust 
Jesus when he says he can forgive any sin?

Think about it.  Among the people Jesus encountered were sinners and
the Pharisees.  The sinners he embraced and forgave.  The Pharisees,
hypocritcal, unmerciful, self-righteous, pointed out others sins and
did not seek and thus did not gain forgiveness of their own sins.  What
I take from this and other verses is that if we do not admit our sins,
those sins will not be forgiven.  And since those guilty of even one sin
are guilty of the whole law, those not repenting the judging of others
are guilty, as guilty as if they committed the same sin they judged others
of.

The poor in spirit, meek, humble, merciful, pure of heart, peacemakers, 
those who thirst for justice, those who suffer for His sake are blessed.

Joe Moore

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21429
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: Re: Mormon temples

In article <May.9.05.40.06.1993.27468@athos.rutgers.edu>, 
jwindley@cheap.cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes...

[...]

>There are other interpretations to Christian history in this matter.
>One must recall that most of what we know about the Gnostics was
>written by their enemies.  Eusebius claims that Jesus imparted secret
>information to Peter, James, and John after His resurrection, and that
>those apostles transmitted that information to the rest of the Twelve
>(Eusebius, _Historia Ecclesiastica_ II 1:3-4).

This is curious. I read in _EH_...

"The Lord imparted the gift of knowledge to James the Just, to John 
and Peter after his resurrection, these delivered it to the rest of 
the apostles, and they to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one."
			 
			--- Eusebius, _Ecclesiastical History_

It seems that the Lord imparted the gift of knowledge, not that the
Lord imparted secret information.

[...]

>apostles.  Interestingly enough, Eusebius refers to the groups which
>we today call Gnostics as promulgators of a false gnosis (Eusebius,
>op. cit., III, 32:7-8).  His gripe was not that thay professed *a*
>gnosis, but that they had the *wrong* one.

I'm afraid that I cannot find this portrayal in _EH_. 
I don't see anywhere in 3:32:7-8 where Eusebius mentions that certain 
gnostics had the wrong gnosis.

The closest is when Eusebius summarizes Hegesippus' statements, 
"...whilst if there were any at all, that attempted to pervert 
the sound doctrine of the saving gospel, they were yet skulking 
in dark retreats..."

>Now one can approach this and other such evidence in many ways.  I
>don't intend that everyone interpret Christian history as I do, but I
>believe that evidence exists (favorably interpreted, of course) of
>early Christian rites analogous to those practiced by Mormons today.

"Favorably interpreted?" Just in looking at two of the four 
references that you gave (I have the _EH_ handy, Irenaeus and the 
_Clemetine Recognitions_ I will have to look for) I see no room for 
such 'interpretations.'

And any such 'interpretation' still falls short of an equivalence to 
the Temple Ceremonies. 

The links for Jay's using _EH_ for support are: "imparting the gift 
of knowledge" = "imparted secret information" = "being given secret 
signs and tokens to gain entrance to heaven."  But there is not
enough equivalence between the the ideas for us to be able to call 
this "favorable interpretation."  It appears to be closer to 
"fabrication."

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21430
From: pages!bwebster@uunet.uu.net (Bruce F. Webster)
Subject: Re: Mormon beliefs about bastards

In article <May.9.05.41.46.1993.27571@athos.rutgers.edu> erh0362@tesla.njit.edu  
writes:
> 
>     Could anyone enlighten me on how the Mormon church views 
> children born out of wedlock?  In particular I'm interested to know if any 
> stigma is attached to the children as opposed to the parents.  I'm especially 
> keen to learn if there is or is not any prohibition in the Mormon faith on 
> bastards entering heaven or having their names entered in the big  
genealogical 
> book the Mormons keep in Salt Lake City.  If this is an issue on which the 
> "official" position has changed over time, I'm interested in learning both  
old 
> and new beliefs.  E-mail or posting is fine.  All information or pointers are 
> appreciated.
> 

Well, since my wife is (in your gentle term) a "bastard", I can
probably speak with a bit of authority on this. Any "stigma"
associated with children conceived and/or born out of wedlock rests
solely upon the parents--they've committed a sexual transgression for
which they should repent. The child itself has no a priori limitations
on him or her; indeed, the concept of blaming the child for the
parents' sins is one most Mormons would find appalling; note that LDS
theology rejects original sin, as the term is usually defined, and the
subsequent need for infant baptism (cf. Moroni 8 in the Book of
Mormon).  Indeed, LDS doctrine goes one step further and in some cases
holds parents responsible for their children's sins if they have
failed to bring them up properly (cf. D&C 68:25-28; note that this
passage applies it only to members of the LDS Church).

Also note that there is no "big genealogical book in Salt Lake City".
The LDS Church has a massive storage facility in the nearby mountains
containing (on microfilm) vital statistic records (birth, christening,
baptism, marriage, death) gathered from all over the entire world. I
may be misremembering, but I believe they have records for some 2
billion people in that vault. At the same time, the LDS Church is
building up an on-line genealogical database. In neither case is there
some kind of "worthiness screening" as to whether someone can be
entered in. The only potential issue is that of establishing who the
parents were, and that would apply only in the case of the database.
..bruce..

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce F. Webster             |  I love the Constitution of this land,
CTO, Pages Software Inc      |  but I hate the damned rascals that
bwebster@pages.com           |  administer it. 
#import <pages/disclaimer.h> |            -- attributed to Brigham Young
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[The following arrived as a separate posting --clh]

A follow-up to my own follow-up--lest anyone misunderstand, the term
"bastard" is one which I have never in 25 years of LDS Church
membership heard applied, formally or informally, to a child born out
of wedlock, and indeed would (rightly) be considered a vulgar,
offensive term. I would not have echoed the expression in my reply,
except in hopes that the poster would recognize the offensive nature
of the word in the given context. Unfortunately, after posting my
reply, I remembered that subtle points are often lost on the 'net, and
figured I'd better spell it out.  ..bruce..

Bruce F. Webster
bwebster@pages.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21431
From: dps@nasa.kodak.com (Dan Schaertel,,,)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article 15441@geneva.rutgers.edu, loisc@microsoft.com (Lois Christiansen) writes:

|>You might visit some congregations of Christians, who happen to be homosexuals,
|>that are spirit-filled believers, not MCC'rs; before you go lumping us all
|>together with Troy Perry.  
|>

Gee, I think there are some real criminals (robbers, muderers, drug
addicts) who appear to be fun loving caring people too.  So what's
your point?  Is it OK. just because the people are nice?

|>Isn't Satan having a hayday pitting Christian against Christian over any issue
|>he can, especially homosexuality.  Let's reach the homosexuals for Christ. 
|>Let's not try to change them, just need to bring them to Christ.  If He
|>doesn't want them to be gay, He can change that.  If they are living a moral
|>life, committed to someone of the same sex, and God is moving in their lives,
|>who are we to tell them they have to change?
|>

I think the old saying " hate the sin and not the sinner" is
appropriate here.  Many who belive homosexuality is wrong probably
don't hate the people.  I don't.  I don't hate my kids when they do
wrong either.  But I tell them what is right, and if they lie or don't
admit they are wrong, or just don't make an effort to improve or
repent, they get punished.  I think this is quite appropriate.  You
may want to be careful about how you think satan is working here.
Maybe he is trying to destroy our sense of right and wrong through
feel goodism.  Maybe he is trying to convince you that you know more
than God.  Kind of like the Adam and Eve story.  Read it and compare
it to today's mentality.  You may be suprised.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21432
From: biz@soil.princeton.edu (Dave Bisignano)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

Ken,
Then what happens when you die?
Why are you here?
What is the purpose of Your life, do you think it's 
just by chance you're in the family you are in and have the
friends you have?
Why do you think your searching?  To fill the void that
exists in your life.  Who do you think can fill that void

--Dave--

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21433
From: biz@soil.princeton.edu (Dave Bisignano)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

In article <May.9.05.41.56.1993.27583@athos.rutgers.edu>, gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock) writes:
| Bob reminds me of my roommate.  In order to disbelieve atheism, he says 
| he will need to be proven wrong about it.  Well, I don't even waste 
| my time trying.  I tell him that he'll just have to take my word for it. 
| In response, he tells me he will say an "atheist's prayer" for me. 



Who is the "atheist's prayer" being said to?

 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21434
From: ptrei@bistromath.mitre.org (Peter Trei)
Subject: Re: Athiests and Hell

In article <May.9.05.38.49.1993.27375@athos.rutgers.edu> REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov writes:
[much deleted] 
>point today might be the Masons.  (Just a note, that they too worshipped 
>Osiris in Egypt...)
[much deleted] 

     It bugs me when I see this kind of nonsense.

     First, there is no reasonable evidence linking Masonry to ancient
Egypt, or even that it existed prior to the late 14th century (and
there's nothing definitive before the 17th).

     Second, worship of Osiris is not, nor has it ever been, a part of
Masonic practice (we are strictly non-denominational).

>tangents, never ending tangents,

     You said it!

>Rex

							Peter Trei
							ptrei@mitre.org
							Editor: Masonic Digest

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21435
From: mayne@pipe.cs.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

In article <May.9.05.40.51.1993.27526@athos.rutgers.edu> noye@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>christians can also feel that
>sense of "difference", however, when they are associated with "those
>weird televangelists who always talk about satan".  if you'll excuse
>the cliched sound of this, everyone has to deal with his/ her
>differences from other people. i can understand how being an atheist
>could be hard for you; being a christian is sometimes hard for me.

This is not at all comparable. Christianity is the main stream in
western culture. You are trivializing the experiences of others.

I remember what it was like being "different" as a Christian. We
were told all the time that we were different, and in fact that
only members of the our church were really Christians (though others
who believed in God weren't as bad as atheists), so we were a small
minority. That was nothing compared to being an atheist.

The only thing comparable would be a young child being Christian
being surrounded by staunch atheists, including parents, who
actively persecute any religious tendancies - both actual punishments
and, even worse, emotional blackmail. They would also have
to have the whole mainstream society on their side. Maybe these
conditions could have occured in the old Soviet Union* not in a
country with "under God" in its pledge of allegiance.

* I doubt it even then, because children have to be taught to be
Christians and hence must have support somewhere.

>>I have sympathy for gays growing up in repressive environments and
>>having to hide and sometimes at first try to deny a part of themselves
>>because I've been there. Only in my case it was my rationality instead
>>of sexuality which I was forced to try to repress.
>
>in some way the pressures were different, of course, because you
>"chose" your beliefs -- or are you saying that they were not your
>choice, but born of necessity?  [please, no flames about whether or
>not gay people "choose" their lifestyle -- that's elsewhere in this
>newsgroup]

Yes. My atheism was "born of necessity." For an intellectually honest
person belief is mostly a response to evidence. Will or wishes have
nothing to do with it. I could choose to lie, or to be silent about
my true beliefs. I could no more choose to believe in the God of
Christianity than I could decide that the ordinary sky looks red to
me. Still I should be clear that I'm not equating what I went through
with what gays go through. However it is a mistake to assume that
everyone who goes through painful experiences are broken by them.
Happily some are made stronger, once we get past it.

>> I must say that I
>>wasn't hurt by my experiences in church any more than some of my friends
>>who didn't become atheists. I was just hurt differently.
>
>i'm not sure i understand this sentence -- could you explain?

Not without going to details and violating the confidences of some of my
childhood friends. Suffice it say to that religion does not guarantee
that a person will be happy and strong emotionally, and a repressive
upbringing can leave its scars even, or especially, on those who don't
get free of it. I doubt that any sane and sincere person doubts that and
I feel no need to defend it.

By the way I am much happier and stronger being out of the closet. In
the end it has been, as someone eloquently put it in private email, an
experience of liberation rather than disillusion.

Bill Mayne

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21436
From: mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server)
Subject: Re: homosexual issues in Christianity

mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:
>In <May.7.01.08.16.1993.14381@athos.rutgers.edu> 
>whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell) writes:
> 
>>Any one who thinks that Homosexuality and Christianity are compatible should 
>check  
>>out:
>>       Romans 1:27
>>       I Corinthians 6:9
>>       I Timothy 1:10
>>       Jude 1:7
>>       II Peter 2:6-9
>>       Gen. 19
>>       Lev  18:22
>>(to name a few of the verses that pertain to homosexuality)
> 
>Homosexual Christians have indeed "checked out" these verses.  Some of
>them are used against us only through incredibly perverse interpretations.
>Others simply do not address the issues.

I can see that some of the above verses do not clearly address the issues, 
however, a couple of them seem as though they do not require "incredibly 
perverse interpretations" in order to be seen as condemning homosexuality.

"... Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, 
nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, 
nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom  of God.  And such were 
some of you..."  I Cor. 6:9-11.

Would someone care to comment on the fact that the above seems to say
fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of God?  How does this apply
to homosexuals?  I understand "fornication" to be sex outside of
marriage.  Is this an accurate definition?  Is there any such thing as
same-sex marriage in the Bible?  My understanding has always been that
the New Testament blesses sexual intercourse only between a husband
and his wife.  I am, however, willing to listen to Scriptural evidence
to the contrary.

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an
abomination.  Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to
be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate
with it; it is a perversion."  Lev. 18:22-23.

I notice that the verse forbidding bestiality immediately follows the
verse prohibiting what appears to be homosexual intercourse.  I know
of no New Testament passages that clearly condemn, or even mention,
intercourse with animals.  Do those who argue for the legitimacy of
homosexual intercourse believe that the Bible condemns bestiality as a
perversion, and if so, why?  That is, what verses would you cite to
prove that bestiality was perverted and sinful?  Could the verses you
cite be refuted by interpreting them differently?  Can one be a
Christian zoophile?

By the way, I myself am subject to sexual desires that I did not
choose to have and that many people would regard as perverted and
sinful, so please understand that I am not asking these questions out
of an antipathy towards my fellow "people of alternative
orientations".  I do believe, however, that one should read the Bible
with an attitude of "what is the Bible trying to say" and not "what do
I WANT the Bible to say."  I choose not to give in to my "perverted"
sexual desires because I believe the Bible tries to tell me, whether I
like it or not, that such things are sin.  It is frustrating at times,
and I have had days where it really got me down, but I don't blame God
for this, I blame the sin itself.

- Mark

[There's some ambiguity about the meaning of the words in the passage
you quote.  Both liberal and conservative sources seem to agree that
"homosexual" is not the general term for homosexuals, but is likely to
have a meaning like homosexual prostitute.  That doesn't meant that I
think all the Biblical evidence vanishes, but the nature of the
evidence is such that you can't just quote one verse and solve things.

I think your argument from fornication is circular.  Why is
homosexuality wrong?  Because it's fornication.  Why is it
fornication?  Because they're not married.  Why aren't they married?
Because the church refuses to do a marriage ceremony.  Why does the
church refuse to do a marriage ceremony?  Because homosexuality is
wrong.  In order to break the circle there's got to be some other
reason to think homosexuality is wrong.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21437
From: todd@nickel.laurentian.ca
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christiani

whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell) writes,

> I see no other way of interpreting them other than homosexuyality
> being wrong.  Please tell me how these verses can be interpreted in
> any other way.  I read them and the surrounding text.

But that is exactly what I was asking. If the Homosexual community (is that
the proper term?) has decided that Christianity is not against Homosexual 
behaviour but rather condones it then how do they interpret these verses. I
guess what I am really looking for is a "homosexual" response.

Todd...
 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21438
From: fsela1@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

In article <May.5.02.50.42.1993.28665@athos.rutgers.edu>, Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu (Fil Sapienza) writes:
> I am interested in finding out why people become
> atheists after having believed in some god/God.
> In conversing with them on other groups, I've
> often sensed anger or hostility.   Though I don't
> mean to imply that all atheists are angry or hostile,
> it does seem to be one motivation for giving up
> faith.  Thus, some atheism might result from 
> broken-ness.


i'm atheist
just because
there is no supreme being
there is the world as we know it
and it's wonderful and incredible
and there is love between people
and these things are everything
i don't believe in a god that made this all
i believe in the amazing and beautiful
teaming with life world i live in

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21439
From: dps@nasa.kodak.com (Dan Schaertel,,,)
Subject: Re: War  - should Christians fight?

In article 28827@athos.rutgers.edu, david-s@hsr.no (David A. Sjoen) writes:
|>Personally, I think that Christians shouldn't fight.

|>2) As Christians, we are not supposed to defend ourselves
|>	Matt 5:38-48, Heb 10:33-34
|>3) War is a result of sin. Defense may be a necessary reaction to an
|>attack, but I don't think that we as Christians should take part in
|>this.


What if you are trying to defend someone else.  Should you allow killing and
oppression to continiue, or is it our obligation to protect the innocent?

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21440
From: lsvedin@worf (Lynn Svedin)
Subject: Re: Mormon Temples

[On secrecy in LDS ceremonies.  --clh]

I think christ summed it up quite nicely when he said something about
"casting pearls before swine."  Why tell people things that are most
sacred to you when all they will do with it is belittle it.  You have
to be little to belittle.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21441
From: mpaul@unl.edu (marxhausen paul)
Subject: Re: Mary's assumption

I hate to sound flippant, having shot off my mouth badly on the net
before, but I'm afraid that much of this material only adds to my
feeling that "the assumption of Mary" would be better phrased "our
assumptions _about_ Mary."  In all the time I've been reading about
Mary on this group, I can not recall reading much about Mary that
did not sound like wishful veneration with scant, if any, Scriptural
foundation.  

I find in the New Testament a very real portrait of Christ's parents
as compellingly human persons; to be honored and admired for their
humility and submission to God's working, beyond doubt.  But the almalga-
mation of theories and dogma that has accreted around them gives me
an image of alien and inhuman creatures, untouched by sin or human
desire.  Only Christ himself was so truly sanctified, and even He knew
temptation, albeit without submitting to it.

I also don't see the _necessity_ of saying the Holy Parents were some-
how sanctified beyond normal humanity: it sounds like our own inability
to grasp the immensity of God's grace in being incarnated through an or-
dinary human being.  

I won't start yelling about how people are "worshipping" Mary, etc.,
since folks have told me otherwise about that, but I do think we
lose part of the wonder of God's Incarnation in Christ when we make
his parents out to be sinless, sexless, deathless, otherworldly beings.
  
--
paul marxhausen .... ....... ............. ............ ............ .......... 
 .. . .  . . . university of nebraska - lincoln .  . . .. . .  .. . . . . . . .
 .     .    .  .   .     .   .  .    .   .  .   .    .   .  grace .   .    .  . 
   .         .       .      .        .        .      .        .   happens .     

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21442
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: Serbian genocide Work of God?

In article <May.10.05.08.05.1993.3614@athos.rutgers.edu> db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes:
[does he believe in predestination]
>Of course I believe in Predestination.  It's a very biblical doctrine as
>Romans 8.28-30 shows (among other passages).  Furthermore, the Church
>has always taught predestination, from the very beginning. 

really?  you may be right, but i'd like proof.  as far as i know (and
i am not a div school student!) the catholic church does not seem to
accept predestination.  my chaplain told me "beware of greeks bearing
gifts" with reference to this doctrine: it seems to have the curious
result that human beings are not held responsible for their own
actions!  i'll answer how you deal with this in a minute.

>But to say
>that I believe in Predestination does not mean I do not believe in free
>will.  Men freely choose the course of their life, which is also
>affected by the grace of God.  However, unlike the Calvinists and
>Jansenists, I hold that grace is resistable, otherwise you end up with
>the idiocy of denying the universal saving will of God (1 Timothy 2.4). 

right.  that doesn't really seem like predestination to me, but i'll
continue with what you're saying....

>For God must give enough grace to all to be saved.  But only the elect,
>who he foreknew, are predestined and receive the grace of final
>perserverance, which guarantees heaven.  This does not mean that those
>without that grace can't be saved, it just means that god foreknew their
>obstinacy and chose not to give it to them, knowing they would not need
>it, as they had freely chosen hell.

this is really confusing to me, especially since i still believe that
christ jesus died for ALL of us.  preknowledge of obstinacy seems
like an awfully convoluted way to account for a couple of verses.  but
then, i am not really biblically supported in this opinion -- or am i?
others?

>People who are saved are saved by the grace of God, and not by their own
>effort, for it was God who disposed them to Himself, and predestined
>them to become saints.  But those who perish in everlasting fire perish
>because they hardened their heart and chose to perish.  Thus, they were
>deserving of God;s punishment, as they had rejected their Creator, and
>sinned against the working of the Holy Spirit.

so God uses grace like margarine: he only spreads it where it's needed
and not where it isn't?  and so there are the saved and the not-saved,
and nothing in between.  hmmmm.

>>yes, it is up to God to judge.  but he will only mete out that
>>punishment at the last judgement. 
>
>Well, I would hold that as God most certainly gives everybody some
>blessing for what good they have done (even if it was only a little),
>for those He can't bless in the next life, He blesses in this one.  

although i realize this doctrine was not originally intended to cause
social problems, it ends up doing just that -- if there is supposed to
be some sort of "sign" that someone is elect, like lots of children or
success at work, then those who have a good life on earth will go
around thinking that those who don't are doomed to hell.

in a way, though, this sounds like the opposite idea -- those doomed
to hell will have a great life on earth.  that's almost like the
converse of what i believe -- responsibility for what we do now will
be punished after we die.  you're saying what we get after we die has
a direct bearing on how we live now?  strange....
 
>And
>those He will not punish in the next life, will be chastised in this one
>or in Purgatory for their sins.  Every sin incurs some temporal
>punishment, thus, God will punish it unless satisfaction is made for it
>(cf. 2 Samuel 12.13-14, David's sin of Adultery and Murder were
>forgiven, but he was still punished with the death of his child.)  And I
>need not point out the idea of punishment because of God's judgement is
>quite prevelant in the Bible.  Sodom and Gommorrah, Moses barred from
>the Holy Land, the slaughter of the Cannanites, Annias and Saphira,
>Jerusalem in 70 AD, etc.

so sin is either punished now or later -- and not both?  what if it's
 sort of half-punished?  are there any grey areas in this doctrine?

 [my stuff deleted]
 >We should stop the slaughter of the innocent (cf Proverbs 24.11-12), but
 >does that mean that Christians should support a war in Bosnia with the
 >U.S. or even the U.N. involved?  I do not think so, but I am an
 >isolationist, and disagree with foreign adventures in general.  But in
 >the case of Bosnia, I frankly see no excuse for us getting militarily
 >involved, it would not be a "just war."  "Blessed" after all, "are the
 >peacemakers" was what Our Lord said, not the interventionists.  Our
 >actions in Bosnia must be for peace, and not for a war which is
 >unrelated to anything to justify it for us.

 the idea (well, my idea) would be that you would intervene to
 establish peace and stop the atrocities.  i'm not suggesting wwIII.  i
 don't really understand what you mean by a "just war".  of course i am
 not an isolationist, although i see some merit in not jumping in at
 the first opportunity (can you say kuwait?).  we happen to be a big
 country with a lot of resources (as well as a lot of debt), and this
 gives us some responsibility in the world, whether we like it or not.
 flashbacks of wwII, as well as vietnam, should be haunting us.

 yet another difference of opinion.  so be it.

 >Andy Byler

 thank you for answering; i hope you don't take any of my comments as
 flames, but instead as expressions of interest.

 vera
*******************************************************************************
I am your CLOCK!     |  I bind unto myself today    | Vera Noyes
I am your religion!  |  the strong name of the	    | noye@midway.uchicago.edu
I own you!	     |  Trinity....		    | no disclaimer -- what
	- Lard	     |	- St. Patrick's Breastplate | is there to disclaim?
*******************************************************************************

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21443
From: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary

In article <May.9.05.39.11.1993.27394@athos.rutgers.edu> db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes:

>And it should be noted that the Monophysite Chruches of Egypt and Syria
>also hold to this belief as part of divine revelation, even though they
>broke away from the unity of the Chruch in 451 AD by rejecting the
>Council of Chalcedon.  It might be argued by some Protestants that the
>Catholics and Orthodox made this belief up, but the Monophysites, put a
>big hole in that notion, as they also hold the belief, and they split
>from the Chruch before the belief was first annunciated in writing (as
>far as is known, much has been lost from the time of the Fathers).

The belief that the churches of Egypt and Syria were (or are) monophysite is 
false, as is the belief that they often held that the Council of Chalcedon 
was Nestorian.

These misunderstandings were exacerbated by political factors, and thus led 
to schism - a schism that is on its way to being healed.

============================================================
Steve Hayes, Department of Missiology & Editorial Department
Univ. of South Africa, P.O. Box 392, Pretoria, 0001 South Africa
Internet: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za         Fidonet: 5:7101/20
          steve.hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
FAQ: Missiology is the study of Christian mission and is part of
     the Faculty of Theology at Unisa

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21444
From: dan@ingres.com (a Rose arose)
Subject: SJ Mercury's reference to Fundamentalist Christian parents

In the Monday, May 10 morning edition of the San Jose Mercury News an
article by Sandra Gonzales at the top of page 12A explained convicted
killer David Edwin Mason's troubled childhood saying,

	"Raised in Oakland and San Lorenzo by strict fundamentalist
	Christian parents, Mason was beaten as a child.  He once was
	tied to a workbench and gagged with a cloth after he accidently
	urinated on his mother when she walked under his bedroom window,
	court records show."

Were the San Jose Mercury news to come out with an article starting with
"Raised in Oakland by Mexican parents, Mason was beaten...", my face would
be red with anger over the injustice done to my Mexican family members and
the Mexican community as a whole.  I'm sure Sandra Gonzales would be equally
upset.

Why is it that open biggotry like this is practiced and encouraged by the
San Jose Mercury News when it is pointed at the christian community?

Can a good christian continue to purchase newspapers and buy advertising in
this kind of a newspaper?  This is really bad journalism.

I'm upset.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21445
From: danc@procom.com (Daniel Cossack)
Subject: Re: Christianity and repeated lives

smayo@world.std.com (Scott A Mayo) writes:

>>Gerry Palo writes:
>> > ...there is nothing in Christianity that precludes the idea of
>> > repeated lives on earth.

>Doesn't it say somewhere "It is appointed to man once to die,
>and then judgement?" I don't have a concordance here but I have
>some dim memory that this appears *somewhere* in the Bible.
>Given a fairly specific context for what judgement is, I'd say
>that more or less decides the issue.
>[Heb 9:27 --clh]

That depends on how this verse is read.  There are at least two
meanings of the word "once".  1) only one time, and 2) at some
other time (i.e. once upon a time).  Note that in the previous
verse, the word "once" is used with the second meaning, and also
in the following verse, "once" is again used with the second meaning.
The Greek, I am sure, uses different words for each of the two meanings
for the English word "once".  I am not a Greek scholar, but I'm sure
someone here can verify which Greek word is used here for this meaning.
If the second meaning is being used, that verse can be interpreted as:

  - for it was once given for men to die (beginning with Adam), but 
    after this [gift of atonement offered by Jesus Christ] the judgement
    [is made available], for now there is no longer death, but life
    with Christ.
-- 
===========================================================================
Daniel Cossack                |  danc@procom.com, 71333.2102@compuserve.com
Senior Software Engineer      |  2181 Dupont Drive, Irvine, CA 92715
Procom Technology, Inc.       |  +1 714 852 1000

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21446
From: revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary

D. Andrew Byler (db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu) wrote:
: However greatly we extoll Mary, it is quite obvious that she is in no
: way God or even part of God or equal to God.  The Assumption of our
: Blessed Mother, meant that because of her close identification with the
: redemptive work of Christ, she was Assumed (note that she did not
: ASCEND) body and soul into Heaven, and is thus one of the few, along
: with Elijah, Enoch, Moses (maybe????) who are already perfected in
: Heaven.  Obviously, the Virgin Mary is far superior in glorification to
: any of the previously mentioned personages.


As I said, it is a provocative thought.

From "Answer to Job":

	The logical consistency of the papal declaration cannot be surpassed
	and it leaves Protestantism with the odium of being nothing but a
	_man's religion_ which allows no metaphysical representation of woman.
	...Protestantism has obviously not given sufficient attention to the
	signs of the times which point to the equality of women.  But this
	equality requires to be metaphysically anchored in the figure of a
	"divine" woman, the bride of Christ.  Just as the person of Christ
	cannot be replaced by an organization, so the bride cannot be re-
	placed by the Church.  The feminine, like the masculine, demands an
	equally personal representation.
		The dogmatizing of the Assumption does not, however, according
	to the dogmatic view, mean that Mary has attained the status of a
	goddess, although, as mistress of heaven...and mediatrix, she is 
	functionally on a par with Christ, the king and mediator. At any
	rate, her position satisfies the need of the archetype. [par. 753-4]


: Jung should stick to Psychology rather than getting into Theology.

Jung made it clear that he was talking about psychology, not theology.  His
comments had to do with the psychological _image_ of God and its function
in the human psyche, not about the actual existence or nature of God.

revdak@netcom.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21447
From: swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com (Stan Friesen)
Subject: Re: MAJOR VIEWS OF THE TRINITY

In article <May.5.02.52.59.1993.28865@athos.rutgers.edu>, you write:
|> 
|> [Yes.  My comments were long enough that I don't want to repeat
|> them here, but I'll send them via email back to the author.
|> Certainly it was not intended to be a description of three similar
|> deities, though I certainly see why it would look that way.
|> 
Thanks for the letter, your comments helped some.

As to the last comment, I certainly realize that it was not intended to
sound that way.  I am still trying to understand *how* a spiritual being
colud truly be one and three at the same time.  All of the descriptions
of this are either Platonic or sound like special pleading (sort of,
"they appear to be three seperate beings in all ways, but really they are
one, trust me").

Neither of these is acceptible to me.

The fact is, so far the only descriptions of the trinity that makes any
*sense* to me are the modalistic ones, such as Modalistic Monarchianism
or "Economic Trinitarianism".  [I can accept that the three aspects are
intrinsic to the nature of God, so I perhaps lean more towards the latter].

I am trying, here, to see if anybody can come up with another description
that is both orthodox and believable.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com

[I fear orthodox theologians have been overly in love with paradox, to
the extent that well-meaning people think they've just flat-out
confused.  There's no problem with things being both 3 and 1, e.g.  if
the 3 are different parts of the 1.  Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
aren't exactly parts of God, because parts are things distinguished by
physical separation.  All three Persons are omnipresent, so they are
obviously aren't physically separate.  But they're in some way
different aspects, modes, or whatever, of one God.  If you accept
economic trinitarianism, it's possible that you don't have any
substantive difference with the standard view.  Is it possible that
you just don't find the neo-Platonic explanation illuminating?
--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21448
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse


   For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the
barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 
Ephesians 2:14

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21449
From: nabil@cae.wisc.edu (Nabil Ayoub)
Subject: Re: Monophysites and Mike Walker

In article <May.10.05.08.01.1993.3602@athos.rutgers.edu> db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes:
>Nabil Ayoub writes:
>
>>As a final note, the Oriental Orthodox and Eastren Orthodox did sign a
>>common statement of Christology, in which the heresey of >Monophysitism
>>was condemned. So the Coptic Orthodox Church does not believe in
>>Monophysitism.
>
>Sorry!
>
>What does the Coptic Church believe about the will and energy of Christ?
> Were there one or were there two (i.e. Human and Divine) wills and
>energies in Him.
>
>Also, what is the objection ot the Copts with the Pope of Rome (i.e. why
>is there a Coptic Catholic Church)?  Do you reject the supreme
>jurisdiction of the 263rd sucessor of St. Peter (who blessed St. John
>Mark, Bishop of Alexandria was translator for) and his predecessors?  Or
>his infallibility?  Or what other things perhaps?

For your first set of questions (regarding the energy and will of Christ)
I quote to you the relevant part of the Statement signed by both Eastern
(Chalcedonian) and Oriental (non-Chalcedonian) Orthodox scholars a few
years ago (Both families = both Orthodox churches) :

1. Both  families  agreed in  condemning  the Eutychian heresy. Both  families
confess that the Logos, the Second Person  of the Holy  Trinity, only begotten
of the Father before the ages  and consubstantial with  Him, was incarnate and
was born from the Virgin Mary Theotokos; fully consubstantial with us, perfect
man with soul, body and mind  ($  \nu o  \upsilon \zeta $); He  was crucified,
died, was  buried and rose  from the dead on  the third day, ascended   to the
Heavenly Father, where He sits on the right hand of the Father as  Lord of all
creation. At  Pentecost, by the coming of  the  Holy Spirit He  manifested the
Church as His Body. We look forward to His coming again in the fullness of His
glory, according to the Scriptures.

2. Both  families condemn the  Nestorian heresy and the crypto-Nestorianism of
Theodoret of  Cyrus. They agree that it  is not sufficient merely  to say that
Christ is consubstantial both with His Father  and with us, by  nature God and
by nature man; it is necessary to affirm also that the Logos, Who is by nature
God,  became by  nature   man, by His  incarnation  in the fullness  of  time.

3. Both families agree  that the Hypostasis of the  Logos became  composite by
uniting to His divine uncreated nature with its natural will and energy, which
He has  in common with  the Father and  the Holy Spirit, created human nature,
which He assumed  at the Incarnation  and made  His own, with its natural will
and energy.

4. Both families agree  that the natures  with their proper energies and wills
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
are united hypostatically and  naturally   without confusion, without  change,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
without  division and without separation,  and that they are distinguished  in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
thought alone.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^

5. Both families agree that He who wills and acts is always the one Hypostasis
of the Logos Incarnate.

[...]

I guess that adresses your question adequately.

As for your second set of questions, I am afraid they are irrelevant to the
discussion (at least from my point of view) of Monophysitism. I do not see
how they relate to the topic we are discussing (other than to start an
endless Orthodox-RC debate which I do not plan to engage into). As a brief
answer to your questions, the position of the Coptic Orthodox Church 
regarding the Roman pontiff, his jurisdiction, his infalability, etc.
is exactly the same as all the other Orthodox churches.

Peace,

Nabil

          .-------------------------------------------------------------.
         /  Nabil Ayoub                        ____/   __  /    ____/  /
        /  Engine Research Center             /       /   /    /      /
       /  Dept. of Mechanical Engineering    ___/    __  /    /      /
      /  University of Wisconsin-Madison    /       /   |    /      /
     /  Email:ayoub@erctitan.me.wisc.edu  _____/ __/   _|  _____/  /
    '-------------------------------------------------------------'

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21450
From: revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille)
Subject: Re: God, morality, and massacres

Without quoting at length from the preceeding post, I'd just like
to say that I find it a much more appropriate way of dealing with
issues like the Holocaust and Bosnia that asserting that "God is
punishing them."

The activity of God is always _redemptive_, which means "restoring
what has been lost, broken, or distorted."  So, God does not _will_
the brokenness, lostness, distortion, genocide, poverty, etc, but
is nonetheless capable, willing, and active to restore, heal, mend,
and redeeem.

revdak@netcom.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21451
From: nabil@cae.wisc.edu (Nabil Ayoub)
Subject: Re: Monophysites and Mike Walker

In article <May.9.05.38.52.1993.27378@athos.rutgers.edu> our moderator
comments :

>Chalcedon was a compromise between two groups, the Alexandrians and
>Antiochenes.  It adopted language that was intended to be acceptable
>to moderates in both camps, while ruling out the extremes.  I agree
>that there were extremes that were heretical.  However in the course
>of the complex politics of the time, it appears that some people got
>rejected who didn't intend heresy, but simply used language that was
>not understood or even was mispresented.  And some seem not to have
>jointed in the compromise for reasons other than doctrine.  There are
							     ^^^^^^^^^
>groups descended from both of the supposedly heretical camps.  This
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>posting discussed the descendants of the Alexandrians.  There are also
>a remaining Nestorians.  Like some of the current so-called
>monophysites, there is reason to believe that the current so-called
>Nestorians are not heretical either.  They sheltered Nestorius from
>what they saw as unfair treatment, but claim they did not adopt his
>heresies, and in fact seem to follow more moderate representatives of
>the Antiochene tradition.
>
>--clh]

There is a BIG difference between the status of what you refer to as
Alexandrians (actually, this includes all Oriental Orthodox Churches
and not only Copts) and that of Nestorians. The Oriental Orthodox
Churches never even "shelter" Eutyches (the advocator of Monophysitism)
but on the contrary, it condemned (and still does condemn) him and his
heresy. That is why the Eastren (Chalcedonian) Orthodox Church held
talks with the Oriental (non-Chalcedonian) that started 30 years ago
and still continueing till today, but they have converged on many
issues the most imporatant of which is Christology (I have more 
details of the inter-Orthodox dialogue, in case anyone is interested).
So I do not see how the "Alexandrians" and the Nestorians are in a
similar position.

Peace,

Nabil
          .-------------------------------------------------------------.
         /  Nabil Ayoub                        ____/   __  /    ____/  /
        /  Engine Research Center             /       /   /    /      /
       /  Dept. of Mechanical Engineering    ___/    __  /    /      /
      /  University of Wisconsin-Madison    /       /   |    /      /
     /  Email:ayoub@erctitan.me.wisc.edu  _____/ __/   _|  _____/  /
    '-------------------------------------------------------------'

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21452
From: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes)
Subject: Re: The Nicene Creed (was Re: MAJOR VIEWS OF THE TRINITY)

In article <May.9.05.39.19.1993.27401@athos.rutgers.edu> db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes:

>>The so-called Creed of Athanasius, however, has always been a Western
>>creed, and has always had the filioque.  The Orthodox have said that
>>they accept all that it says, with the exception of the filioque, but
>>it is not "in use."
...
>	Of course the Orthodox did not delete the Filioque from the Nicene
>Creed (it wasn't there to begin with), but they certainly did from the
>Athanasian Creed, which did have it from the beginning.

The so-called Athanasian Creed has never been a recognized standard of faith 
in the Orthodox Church. It was introduced (without the Filioque) in certain 
service-books in the 17th and 18th centuries at a time when there was a 
strong Western influence on Orhtodoxy.

============================================================
Steve Hayes, Department of Missiology & Editorial Department
Univ. of South Africa, P.O. Box 392, Pretoria, 0001 South Africa
Internet: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za         Fidonet: 5:7101/20
          steve.hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
FAQ: Missiology is the study of Christian mission and is part of
     the Faculty of Theology at Unisa

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21453
From: dan@ingres.com (a Rose arose)
Subject: Re: earthquake prediction

mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server) writes:
: Ok, a few days back, the below-included message was posted stating: 
: 
: >     I believe with everything in my heart that on May 3, 1993, the city of
: >Portland, Oregon in the country of the United States of America will be hit
: >with a catastrophic and disastrous earthquake...
: 
: By now, we know that this did not come to pass....
: 
: ...I don't think it's particularly 
: glorifying to God to say things like "Well, I THINK the Lord is telling me...", 
: ..Such statements seem to me to be an attempt to get a spiritual thrill should 
: the guess happen to come true, without risking the guilt of false prophecy 
: should it fail to come to pass.  I do not believe genuine prophecy was ever 
: like this.  Comments?
: 

I agree.   People should not be misled to believe "thus sayeth the Lord" by
innuendo or opinion or speculation.

Speak directly.  If the Lord has given you something to say, say it.
But, before I declare "thus sayeth the Lord", I'd better know for certain
without a shadow of a doubt that I am in the correct spiritual condition
and relationship with the Lord to receive such a prophecy and be absolutely
certain, again, without the tiniest shadow of a doubt that there is no
possibility of my being misled by my own imaginations or by my hope of gaining
recognition or of being misled by the wiles of the devil and his followers.

Mistakes in this area are costly and dangerous.  For me, my greatest fears
in this area would be the following:

1--that the people would be misled
2--that people would lose respect for christianity
3--that true prophecy would be clouded by all the false prophecies
4--were God to call me to be a prophet and I were to misrepresent God's Word,
   my calling would be lost forever.  God's Word would command the people
   never to listen to or fear my words as I would be a false prophet.  My
   bridges would be burnt forever.  Perhaps I could repent and be saved, but
   I could never again be a prophet of God.

In the light of this, it is critical that we speak when the Lord says speak
and that we be silent when the Lord says to be silent lest we deprive the
world of God's Word and hide it under a bushel either by our inappropriate,
cowardly silence or by our false statements.  And because of this, it
is critically important that we remain close to the Lord, in His Word, and
in prayer, and filled with the Spirit of God so that we know the difference.

In this day and age, sinners spout off their mouths left and right judging
one another, claiming "rights" that are not theirs, denying rights that do
indeed belong to others, demanding equal respect for all the "gods" of this
world, and uttering every form of falseness that promises to make one feel
good.

It's time that we christians give an example of honesty that stands out in
contrast against this backdrop of falsehood.  When we say, "thus sayeth the
Lord", it happens.  When we pray, prayer is answered because we prayed right.
When we say we're christians, we really mean it.

           Dan

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
	"I deplore the horrible crime of child murder...
	 We want prevention, not merely punishment.
	 We must reach the root of the evil...
	 It is practiced by those whose inmost souls revolt
	 from the dreadful deed...
	 No mater what the motive, love of ease,
		or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent,
		the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed...
	 but oh! thrice guilty is he who drove her
		to the desperation which impelled her to the crime."

		- Susan B. Anthony,
		  The Revolution July 8, 1869

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21454
From: shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker)
Subject: Re: MAJOR VIEWS OF THE TRINITY (and filioque)

In article <May.6.00.35.38.1993.15459@geneva.rutgers.edu> Steve.Hayes@f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org writes:
>04 May 93, D. Andrew Byler writes to All:
>
> [On The Athanasian Creed]
...
>Do you have any evidence that it is used by the Orthodox Churches?
>
>As far as I know it is purely Western, like the "Apostles' Creed". The
>Orthodox Churches use the "Symbol of Faith", commonly called "The
>Nicene Creed".

I have seen it used in an Orthodox church once, although I can't recall why.
I found it odd, to say the least.  Also, I object to the statement that the
Orthodox DELETE the filioque from the original form of the Creed.

The creed originally did NOT contain that phrase, and it is not present
in the Greek original, which hangs by my desk.  Not intending to start a
flame war.  We didn't need to delete what wasn't there.

Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com)
-- 
-------
Lawrence Overacker
Shell Oil Company, Information Center    Houston, TX            (713) 245-2965
llo@shell.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21455
From: shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker)
Subject: Re: If There Were No Hell

OFM Comments:

>[The only problem with this is that Jesus does use hell as a threat.
>He doesn't sound like some of the more extreme fire and brimstone
>preachers, and I don't think he wants people to live in abject fear.
>But he talks a lot about people being found unworthy, and mentions
>hell a number of times.  I agree that it might be more pleasant to
>think that it doesn't exist.  I certainly don't agree that God is some
>sort of sadist who tortures people forever.  But I am very much afraid
>that there really is a life and death spiritual struggle going on, and
>that it is possible for people to lose in a serious way.  --clh]

No disagreement at all that there is a VERY serious struggle going on.
But Jesus more typically uses consequences as a threat.  That's quite
different from Hell Classic (TM). :-) Jesus doesn't sound like the
usual hell-fire type of preacher.  He attracts people through what he
does. And the stongest example in Jesus preaching is in the parable of 
Lazarus and Dives, which is a parable!  In any case, my point is that
a fear-based response to Christ is not a freeing, life-affirming choice
and isn't Good News in a meaningful sense.  There are plenty of good 
reasons to follow Jesus that have nothing to do with fear or a literal 
hell, that still pertain to overcoming in the present struggle between 
God and the Disloyal Opposition.  A faith based in fear is not built
on Rock, as we should found our faith, but on ice.  If the fear were
removed, there would BE no foundation.  

That's basically why it matters to me.  I think we have many Christians 
that DON'T have a solid basis for relating to the living Incarnate God.
I cannot be fully open to the working of God in and through my life if
my response to God is motivated on fear.  

Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com)

-- 
-------
Lawrence Overacker
Shell Oil Company, Information Center    Houston, TX            (713) 245-2965
llo@shell.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21456
From: revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille)
Subject: Re: Serbian genocide Work of God?

: You might want to re-think your attitude about the Holocaust after
: reading Deuteronomy chapter 28.

On the contrary, after the Holocaust, I would be _very_ cautious about my
interpretatoin of Deuteronomy 28.  Not everything that happens is in
accordance with God's will.  (You might guess which side of the
predestination issue I am on.)  I will never _assume_ that evil is 
punishment by God, especially when I am speaking of the evil that falls on
_someone else_.  For my own life, I will work to discern the hand of God
in the evil that befalls _me_.

See the discussion earlier on Luke 13.

revdak@netcom.com
(unreconstructed arminian)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21457
From: dt4%cs@hub.ucsb.edu (David E. Goggin)
Subject: Dreams and out of body incidents

hey folks,

I'm fairly new to these groups, tho' some have heard from me before.

I'd like to get your comments on a question that has been on my mind a
lot:  What morals/ethics apply to dreams and out-of-body incidents?
In normal dreams, you can't control anything, so obviously
you aren't morally responsible for your actions.  But if you can contrive
to control the action in dreams or do an OOBE, it seems like a morality applies.

Now, there seem to be 3 alternatives:

1) Dreams and OOBEs are totally mental phenomena.  In this case no morality
applies beyond what might be called 'mental hygiene', that is, not trying
to think about anything evil, or indulgining in overly sexy or violent
thoughts.

2) Dreams and OOBEs have a reality of their own (i.e. are 'another plane')
Evidence for this is that often dreams and OOBEs are sometimes done in
common by more than one person.  A
mark of objective fact is that >1 people report the same objective experience.
In this case, the same interpersonal morality/ethics applies in dreams and
OOBEs as does in waking life.

3) Like (2), but here we assume that though the dreeam and OOBE environs have a
real existence, a different moral/ethics apply there, and no (or maybe 
different) moral laws apply there.

So... There it is.  Is one of these cases the truth, or does anyone know
of another alternative?  respond by post or email.

thanks very much

*dt*

========================================================

.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21458
From: muirm@argon.gas.organpipe.uug.arizona.edu (maxwell c muir)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

In article <May.9.05.41.56.1993.27583@athos.rutgers.edu> gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock) writes:
>In article <May.7.01.09.44.1993.14556@athos.rutgers.edu> muirm@argon.gas.organpipe.uug.arizona.edu (maxwell c muir) writes:
>
>>In all candor, I would be happy to be proven wrong [about believing  
>>in atheism].  Problem is, I will have to be _proven_ wrong.
>
>In mentioning some nonsense about psychology :) and atheism, Bob Muir asks
>the following question.   

No smiley on the part about atheism, I see. Do you realize that your
statement says that I was mentioning "nonsense" about atheism? This is
hard for me to defend against if this is the claim you are making, as you
have only included the last two sentences of my post and mentioned the
first. Please address the substance of my post rather than rejecting it
out of hand. 
But, because of the sometimes ambiguous nature of English, I may be
misinterpreting your wording here. Please clarify: did you or did you not
mean to call my statements about atheism "nonsense"? If so, care to back
up that claim?

>>	Do I sound "broken" to you?
>
>I answer in the affirmative.

OK, then. Start up the amatuer psycology again. How am I "broken"?

>Is it politically correct for Christians to be the only besieged group
>permitted the luxury of arrogance?   

*YAWN* Excuse me, I don't recall any portion of my post in which I called
Christians arrogant quote me, if I did. I do remember calling Christianity
"silly" and then following that up with information that I was nine years
old when I thought that. I also said that I find faith to be intellectually
dishonest and I would like to see some sort of proof of your god's
existence. I define "faith" as "belief in the absense of any proof", BTW.

Also, I subscribe to a.a as I mentioned and we see fundies of all types
there, so in answer to your question: "no."

Finally, I'd hardly call Christianity "beseiged" in this country. I seldom
see Christians ridiculed for merely practising their religion or wearing
crosses or having Christian bumper stickers. I don't know for sure, of
course, I only say I haven't seen it happening. What I have seen happening
is my homosexual and/or friends being beat up, or preached at by people
who claim to be Christ's followers. I know that this sort of thing isn't
practiced by the majority of Christians, but it is a very vocal minority
who are doing it and I don't see comperable victimization of Christians. 

>Now I have a question for Bob.  Why in the world would any self-respecting
>atheist want to subscribe to a Christian news group?  

The implication being that I am not self-respecting, of course. I'm not a
student of psychology, BTW, but I am a student of Creative Writing and
Linguistics, so literary analysis _is_ my forte. Also, if the implications
I see are improper, please let me know.
I'm here because I'm not sequestered in my own little atheist cubbyhole as
you seem to think atheists should be. Did it occur to you that I _don't_
think I know everything and that maybe someone will say something that
will change my life? Have you read my other posts here or did you see
"atheist" and decide it was time to poke at someone who doesn't deserve
your respect?
Aw, geez. I'm sorry, I probably am getting my back up a little too high,
here. It's just that the "nonsense" thing really annoys me. I figure you
should see my first reactions, though, since they are my true reactions to
your question.
Now, the smoothed feather version:
I seek all sorts of knowledge. That's why I came to my university. Yes, I
am looking at your religion (well, sorta, I have no idea what *kind* of
Christian you are) from the outside, and hopefully with an objective view.
I've been trying to ask reasoned questions here, because I genuinely don't
know the answers to them, but when I saw the question directed at atheists
I figured I would answer. After all, you can speculate about atheist
motives here all you want (hence the "amatuer" psychology crack), but
without an atheist, you can't be sure of even one atheist's motive.       
I'm hoping people really
want to know and I was trying to show that I actually checked out several
religions and I actually read all the pamphlets people have to offer and I
actually think about these things. Instead, I'm still faced with the
implication that atheism is some kind of aberration and that only "broken"
people are atheist.
	Try it from the flip side: I posit that atheism is the natural
state and only broken people are theists. I offer as proof that so many
people witness from horrible lives which picked up as soon as they 
discovered their religion, that religion is regional (if people didn't
follow the religion of their areas, there would be a more homogenous
mix), so many terrorists claim theistic motives, and that theists tend
to be so pushy and angry when challenged on alt.atheism. Why are religions
so successful? Because there is so much suffering in the world, which 
"breaks" people.
It's an uncomfortable situation whichever way you look at it, which is another
reason I'm here, to try to see the flip side of my thinking (and also as 
a watchdog for logical fallacies :).
>I have a 
>difficult enough time keeping up with it, and I think I know something
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>about the subject.     
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The implication here being that atheists can't possibly know anything
about Christianity. Probably jumping at shadows again, but I think my
reaction is somewhat justified. After all, the first post suggested that
atheists are "broken", hostile people. This post confirms that someone
else believes it. 

>
>Bob reminds me of my roommate.  In order to disbelieve atheism, he says 
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^
>he will need to be proven wrong about it. 

Well, he got me there. I am a strong atheist, because I feel that lack of
evidence, especially about something like an omnipotent being, implies
lack of existence. However, I haven't met the strong atheist yet who said
that nothing could ever persuade him. Call me a "seeker" if you like, I
don't. 
_Weak_ atheism is being ignore here, though. Some atheists simply say "I
don't believe in any god" rather than my position: "I believe that no
god(s) exist." For the weak atheist, the is no atheism to disbelieve,
because they don't actively believe in atheism. (If you think this is
confusing, try figuring out the difference between Protestants and
Methodists from an atheist point of view :).
This is another fallacy many theists seem to have, that everyone believes in
something (followed up by "everyone has faith in something"). Guess what?
My atheism ends the moment I'm shown a proof of some god's existence. Is
that really too much to ask?


>Well, I don't even waste my time trying. 

Well, I guess you won't succeed in converting him or me. Why the
supposition that you will fail to convince him? (amatuer psycology on) Is
it because you yourself are unconvinced? :) 

> I tell him that he'll just have to take my word for it.
And I told you that I find faith to be intellectually dishonest. Note that
I can only speak for myself. If you find faith to be honest, show me how.
I have been unable to reconcile it so far. Maybe that's how I'm "broken"?
I tell you that I have invisible fairies living in my garden and that
you should just take my word for it. If you accept that, you are of a
fundamentally different mind than I and I really would like to know how you
think. All I ask for is proof of the assertion "God exists". Logical or
physical proofs only, please. Then we'll discuss the nature of "God".

>In response, he tells me he will say an "atheist's prayer" for me. 
Prayer?! Uh, oh, we'll have to revoke his atheist club card and beanie! :)

>Good luck, Bob.  And, best regards.

Good luck to you, as well. And, again, I apologize if the inferences I
made were inaccurate. 

>-- 
>Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock 
>Catechist
>gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu 

Muppets and garlic toast forever,
Max (Bob) Muir


[Note that abbreviation of quoted pasages is not always the fault
of the poster.  I sometimes do it in order to get a posting by
the 50% rule in inews.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21459
From: mussack@austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell

In article <May.2.09.50.29.1993.11787@geneva.rutgers.edu>, trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:
> > In article <Apr.20.03.01.40.1993.3769@geneva.rutgers.edu> trajan@cwis.
> > unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:
> 
> > >     ... Besides, I would
> > >     rather spend an eternity in Hell than be beside God in Heaven
> > >     knowing even one man would spend his "eternal life" being
> > >     scorched for his wrongdoings...
> This "display of bravado" is no bluff.  I've no fear any God or
>      His punishment. ...

That was my point. If I play poker with Monopoly money I can bet 
anything I want.

> > ...
> But I shan't go to heaven-- it would be against my sense of
>      humanity and compassion for my fellow man.

This is exactly why Christianity is missionary in nature,
not just out of a need to irritate. 8-)
 
> > ...
> The God of both Testaments are one and the same, and in
>      neither is there evidence God is strictly love.  

To the people who wrote the Bible and to whom the Bible is written,
there is evidence of love, but that is a cultural bias. This is
a poor answer which you needn't rebut.

I will now pull the old bait and switch.

I think you should use the Bible to judge man, not God.
By that I mean, if your moral intuition doesn't like what
is described in the Bible, realize that such things are going on
now. I will avoid the semantic arguments about the cause of evil
and ask what are you doing to fight it? Not you specifically,
but everyone, including myself. If I don't like the genocide
in the Bible, what about the genocide that goes on right now?
To move beyond the question of a hell, realize that many people
right now are suffering. If you think hell isn't fair and are
willing to sacrifice everything just to deny its existence,
what about how life isn't fair? Right now there is a young mother
with three little kids who doesn't know how she will get through
the day. Right now there is a sixth grader who is a junkie.
Right now there is an old man with no friends and no money to
fix his TV. Instead of why doesn't God help them ask why don't
we help them. I think you are correct to challenge any Christian
who doesn't live his life with the compassion you seem to possess.

You want evidence of God. Find someone who is making a difference,
someone you admire, someone who has been through some tough times
and has come out with his head up. Ask the person how he does it. Ask 
the Vietnam vet who was battle medic how he kept his mind. Ask the 
woman who was pregnant at 15, kept the baby and now is a successful
business woman. Ask the doctor who has operated on a 1-1/2 pound
baby. They won't all be Christians, or even what you might
call religious, but there will be something in common.

God is not defined in the Bible, God is defined by what is
in those people's hearts. It doesn't matter if you can't give
intellectual assent to any description you've heard, they're
all wrong anyway. The compassion you already feel in your heart 
is a step in the right direction. Follow that instead.
Then come back and read the Bible and you'll see that same
thing described there.

> > If nothing else makes sense, hang on to that idea, that God is love.
> 
> I would say something similar, but in reverse order: love
>      is god.

Good, I guess we only have to work on your grammar. 8-)

Chris Mussack

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21460
From: mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's e

In article <May.7.01.08.49.1993.14485@athos.rutgers.edu> gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock) writes:
>I am not against capital punishment.  I feel this way because God is not
>only a God of love, but a God of justice.  As we Christians are the
>instruments of His will here on earth, we are expected to be true to the
>mandate given us by the Lord to judge the actions of our fellow man.
>
>My favorite Scriptural reference in this regard is Romans 13:1-7.
>
>       Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for
>       there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have
>       been established by God.   Therefore, whoever resists authority
>       opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will
>       bring judgment upon themselves.
>
>My views reflect the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.
>
I would say only to the extent that the Roman Catholic Church
neither approves nor disapproves of capital punishment, as
confirmed in the recent catechism, though there are many RCs
who were rather surprised and upset that capital punishment was
not explicitly condemned.

For myself, as a Catholic, I see my own opposition to capital
punishment as much the same as my opposition to abortion - a
reverence for life. Here in the UK, the anti-abortion case is
often let down by the explicit link which those on the
political left make with anti-abortionists and
pro-executionists. There is a tendency to condemn people who
hold both views as hypocrites. I feel that if there were many
more anti-abortionists who were also vocal in their opposition
to capital punishment on a pro-life line, it would end this
kneejerk association of anti-abortion as a right-wing thing,
and get many to think seriously about the issue (there are
plenty who are pro-abortion equally for a kneejerk left-wing
reason).

I do not think your biblical quote can automatically be taken
as support for capital punishment. I take it that as a Roman
Catholic you are opposed to abortion, and would still onsider
it wrong, and something to be objected to even if legalised by
"authority".

Matthew Huntbach

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21461
From: shimeall@cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christiani

The cited passages are covered IN DEPTH in a FAQ for this group.
That particular FAQ (I've forgotten the author) discusses the
traditional vs. pro-homosexual interpretations of the passages and
indicates which points have strong textual support.

Perhaps the moderator might give again the instructions for
retrieving the FAQ on this topic?

BTW, this issue, while dealt with before, is VERY timely.  One
of the major Presbyterian churches in California (St. Andrews -- a 
MegaChurch in a rich neighborhood) is withholding their support of 
Synod (amounts to about 10% of the budget of the Synod, which 
covers all of Southern CA and Hawaii) until support for a 
pro-homosexual lobbying group (the Lazarus Project) is terminated.
[This came from a news report on CNN yesterday -- corrections welcome.]
					Tim

[I think it's time for me to post the FAQ.  

This is an issue throughout the Presbyterian Church.  On the other
side, one of the major churches in Cincinnati has been ordaining
homosexual elders, and has ignored Presbytery instructions not to do
so.  And the church in Rochester where the judicial commission said
they couldn't install a homosexual pastor has made her an
"evangelist".  These situations, as well as the one you describe, do
not appear to be stable.  This will certainly be a major topic for the
General Assembly next month.  If the church can't come up with a
solution that will let people live with each other, I think we're end
up with a split.  Clearly neither side wants that, but I think we'll
get pushed into it by actions of both sides.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21462
From: creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary

In article <May.5.02.52.03.1993.28782@athos.rutgers.edu> revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille) writes:
>Just an observation- although the bodily assumption has no basis in
>the Bible, Carl Jung declared it to be one of the most important pronouncements
>of the church in recent years, in that it implied the inclusion of the 
>feminine into the Godhead.

   Jung may have said that, but he was in no way speaking for the
Catholic Church.  The dogma of the Assumption in no way means Mary is
considered to be God or part of "the Godhead."  Therefore it implies no
such thing about the feminine in general.

   Also Jung's statement makes it sound as though the dogma was
announced "out of the blue."  This also is incorrect, as dogma is only
the formulation of what has always been part of Tradition.  This dogma
has always been believed, but was not formally defined until the
Assumption was declared as an _ex cathedra_ statement.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21463
From: shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker)
Subject: Re: If There Were No Hell

In article <May.7.01.08.07.1993.14306@athos.rutgers.edu> smayo@world.std.com (Scott A Mayo) writes:
>
>Granting that, I think Christianity, as a relationship with Jesus and
>a love for God and one's own soul, stands just fine without hell. I
>don't believe, or see any evidence in scripture, that hell is presented
>as a stick with which to beat people towards heaven.

I certainly agree with the last paragraph.  Also, Jesus;s statements on
hell can be treated as totally symbolic, allegorical or as parables, as
was much of his other teaching.  There's more than enough hell here on earth
that we are freed from by following Jesus that the rest just doesn't mattter
to me.  And the fact that we can be free of the hell here is the best gift
God offers.  Eternal life begins for us now and we do not wait to start
partaking of the divine nature and journeying on the path to deification.

Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com)
-- 
-------
Lawrence Overacker
Shell Oil Company, Information Center    Houston, TX            (713) 245-2965
llo@shell.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21464
From: eggertj@moses.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41)
Subject: Re: Robin Lane Fox's _The Unauthorized Version_?

In article <May.7.01.09.39.1993.14550@athos.rutgers.edu> iscleekk@nuscc.nus.sg (LEE KOK KIONG JAMES) writes:
|   mpaul@unl.edu (marxhausen paul) writes:
|   > My mom passed along a lengthy review she clipped regarding Robin Lane
|   > Fox's book _The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible_,
|...
|   I've read the book. Some parts were quite typical regarding its
|   criticism of the bible as an inaccurate historical document,
|   alt.altheism, etc carries typical responses, but not as vociferous as
|   a.a. It does give an insight into how these historian (is he one... I 
|   don't have any biodata on him) work. I've not been able to understand/
|   appreciate some of the arguments, something like, it mentions certain 
|   events, so it has to be after that event, and so on. 

Robin Lane Fox is a historian and a gardener.  He has written several
history books, perhaps a recent one you might remember is "The Search
for Alexander".  He has also written or edited several books on
gardening.
--
=Jim  eggertj@ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21465
From: mussack@austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell

>> [ To summarize:
>> While questioning the sagacity of someone who said they would 
>> "rather spend an eternity in Hell than be beside God in Heaven
>> knowing even one man would spend his "eternal life" being
>> scorched for his wrongdoings..." I described how horrible hell
>> is and compared the above statement with Jesus'
>> suffering on the cross in order to prevent people going to hell.]

which Kenneth Engel challenges:
> Did this happen to Jesus? I don't think so, not from what I heard. 
> He lived ONE DAY of suffering and died. If the wages of sin is 
> the above paragraph, then JESUS DIDN'T PAY FOR OUR SINS, DID HE?

I will wimp out and admit that I never liked the metaphor of
Jesus "paying" for our sins in the sense that many Christians
accept as literal. The point is that God understands the suffering
we go through, not just intellectually like when we watch
the Somalians on TV, but _really_ understands, He can "feel" 
our pain. This fact is manifested by Jesus' life. We can argue
that someone in history might have suffered more than Jesus,
we can think of more horrible torture than crucifixion, we can
think of cases of betrayal and fruitless effort leading to
worse despair, but the main point is that Jesus is in the
trenches with us, He is in everyone, whatever I do to the least
of humanity I do to Him, and whatever I do for the least of
humanity I do for Him.

Now, to reconcile this with the existence of hell is beyond my
capabilities, but that wasn't my goal.

> I'd be surprised to see the moderator let this one through, 

Thankfully our moderator is surprising.

> but I seriously want a reasonable explanation for this.

As I re-read this I must admit that this is more of a description
of my faith than an explanation, but perhaps that's all
I can do, hopefully that's all I have to do.

Chris Mussack

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21466
From: mussack@austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Subject: Re:Major Views of the Trinity

>>Can't someone describe someone's Trinity in simple declarative
>>sentences with words that have common meaning?

When I need a kick-butt God, or when I need assurance of the reality
of truth, I pray to God the Father.

When I need a friend, someone to put his arm around me and
cry with me, I pray to Jesus.

When I need strength or wisdom to get through a difficult situation,
I pray for the Holy Spirit.

I realize that the above will probably make some people cringe,
but what can I say? I think the doctrine of the trinity is
an attempt to reconcile Jesus being God and being distinct from
God, as described in the Bible.

I wonder if Jesus had been a Hindu how different the wording would be.

Chris Mussack

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21467
From: creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary

In article <May.5.02.53.08.1993.28877@athos.rutgers.edu> ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis) writes:
>	Since Mary was free from 'original sin' she 
>	did not exactly die: 'at the end of her life'
>	(as the dogmatic prounouncement says) she 
>	was assumed into heaven.

   The dogma of the Assumption does not state whether or not Mary died a
physical death before being taken into Heaven.  Catholics are free to
believe what they wish, whether it be that she was taken still alive, or
after having died.  I lean somewhat toward the latter myself.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21468
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

In article <May.9.05.41.56.1993.27583@athos.rutgers.edu> gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock) writes:

[much stuff deleted]
>Now I have a question for Bob.  Why in the world would any self-respecting
>atheist want to subscribe to a Christian news group?  I have a 
>difficult enough time keeping up with it, and I think I know something
>about the subject.     

excuse me, but what makes you think that just because he's atheist he
doesn't know anything about christianity????  in my (albeit limited)
experience atheists are often the ones who know _more_ about the
bible, having searched it from end to end for answers.  i myself am a
christian, but that doesn't mean i consider myself more of an
authority on my religion -- i just have a different perspective on it
(more biased in favor, naturally :) ).

it seems quite obvious why he is subscribed, if i may infer from what
he says: he is looking for an explanation.  who are we to question his
motives anyway -- at the very least (although i dislike this kind of
logic), one could hope that he will "see the light".  critcism will, i
fear, not give him a very positive picture of christians....

>Bob reminds me of my roommate.  In order to disbelieve atheism, he says 
>he will need to be proven wrong about it.  Well, I don't even waste 
>my time trying.  I tell him that he'll just have to take my word for it. 
>In response, he tells me he will say an "atheist's prayer" for me. 

with regard to this, i guess i don't really feel sentiments of this
order can be proven -- faith has a lot to do with it.  this is why
those who search the bible from cover to cover for answers won't
necessarily get what they're looking for.  of course that doesn't help
anyone who doesn't already have faith -- what a big catch 22.  i
discovered this quite recently when i ran into an agnostic looking for an
explanation of my faith and i quickly discovered that i could give him
nothing more than my life story and a description of my nature.  faith
is a very personal thing -- any attempt to "prove" the "facts" behind
it must be questioned.

>Good luck, Bob.  And, best regards.

likewise -- no matter what you believe.

>-- 
>Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock 
>Catechist
>gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu 

*******************************************************************************
I am your CLOCK!     |  I bind unto myself today    | Vera Noyes
I am your religion!  |  the strong name of the	    | noye@midway.uchicago.edu
I own you!	     |  Trinity....		    | no disclaimer -- what
	- Lard	     |	- St. Patrick's Breastplate | is there to disclaim?
*******************************************************************************

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21469
From: shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker)
Subject: Re: If There Were No Hell

In article <May.9.05.38.07.1993.27316@athos.rutgers.edu> u0mrm@csc.liv.ac.uk (M.R. Mellodew) writes:
>In article <May.5.02.51.25.1993.28737@athos.rutgers.edu>, shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker) writes:
>
>>            Fear-based religion is not a faith-relationship with the
>> One Who made us all.
>
>So does that mean that anyone who is a Christian to avoid Hell isn't really
>a Christian at all? It sounds like it to me.

If that's the ONLY reason, I'd be inclined to doubt whether or not what
they profess is Christianity.  The relationship of faith is based upon
trust.  Fear and trust are generally incompatible.  If my only motivation
is fear, is there room for trust?  If so, there's room for faith.  
If fear precludes trust, then there can't be faith.

Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com)
-- 
-------
Lawrence Overacker
Shell Oil Company, Information Center    Houston, TX            (713) 245-2965
llo@shell.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21470
From: shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker)
Subject: Re: Deuterocanonicals, esp. Sirach

>ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis)
>
>The deutero-canonical books were added much later in the church's
>history.  They do not have the same spiritual quality as the
>rest of Scripture.  I do not believe the church that added these
>books was guided by the Spirit in so doing.  And that is where
>this sort of discussion ultimately ends.

The Apocryphal books that are in the Septuagint were part of the canon 
used by the Greek-speaking churches from the inception of the church.
They were not added later (or much later).  This is a common misconception.

The preference of the Hebrew canon over the Greek canon is a later
innovation.   The church did not need to be guided to "add" the books
since they were part of the faith once received by the apostles and
passed to the Church.

Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com)
-- 
-------
Lawrence Overacker
Shell Oil Company, Information Center    Houston, TX            (713) 245-2965
llo@shell.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21471
From: poram@ihlpb.att.com
Subject: Re: Deuterocanonicals, esp. Sirach

In article <May.7.01.09.00.1993.14498@athos.rutgers.edu> revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille) writes:
>Dave Davis (ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com) wrote:
>
>[lots deleted, with which I generally agree; there is no inherently
>defensible argument for the inclusion or exclusion of the Deuterocanonical
>books]

>:  I think everyone would agree that principles that cannot be 
>:  consistently applied are not very useful as principles. 
>:  So, if we are to exclude them (not accord them the authority of
>:  Scripture) we would appear to require other reasons. What might these 
>:  reasons be?

Lets talk about principles. If we accept that God sets the
standards for what ought to be included in Scripture - then we
can ask:
1. Is it authoritative?
2. Is it prophetic?
3. Is it authentic?
4. Is it dynamic?
5. Is it received, collected, read and used?

On these counts, the apocrapha falls short of the glory of God.
To quote Unger's Bible Dictionary on the Apocrapha:
1. They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and
anachronisms.
2. They teach doctrines which are false and foster practices
which are at variance with sacred Scripture.
3. They resort to literary types and display an artificiality of
subject matter and styling out of keeping with sacred Scripture.
4. They lack the distinctive elements which give genuine
Scripture their divine character, such as prophetic power and
poetic and religious feeling.

>:  
>:  My interim conclusion is that Protestant exclusion of 
>:  (at least one of) these writings is one of those 'traditions
>:  of men' one hears of so often. They were excluded during the
>:  Reformation, and that appears to be the reason many people
>:  continue to exclude them.

But the problem with this argument lies in the assumption that
the Hebrew canon included the Apocrapha in the first place, and
it wasn't until the sixteenth century that Luther and co. threw
them out. The Jewish council you mentioned previously didn't
accept them, so the reformation protestants had good historical
precedence for their actions. Jerome only translated the
apocrapha under protest, and it was literally 'over his dead
body' that it was included in the catholic canon.

>The simple fact is that Protestant exclusion, Roman inclusion, Orthodox
>inclusion of still other books, or any other definition of a closed canon
>is the decision of a community of faith about what the standard collection
>of scripture shall be for that community.  They _all_ are "traditions of
>men."  Whether one considers that to be a problem or not depends on which
>community happens to be yours, and how you accept/ define authority within
>it.  I personally believe that the concept of a closed canon, whether
>Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox is one that developed rather late in the
>history of the church, and which has not served the church well.

How do you then view the words: "I warn everyone who  hears the
words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to
them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
And if anyone takes away from this book the prophecy, God will
take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the
holy city" (Rev 22.18-9)
Surely this sets the standard and not just man-made traditions.

It is also noteworthy to consider Jesus' attitude. He had no
argument with the pharisees over any of the OT canon (John
10.31-6), and explained to his followers on the road to Emmaus 
that in the law, prophets and psalms which referred to him - the 
OT division of Scripture (Luke 24.44), as well as in Luke 11.51
taking Genesis to Chronicles (the jewish order - we would say
Genesis to Malachi) as Scripture.

>See Dr. Lee MacDonald's _The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon_
>(Abingdon, 1988) for a clear and faithful examination of the origins and
>issues of the canon.

I am not familiar with the book. 
Some other arguments you might like to consider are found in
Chapter 3 of Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands A Verdict.

Barney Resson
"Many shall run to and fro, & knowledge shall increase" (Daniel)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21472
From: sun075!Gerry.Palo@uunet.uu.net (Gerry Palo)
Subject: Re: Christianity and repeated lives

In article <May.7.01.08.04.1993.14301@athos.rutgers.edu> smayo@world.std.com (Sc
ott A Mayo) writes:
>>Gerry Palo writes:
>> > ...there is nothing in Christianity that precludes the idea of
>> > repeated lives on earth.
>
>Doesn't it say somewhere "It is appointed to man once to die,
>and then judgement?" I don't have a concordance here but I have
>some dim memory that this appears *somewhere* in the Bible.
>Given a fairly specific context for what judgement is, I'd say
>that more or less decides the issue.
>
>[Heb 9:27 --clh]

Indeed, the immediate context [NASB] is:

  26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often
  since the foundation of the world; but now once at
  the consummation He has been manifested to put away 
  sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

  27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die
  once, and after this comes judgement;

  28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear
  the sins of many, shall appear a second time, not to
  bear sin, tro those who eagerly await him.


The first point is that this verse is part of an even larger
context, the subject of which is not the destiny of the
individual human soul but rather the singular nature of Christ's
sacrifice, "once", and the fulfillment of the law for all of fallen 
mankind.  Rudolf Frieling elaborates this in detail in his 
"Christianity and Reincarnation".  The thrust of the passage
in its context is to liken the one time incarnation and 
sacrifice of Christ for all mankind to the individual 
experience of the human being after death.  The "once" 
is repeated and emphasized, and it highlights the singularity 
of Christ's deed.  One thing for certain it does is to 
refute the claims of some that Christ incarnates more than 
once.  But the comparison to the human experience - die 
once, then judgement (note: not "the judgement", but just 
"judgement".  The word for judgement is "krisis".

Hebrews 9:27 is the one passage most often quoted in defense
of the doctrine that the Bible denies reincarnation.  At this
point, I would just emphasize again that the  passages 
that (arguably) speak against it are few, and that invariably
they are talking about something eles, and the apparent denial
of reincarnation is either inferred, or, as in the case of
Hebrews, taken literally and deposited into an implied context,
namely a doctrine of the destiny of the human being after
death.

What should be considered seriously is that the Bible is essentially
silent about the fate of the individual human being between death
and the Last Day.  If you take the few passages that could possibly
be interpreted to mean a single earth life, they are arguable.  And
there are other passages that point, arguably, in the other direc-
tion. such as Matthew 11:14 and John 9:2.

We can continue to debate the individual scraps of scripture that
might have a bearinig on this, and indeed we should discuss them.
But what I wanted to introduce into the discussion was an approach
to the idea of repeated earth lives that, unlike Hindu, Buddhist
and "new age" teachings, takes full cognizance of the divinity, singular
incarnation, death, burial, resurrection, and second coming of Christ
as the savior of mankind; the accountability of each individual for
his deeds and the reality of the Fall and of sin and its consequences;
the redemption of man from sin through Christ; the resurrection of
the body, and the Last Judgement.

Taken in this larger sense, many serious questions take on an entirely
different perspective.  E.g. the destiny of those who died in their
sins before Christ came. the relationship of faith and grace to 
works, the meaning of "deathbed conversion", the meaning of the
sacraments, and many other things.  Not that I propose to answer all
those questions by a simple doctrine of convenience, but only that
the discussion takes on a different dimension, and in my opinion
one that is truly worthy of both man, the earth, and their Creator and 
Redeemer. There are many deep questions that continue to be deep, such 
as the meaning of the second death, and how the whole of Christian
doctrine would apply to this larger perspective of human existence.

There are those who deeply believe that the things of which the Bible 
does not speak are not things we should be concerned with.  But Christ
also indicated that there were other things that we would come to know
in the future, including things that his disciples (and therefore others) 
could not bear yet.  This idea that the human capacity for growth in
knowledge, not only of the individual in one lifetime, but of the whole
of humanity, also takes on great meaning when we realize that our growth
in the spirit is a long term process.  The Bible was not meant to codify
all spiritual knowledge in one place forever, but to proclaim the gospel
of the incarnation and redeeming deed of Christ - taking the gospel in the
greater context, from Genesis to Revelation.  Now, salvation (healing) becomes, 
not the end of man's sojourn but its beginning.  And the Last Judgement and
the New Heaven and Earth that follow it become its fulfullment.

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21473
From: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell)
Subject: Re: Divorce

In article <May.9.05.42.10.1993.27614@athos.rutgers.edu>  
daveshao@leland.stanford.edu (David Shao) writes:
> In article <May.7.01.10.03.1993.14583@athos.rutgers.edu>  
crs@carson.u.washington.edu (Cliff Slaughterbeck) writes:
> >
> >Along the way, she was married, happily, to a wonderful and
> >supportive husband and gave birth to two sons.  Still, everything was not
> >perfect for Jane, since she could never open up the deepest part of her
> >soul to her husband.  
..
> >One of the interesting things that Jane said in this whole discussion was
> >"Homosexuality is not about what goes on in the bedroom."  She found that
> >she was much more able to have a deep, committed relationship with a woman
> >than a man.  Sex, in her mind, is only a part of the whole relationship.
...

It sounds like she has a problem.  She has a problem opening up to her
husband so she is lesbian.  WHAT? In a marrige, a couple is supposed
to open up to each other.  Because she didn't feel comfortable opening
up to her husband she gets a divorce and comes to the conclusion that
she is lesbian.  Before anyone gets maried they should make sure that
they would feel comfortable "open up the deepest part of her soul to
her husband".  "Sex, in her mind, is only a part of the whole
relationship."  Did she think it was diffrent with a man. That might
be her problem.

In Christ's Love,
Bryan

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21474
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

>Eugene Bigelow writes:

>>Doesn't the Bible say that God is a fair god [sic]?  If this is true,
>how can >this possibly be fair to the infants?

Andrew Byler writes:

>[What do you mean fair?  God is just, giving to everyone what they
>deserve. As all infants are in sin from the time of conception (cf
>Romans 5.12, Psalm 1.7), they cannot possibly merit heaven, and as
>purgatory is for the purging of temporal punishment and venial sins, it
>is impossible that origianl sin can be forgiven....

As St. Augustine said, "I did not invent original sin, which the
Catholic faith holds from ancient time; but you, who deny it, without a
doubt are a follower of a new heresy."  (De nuptiis, lib. 11.c.12)]

Why is it fair to punish you, me and the rest of humanity because of
what Adam and Eve did? Suppose your parents committed some crime before
you were born and one day the cops come to your door and throw you in
jail for it. Would you really think that is fair? I know I wouldn't.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21475
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

Joseph H. Buehler writes:

>This all obviously applies equally well to infants or adults, since
>both have souls.  Infants must be baptized, therefore, or they cannot
>enter into Heaven.  They too need this form of life in them, or they
>cannot enter into Heaven.

Are you saying that baptism has nothing to do with asking Jesus to come into
your heart and accepting him as your savior, but is just a ritual that we
must go through to enable us to enter Heaven?

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21476
From: carlson@ab24.larc.nasa.gov (Ann Carlson)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <May.7.01.08.16.1993.14381@athos.rutgers.edu>, whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell) writes:
|> Any one who thinks that Homosexuality and Christianity are compatible should check  
|> out:
|> 	Romans 1:27
|> 	I Corinthians 6:9
|> 	I Timothy 1:10
|> 	Jude 1:7
|> 	II Peter 2:6-9
|> 	Gen. 19
|> 	Lev  18:22
|> (to name a few of the verses that pertain to homosexuality)

Anyone who thinks being gay and Christianity are not compatible should 
check out Dignity, Integrity, More Light Presbyterian churches, Affirmation,
MCC churches, etc.  Meet some gay Christians, find out who they are, pray
with them, discuss scripture with them, and only *then* form your opinion.
-- 



*************************************************      
*Dr. Ann B. Carlson (a.b.carlson@larc.nasa.gov) *       O .
*MS 366                                         *         o  _///_ //
*NASA Langley Research Center                   *          <`)=  _<<
*Hampton, VA 23681-0001                         *             \\\  \\
*************************************************

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21477
From: mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server)
Subject: Re: Mormon temples

jwindley@cheap.cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes:
[material deleted] 
>Some object to the idea that Christianity should involve secrets of
>any kind.  Mormon scholars have provided historical evidence of early
>Christian practices which parallel Mormon temple ceremonies.
>Obviously one can choose whether or not to subscribe to such a
>historical interpretation, but Mormon practice is not without
>precedent in Christianity.
[deletions]


I don't necessarily object to the secrecy but I do question it, since I see no 
Biblical reason why any aspect of Christian worship should involve secrecy.  
But I am interested in your claim that early Christian practices "parallel" 
Mormon temple ceremonies.  Could you give an example?  Also, why do they only 
parallel Mormon ceremonies?  Why don't Mormon ceremonies restore the original 
Christian practices?  Wasn't that the whole point of Joseph Smith's stated 
mission?

- Mark

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21478
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's e

jblanken@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (James R. Blankenship) writes:

[The only reason for the death penalty is revenge?? If you are going to
try to refute a position, try to refute the whole position or acknosledge
that you are only speaking to small piece of the problem. Broad sweeping
"the only reason, " etc on as tough nut to crack as the death penalty
reallly doesn't help much.

Every year the FBI releases crime stats showing an overwhelming amount of
crime is committed by repeat offenders. People are killed by folks who
have killed (who knows how many times) before. How aobut folks who are for
the death penalty, not for revenge, but to cut down on recidivism?]

  Your point is well taken. I acknowledge the fact that there are some who
take this position. Sorry about that. Of course, I still believe that the
vast majority of those who favor the death penalty, do so for reason of
seeking vengeance. I'm curious, if you favor the death penalty to keep
killers from killing again, what do you think we should do with people who
commit other crimes, such as rape or robbery? Isn't it the Muslims who
cut your hand off if you're caught stealing?

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21479
From: Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu (Fil Sapienza)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

In article <May.7.01.09.44.1993.14556@athos.rutgers.edu> maxwell c muir,
muirm@argon.gas.organpipe.uug.arizona.edu writes:
>of Faith (if you want to know, I feel that faith is intellectually
>dishonest). 

I'd appreciate some support for this statement.  I'm not sure
it really makes sense to me.

>The ambiguity of religious beliefs, an unwillingness to take
>Pascal's Wager, 

I've heard this frequently - what exactly is Pascal's wager?

>	Do I sound "broken" to you?

I don't know.  You point out that your mother's treatment upset you,
and see inconsistencies in various religions.  I'm not sure if that
constitutes broken-ness or not.   It certainly consititutes 
disillusionment.
--
Filipp Sapienza
Department of Technology Services
University of Michigan Hospitals - Surgery
Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21480
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: Deuterocanonicals, esp. Sirach

In <May.10.05.07.27.1993.3488@athos.rutgers.edu> mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker) writes:

>	That last paragraph just about killed me.  The Deuterocanonicals have
>	ALWAYS been accepted as inspired scripture by the Catholic Church,
>	which has existed much longer than any Protestant Church out there.
>	It was Martin Luther who began hacking up the bible and deciding to
>	REMOVE certain books--not the fact that the Catholic Church decided
>	to add some much later--that is the reason for the difference between
>	"Catholic" and "Protestant" bibles.  

This is misleading, at best.  The question, really, has to do with the
status of the Greek Septuagint versus Hebrew scripture.  And the issue
predates the Reformation by quite a bit -- Jerome was negative about the
"deuteroncanonicals" and in fact, even though he transalted them, he put
them after the Hebrew canon (reordered from the Greek ordering to the
Hebrew one.)  His translations of them were quick-and-dirty, also (he
reports having done one of them in one day, and another overnight, just
dictating his translation to an amanuensis.

That is to say, it is the Vulgate, and all of its massive importance in
Western Christianity, along with the veneration of Jerome, which took the
first steps in "reducing" these books from the status they had (and have)
among the Greeks.

Furthermore, it is inaccurate to say that the Reformers "threw out" these
books.  Basically, they just placed them in a secondary status (as Jerome
had already done), but with the additional warning that doctrine should
not be based on citations from these ALONE.

I think that the emphasis on the Hebrew originals is sound, though it
seems somewhat arbitrary to disallow on the face of it a translation as
part of a collection whose principles of selection (in Hebrew or Greek)
are confused or unknown and likely fraught with accident.  It also seems
to play into a tendentious notion of the original languages being somehow
"more inspired" -- as if magical, and conveying a message untranslatable
-- than a translation, as if we could not hear God's word to the Jews in
Greek (or German, or English, ...).  This tendency seems to have got a
big boost in _sola scriptura_ Protestantism, even to the point of current
"inerrancy" bizarreness, despite the more basic, underlying tendency of
the Reformers to see that the texts SHOULD and COULD be translated.  If
we can profit from an English rendering of Hebrew and Greek, there is
surely little reason to keep Sirach, at least, out of our Bibles (and of
course, Anglicans don't do so :-)).  For texts originally in Greek, it
would seem more to be anti-Greek prejudice (notably, by the time the
Hebrew canon is fully attested, including anti-Christian prejudice which
led to the Jewish abandonment of the Septuagint) which is operative.

BTW: readers may enjoy some lectures of Bruce Metzger on the issues of
translation of the Bible (including some of what I said about Jerome,
above) in the current numbers of the journal _Bibliotheca Sacra_; two
of four have been published so far.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		I say "You are gods, sons of the
mls@panix.com			Most High, all of you; nevertheless
    - or -			you shall die like men, and fall
mls@ulysses.att..com		like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21481
From: lisa@ux1.lbl.gov (lisa stewart)
Subject: Christian Embassy in DC

Does anyone know about the Christian Embassy in Washington DC? What
exactly does it do?

Please respond to lisa@ux1.lbl.gov

Thanks

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21482
From: adamsj@gtewd.mtv.gtegsc.com
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

In article <May.9.05.40.15.1993.27475@athos.rutgers.edu>, Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno ) writes:
> [4) "Nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]" (Rev. 21.27). Therefore,
> babies are born in such a state that should they die, they are cuf off
> from God and put in hell, which is exactly the doctrine of St. Augustine
> and St. Thomas.  

I haven't read this entire thread, but, if someone hasn't tossed this out yet, then here it is: 

2 Samuel 12:21-23 (RSV) : 

  "Then his servants said to him, `What is this thing that you have
  done? You fasted and wept for the child while it was alive; but when
  the child died, you arose and ate food.' He [David] said, 'While the
  child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who knows
  whether the LORD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?' But
  now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall
  go to him, but he will not return to me.'"

Anyhow, many interpret this to mean that the child has gone to Heaven
(where David will someday go). I don't claim to know for sure if this
applies to all babies or not. But even if it's just this one, what
would you say to this?

-jeff adams-

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21483
From: gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham)
Subject: Ontological argument

I read somewhere that Kurt Goedel argued that the ontological argument
for God's existence was logically reasonable (or something to that
effect).

Does anyone know if this is true, and have a citation?

Thanks.
--
-Fred Gilham    gilham@csl.sri.com
"Peace is only better than war when it's not hell too.  War being hell
makes sense."
               -Walker Percy, THE SECOND COMING

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21484
From: loisc@microsoft.com (Lois Christiansen)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <May.7.01.08.16.1993.14381@athos.rutgers.edu> whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu wrote:
> Any one who thinks that Homosexuality and Christianity are compatible should check  
> out:
> 	Romans 1:27
> 	I Corinthians 6:9
> 	I Timothy 1:10
> 	Jude 1:7
> 	II Peter 2:6-9
> 	Gen. 19
> 	Lev  18:22
> (to name a few of the verses that pertain to homosexuality)
> 
> In Christ's Love,
> Bryan Whitsell

Like we have never heard of, or read these verses before?

How about you read them in context, taking into consideration the times and 
places in which they were written; the local customs and pagan rituals; 
what the surrounding verses are talking about and how they interact with 
the rest of the Bible.

There are many issues in the Bible that are argued, and can be argued 
successfullly from both sides of an issue.  Some examples that come to mind
are 
		Gifts of the Spirit
		when the Rapture will occur(pre or post tribulation)
		how people should be baptized
to name a few.

I have found nothing in scripture that condemns me, or anyone else, for having
a monogamous relationship with the person whom I love, even if we are the
same sex.

I'm sorry if I am coming across as heated.  It's just that the Lord has been
so dear to me the last several years and I'm tired of hearing this same old
thing from people who believe what their told rather than finding out for 
themselves.

Check it out for yourself.  Invite the Holy Spirit to guide you.  If I weren't
confident of this I wouldn't invite you to do this.

God Bless
Loisc

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21485
From: dan@ingres.com (a Rose arose)
Subject: Re: "National repentance"

mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:
: I heard on the radio today about a Christian student conference where
: Christians were called to "repent" of America's "national" sins, such
: as sexual promiscuity.
: 
: To which I reply: ...whoa there!
: 
: How can I repent of _someone else's_ sin?   I can't.
: 
: And when I claim to "repent" of someone else's sin, am I not in fact
: _judging_ him?  Jesus equipped us to judge activities but warned us
: not to judge people. "Judge not that ye be not judged."
: 
: C. S. Lewis made the same point in an essay after World War II,
: when some Christian leaders in Britain were urging "national repentance"
: for the horrors (sins???) of World War II.
: -- 

I see your point, but I cannot more strongly disagree.

To repent means to turn around.  We, as a nation, have behaved incredibly
arrogantly toward God condoning, encouraging, and even forcing folks to
participate in activity directly opposed to the written Word of God.  We
have arrogantly set our nation far above the God who created it and allowed
us the luxury of living in this land.  We have set a bad example for other
nations.  We've slaughtered unborn children by the millions.  We have
stricken the name of God from the classroom.  We've cheated God out of the
honor due Him at every turn, and we owe God an apology every bit as public
as our sins have been.

When Jesus said "Judge not that ye be not judged", he was not addressing
those like John the Baptist who had repented and were calling others to
repent.  He was addressing those who remained in sin while heaping down
condemnation on others for their sins.  His message to us all was to remove
the log from our own eye before removing the speck from our brother's.  But
He also said to rebuke and to reprove.  Don't forget that this is a command
too.

Our problem today is that we tend to judge and condemn as though we were
rebuking and we tend to neglect bringing folks back to the Lord with the
excuse that we don't want to judge anyone.

In truth, what we need to do is to judge less and call others to repent more
and to be able to distinguish between the two in our own motives.  Call sin
what it is and do so openly.  Let it's charge fall correctly where it should.
But instead of running someone into hell over it, pull them out of their
hellward path and onto the heavenward path.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
	"I deplore the horrible crime of child murder...
	 We want prevention, not merely punishment.
	 We must reach the root of the evil...
	 It is practiced by those whose inmost souls revolt
	 from the dreadful deed...
	 No mater what the motive, love of ease,
		or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent,
		the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed...
	 but oh! thrice guilty is he who drove her
		to the desperation which impelled her to the crime."

		- Susan B. Anthony,
		  The Revolution July 8, 1869

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21486
From: M.Reimer@uts.edu.au (Matthew R)
Subject: Urbana 93 mission conference

I would like to hear from people who are thinking of going to the Urbana 93
conference in December this year.  I have recently received info from IFES
(International Fellowship of Evangelical Students) and am thinking about
attending although I am still not sure whether I can afford it.

I would also like to hear from people involved in IFES or IVF groups just to
hear how things are going on your campus.
Are there any news groups or groups of people who already do this.

I am involved in the Christian Fellowship at the University of Technology
Sydney in Australia.  If you are interested to find out how we are going 
mail me to find out.

Matt Reimer
Email: M.Reimer@uts.edu.au
	

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21487
From: gchin@ssf.Eng.Sun.COM (Gary Chin)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's e

In article 11779@geneva.rutgers.edu, jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>In article <Apr.24.01.09.13.1993.4257@geneva.rutgers.edu> mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:
>None of the states currently recognize same-sex marriages, but I know
>several couples whose "marriages" are more stable and loving and 
>long-lasting than most of my legally married friends and relatives.
>(This drives one friend's family crazy. His brothers have been
>divorced twice, both his parents are divorced, and *he* - the "filthy
>gay" - has been "married" to his partner for 20 years.)
>
Just because those  "marriages" are more stable and loving and long-lasting,
doesn't make it right.  Same-sex partners could have been best friends,
without getting sexually involved with each other.

|-------------------|
| Gary Chin         |
| Staff Engineer    |
| Sun Microsystems  |
| Mt. View, CA      |
| gchin@Eng.Sun.Com |
|-------------------|

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21488
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

>If babies are not supposed to be baptised then why doesn't the Bible
>ever say so.  It never comes right and says "Only people that know
>right from wrong or who are taught can be baptised."

This is not a very sound argument for baptising babies. It assumes that
if the Bible doesn't say specifically that you don't need to do something,
then that must mean that you do need to do it. I know there's a specific
term for this form of logic, but it escapes me right now. However, if it
were sound, then you should be able to apply it this way; If the Bible
doesn't specifically say that something is wrong, then it must be OK,
which, coincidentally, leads perfectly into a question I've often pondered.
If slavery is immoral (which I believe it is, can I assume that everyone
else in this group does too?), why doesn't Jesus or any of the apostles
speak out against it? Owning slaves was common practice back then. Paul
speaks about everything else that is immoral. He apparently thought it
was important enough to talk about things like not being a drunkard. Why
doesn't anyone mention slavery? If God's morals are eternal and don't
change like the morals of society, then it must have been just as immoral then
as it is today.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21489
From: dhammers@pacific.? (David Hammerslag)
Subject: Re: Mormon Temples

In article <May.7.01.08.52.1993.14488@athos.rutgers.edu> brh54@cas.org (Brooks Haderlie) writes:

   searching out our deceased ancestors so that we can perform the
   ordinances -- such as baptism, confirmation, and marriage for time and
   eternity -- that are required for a person to obtain salvation through
   Christ and to live with Him through the eternities. These are people
   who may have not had the opportunity to know Christ in their lifetime,
   so we are making it possible for Christ's saving grace (I know there
   are thousands of interpretations of that phrase) to become fully
   effective for them if they allow it to do so on the other side.


This paragraph brought to mind a question.  How do you (Mormons) reconcile
the idea of eternal marriage with Christ's statement that in the ressurection
people will neither marry nor be given in marriage (Luke, chapt. 20)?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Hammerslag (dhammers@urbana.mcd.mot.com)
   "...there ain't nobody so bad that the Lord can't save 'em ain't
        nobody so good they don't need God's love..." -- Mullins 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21490
From: creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)
Subject: Re: Does it matter which church?

In article <May.2.09.51.04.1993.11807@geneva.rutgers.edu> gideon@otago.ac.nz (Gideon King) writes:
>When the Protestant reformers opposed and subsequently separated from the  
>Church of Rome, the battle cry of the new protesting religion was "The  
>Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible". Underlying that cry  
>was a theory that if people could read the Bible for themselves in their  
>native tongue they would discover the truth about God and His purpose.  
>They would shed their old errors and be united by a common faith.

   This idea, that the Reformers somehow were the first to bring the
Bible to the people in their own language, is a myth.  Many vernacular
translations of the Bible existed long before the Reformation.  The
Vulgate Bible, which is still the official version of the Bible for the
Catholic Church, was itself a translation in the common (i.e. vulgar ==
vulgate) tongue of its day, Latin, and had existed for about a millenium
before the Reformation.

   It might also be noted that the printing press was not even invented
until the same century as that in which the Reformation occurred.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21491
From: KEVXU@cunyvm.bitnet
Subject: Re: Christianity and repeated lives

While this is essentially a discussion of reincarnation in the context of
Christianity Gerry Palo has made some comparisons to Asian religious
beliefs on this topic which have simplified the Asian idea of karma
to the point of misrepresentation.

There are significant differences in the idea of karma among Hindus,
Jains, Buddhists (and even among the various Buddhist traditions.)

To refer to karma as a system of reward for past deeds is totally
incorrect in the Buddhist and Jain traditions.  Karma is considered to
be a moral process in which intentions (either good or evil) shape
a person's predilections for future intention and action and
produce a person who is more prone to good than evil, or the opposite --
"reward" has nothing to do with it.  Both Jainism and Buddhism are atheistic
so there is no deity to dispense rewards or punishments.  Karma is usually
described in terms of seeds and reaping the fruit thereof.  In fact "As you
sow, so shall you reap" is found in the Pali Canon as I recall, the metaphor
of natural growth is explicit.

Hinduism, or some sects in that tradition, are I believe much more
deterministic and involve concepts closer to reward and punishment being
theistically inclined.

In point of fact, the Theravadin Buddhist tradition of Southeast Asia
considers karma as only one of five influences in human life, and in
fact from their point of view they would be unable to explain the mechanics
of karma without the element of free will.

Also in Eastern religions there is a difference between reincarnation and
rebirth, which is essentially absent in Western considerations.

Isn't Origen usually cited as the most prestigious proponent of reincarnation
among Christian thinkers?  What were his views, and how did he relate them
to the Christian scriptures?

Jack Carroll

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21492
From: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell)
Subject: Re: Satan and TV

In article <May.9.05.41.06.1993.27543@athos.rutgers.edu>  
salaris@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrabbits) writes:
> MTV controls what bands are popular, no matter how bad they are.  In fact, it is  
>better to be politically correct - like U2, Madonna - than to have any musical  
>talent. 
> Steven C. Salaris                
 
Interesting idea.  
Regular televeision seems to do this sort of thing too with politically correct  
shows.


In Christ's Love
Bryan 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21493
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Portland earthquake

In article <May.7.01.09.33.1993.14542@athos.rutgers.edu> cctr114@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Rea) writes:
>in history seems to imply some pretty serious sin. The one of the 
>pastors in the church I attend, Christchurch City Elim, considers 
>that a prophesy of a natural disaster as a "judgement from the Lord" 
>is a clear sign that the "prophesy" is not from the Lord. 

I would like to see his reasoning behind this.  You may have gotten 
"burned" by natural disaster prophecies down there, but that
does not mean that every natural disaster/judgement prophecy is
false.  Take a quick look at the book of Jeremiah and it is obvious
that judgement prophecies can be valid.  here in the US, it seems like
we might have more of a problem with positive prophecies, though I
am sure there may be a few people who are too into judgement.

Sometimes God does give words that are difficult to swallow.  The
relative positiveness of a prophecy is not necesarily grounds to
dismiss it.  Much of the OT is not happy stuff.

Link Hudson.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21494
From: Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu (Fil Sapienza)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

In article <May.7.01.09.59.1993.14571@athos.rutgers.edu> Bill Mayne,
mayne@pipe.cs.fsu.edu writes:
In article <May.7.01.09.59.1993.14571@athos.rutgers.edu> Bill Mayne,
mayne@pipe.cs.fsu.edu writes:
>In article <May.5.02.50.42.1993.28665@athos.rutgers.edu> 
>Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu (Fil Sapienza) writes:
>>I am interested in finding out why people become
>>atheists after having believed in some god/God.
>>In conversing with them on other groups, I've
>>often sensed anger or hostility.   Though I don't
>>mean to imply that all atheists are angry or hostile,
>>it does seem to be one motivation for giving up
>>faith.  Thus, some atheism might result from 
>>broken-ness.
>
>This is condescending at best and a slightly disquised ad hominem
>attack. This attitude on the part of many theists, especially the
>vocal ones, is one reason for the hostility you sense. How do you
>like it when atheists say that people turn to religion out of
>immature emotionalism?

I wouldn't and don't.  I thought I did a pretty good job of
qualifying my statement, but apparently some people
misinterpreted my intentions.  I apologize for my part in
communicating any confusion.  My intent was more to
stir up discussion rather than judge.   It seems to
have worked.

[rest of post noted - by the way, I did not originally post this to
alt.atheism.  If it got there, I don't know how it did.]

--
Filipp Sapienza
Department of Technology Services
University of Michigan Hospitals - Surgery
Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21495
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: SATANIC TOUNGES

In article <May.9.05.40.36.1993.27495@athos.rutgers.edu> koberg@spot.Colorado.EDU (Allen Koberg) writes:
>There seem to be many points to the speaking in tongues thing which
>are problematic.  It's use as prayer language seems especially troubling
>to me.  I understand that when you pray in tongues, the spirit is doing
>the talking.  And when you pray, you pray to God.  And the Spirit is
>God.  So, the Spirit is talking to Himself.  Which is why I only go
>by the Pentecost use where it's an actual language.

What is wrong with "the Spirit talking to Himself."  Jesus intercedes
for us, and Romans 8:26-27 tell of how the Spirit intercedes for
us before God.  That is no theological problem.  Tounges as a prayer
language finds support in I Corinthians 14:14-18.


>Moreover, the phrase "though I speak with the tongues of men and angels"
>used by Paul in I Cor. is misleading out of context.   Some would then
>assume that there is some angelic tongue, and if when they speak, it
>is no KNOWN language, then it is an angelic tongue.

Its true that this could be (and has been) used as a rug to sweep
any difficulties under.  But it is a valid point.  Paul does mention
angelic tounges in the verse. 


>Hmmm...in the old testament story about the tower of Babel, we see how
>God PUNISHED by giving us different language.  Can we assume then that
>if angels have their own language at all, that they have the SAME one
>amongst other angels?  After all, THEY were not punished in any manner.

If the languages we sepak are the result of Babel, then it stands to
reason that angels would speak a different language from us.  You do 
have a valid point about multiple angelic languages.  But angelic
beings maybe of different species so to speak.  maybe different species
communicate differently.  

>Trouble is, while such stories abound, any and all attempts at
>verification (and we are to test the spirit...) either show that
>the witness had no real idea of the circumstances, or that outright
>fabrication was involved.  The Brother Puka story in a previous post
>seems like a "friend of a friend" thing.  And linguistically, a two
>syllable word hardly qualifies as language, inflection or no.

I have heard an eyewitness account, myself.  Such things are hard to prove.
They don't lend themselves to a laboratory thing very well.  I don';t
know if it is a very holy thing to take gifts into a laboratory anyway.

>Much as many faith healers have trouble proving their "victories" (since
>most ailments "cured" are just plain unprovable) and modern day
>ressurrections have never been validated, so is it true that no
>modern day xenoglossolalia has been proved by clergy OR lay.

That's an unprovable statement.  How can you prove if somethings been proved?
There is no way to know that you've seen all the evidence.  Once I 
saw an orthodontists records complete with photographs showing how one of
his patients severe underbite was cured by constant prayer.  

John G. Lakes once prayed for someone and saw them healed in a laboratory,
according to "Adventures in God."  Its an interesting book.

Link

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21496
From: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu
Subject: FAQ essay on homosexuality

Someone referred to my FAQ essay on homosexuality.  Since it hasn't
been posted for some time (and I've modified it somewhat since the
last time), I'm taking this opportunity to post it.  There is another
entry in the FAQ containing comments by some other contributors.  They
can be retrieved from ftp.rutgers.edu as
pub/soc.religion.christian/others/homosexuality.  It contains far
more detail on the exegetical issues than I give here, though
primarily from a conservative point of view.

----------------------------

This posting summarizes several issues involving homosexuality and
Christians.  This is a frequently asked question, so I do not post the
question each time it occurs.  Rather this is an attempt to summarize
the postings we get when we have a discussion.  It summarizes
arguments for allowing Christian homosexuality, since most people
asking the question already know the arguments against it.  The most
common -- but not the only -- question dealt with herein is "how can a
Christian justify being a homosexual, given what the Bible says about
it?"

First, on the definition of 'homosexual'.  Many groups believe that
there is a homosexual "orientation", i.e. a sexual attraction to
members of the same sex.  This is distinguished from actual homosexual
sexual activity.  Homosexuals who abstain from sex are considered by
most groups to be acceptable.  However in a lot of discussion, the
term 'homosexual' means someone actually engaging in homosexual sex.
This is generally not accepted outside the most 'liberal' groups.  In
this paper I'm going to use 'homosexual' as meaning a person engaging
in sexual acts with another of the same sex.  I haven't heard of any
Biblical argument against a person with homosexual orientation who
remains celebate.

I think most people now admit that there is a predisposition to be
homosexual.  This is often called a 'homosexual orientation'.  It is
not known whether it is genetic or environmental.  There is evidence
suggesting each.  The best evidence I've seen is that homosexuality is
not a single phenomenon, but has a number of different causes.  One of
them is probably genetic.  There are several groups that try to help
people move from being homosexual to heterosexual.  The best-known is
Exodus International".  The reports I've seen (and I haven't read the
detailed literature, just the summary in the minority opinion to the
Presbyterian Church's infamous report on human sexuality) suggest that
these programs have very low success rates, and that there are
questions about how real even the successes are.  But there certainly
are people who say they have converted.  However this issue is not as
important as it sounds.  Those who believe homosexuality is wrong
believe it is intrinsically wrong, defined as such by God.  The fact
that it's hard to get out of being a homosexual is no more relevant
than the fact that it's hard to escape from being a drug addict.  If
it's wrong, it's wrong.  It may affect how we deal with people though.
If it's very difficult to change, this may tend to make us more
willing to forgive it.

One more general background issue: It's common to quote a figure that
10% of the population is homosexual.  I asked one of our experts where
this came from.  Here's his response: Kinsey (see below) is the source
of the figure 10 percent.  He defines sexuality by behavior, not by
orientation, and ranked all persons on a scale from Zero (completely
heterosexual) to 6 (completely heterosexual).  According to Kinsey,
one-third of all male adults have had at least one experience of
orgasm homosexually post puberty.  Ten percent of all adult males have
most of their experiences of homosexually.  That was in 1948.  The
percentages held true in a followup study done by the Kinsey
Institute, based on data in the early seventies but not published
until the early 80s or so, by Bell and Weinberg, I believe.  I can't
put my hand on this latter reference, but here is the online
information for Kinsey's own study as it appears in IRIS, the catalog
at Rutgers:
   AUTHOR Kinsey, Alfred Charles, 1894-1956.
    TITLE Sexual behavior in the human male [by] Alfred C. Kinsey. Wardell B.
          Pomeroy [and] Clyde E. Martin.
PUBLISHER Philadelphia, W. B. Saunders Co., 1948.
  DESCRIP xv, 804 p. diagrs. 24 cm.
    NOTES "Based on surveys made by members of the staff of Indiana
	  University, and supported by the National Research Council's 
	  Committee for Research on Problems of Sex by means of funds 
	  contributed by the Medical Division of the Rockefeller Foundation."
	  * Bibliography: p. 766-787.
OTHER AUT Pomeroy, Wardell Baxter, joint author. * Martin, Clyde Eugene,
	  joint author.
 SUBJECTS Sex. * U. S. -- Moral Conditions.
  LC CARD    48005195
This figure is widely used in all scholarly discussions and has even
been found to hold true in several other cultures, as noted in the
recent NEWSWEEK coverstory "Is this child gay?" (Feb. 24, 1992).  A
journalist is running the rounds of talk shows this season promoting
her book that allegedly refutes Kinsey's study, but the scholarly
world seems to take her for a kook......

I've seen some objections to the Kinsey's study, but not in enough
detail to include here.  (If someone would like to contribute another
view, I'd be willing to include it.)

Most Christians believe homosexuality (at least genital sex) is wrong.
Not all, however.  A few denominations accept it.  The Metropolitan
Community Churches is the best-known -- it was formed specifically to
accept homosexuals.  However the United Church of Christ also allows
it, and I think a couple of other groups may as well.  The Episcopal
Church seems to accept it some areas but not others.  In churches that
have congregational government, you'll find a few congregations that
accept it (even among Southern Baptists, though the number is probably
only one or two congregations).  But these are unusual -- few churches
permit homosexual church leaders.  How carefully they enforce this is
another issue.  I don't have any doubt that there are homosexual
pastors of just about every denomination, some more open than others.

As to the arguments over the Biblical and other issues, here's an
attempt to summarize the issues:

The most commonly cited reference by those favoring acceptance of
homosexuality in previous discussions has been John Boswell:
"Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality", U Chicago Press,
1980.

The argument against is pretty clear.  There are several explicit laws
in the OT, e.g. Leviticus 20:13, and in Rom 1 Paul seems pretty negative on
homosexuality.  Beyond these references, there are some debates.  Some
passages often cited on the subject probably are not relevant.  E.g.
the sin which the inhabitants of Sodom proposed to carry out was
homosexual *rape*, not homosexual activity between consenting adults.
(There's even some question whether it was homosexual, since the
entities involved were angels.)  It was particularly horrifying
because it involved guests, and the responsibility towards guests in
that culture was very strong.  (This is probably the reason Lot
offered his daughter -- it was better to give up his daughter than to
allow his guests to be attacked.)  If you look through a concordance
for references to Sodom elsewhere in the Bible, you'll see that few
seem to imply that homosexuality was their sin.  There's a Jewish
interpretive tradition that the major sin was abuse of guests.  At any
rate, there's no debate that homosexual *rape* is wrong.

I do not discuss Leviticus because the law there is part of a set
of laws that most Christians do not consider binding.  So unless NT
justification can be found, Lev. alone would not settle the issue.

The NT references are all in Paul's letters.  A number of the
references from Paul are lists of sins in which the words are fairly
vague.  Boswell argues that the words occuring in these lists do not
mean homosexual.  Here's what he says: The two Greek words that appear
in the lists (i.e. I Cor 6:9 and I Tim 1:10) are /malakos/ and
/arsenokoitai/.  Unfortunately it is not entirely clear what the words
actually mean.  /malakos/, with a basic meaning of soft, has a variety
of metaphorical meanings in ethical writing.  Boswell suggests
"wanton" as a likely equivalent.  He also reports that the unanimous
interpretation of the Church, including Greek-speaking Christians, was
that in this passage it referred to masturbation, a meaning that has
vanished only in the 20th Cent., as that practice has come to be less
frowned-upon.  (He cites references as late as the 1967 edition of the
Catholic Encyclopedia that identify it as masturbation.)  He
translates /arsenokotai/ as male prostitute, giving evidence that none
of the church fathers understood the term as referring to
homosexuality in general.  A more technical meaning, suggested by the
early Latin translations, would be "active mode homosexual male
prostitute", but in his view Paul did not intend it so technically.

For a more conservative view, I consulted Gordon Fee's commentary on I
Cor.  He cites evidence that /malakos/ often meant effeminate.
However Boswell warns us that in Greek culture effeminate is not
necessarily synonymous with homosexual, though it may be associated
with some kinds of homosexual behavior.  Given what Boswell and Fee
say taken together, I suspect that the term is simply not very
definite, and that while it applies to homosexuals in some cases, it
isn't a general term for homosexuality.  While Fee argues against
Boswell with /arsenokotai/ as well, he ends up suggesting a
translation that seems essentially the same.  The big problem with it
is that the word is almost never used.  Paul's writing is the first
occurence.  The fact that the word is clearly composed of "male" and
"f**k" unfortunately doesn't quite tell us the meaning, since it
doesn't tell us whether the male is the subject or object of the
action.  Examples of compound words formed either way can be given.
In theory it could refer to rapists, etc.  It's dangerous to base
meaning purely on etymology, or you'll conclude that "goodbye" is a
religious expression because it's based on "God by with ye".  However
since Boswell, Fee, and NIV seem to agree on "homosexual male
prostitute", that seems as good a guess as any.  Note that this
translation misses the strong vulgarity of the term however (something
which Fee and Boswell agree on, but do not attempt to reproduce in
their translation).

In my opinion, the strongest NT reference to homosexuality is Romans
1.  Boswell points out that Rom 1 speaks of homosexuality as something
that happened to people who were naturally heterosexual, as a result
of their corruption due to worshipping false gods.  One could argue
that this is simply an example: that if a homosexual worshipped false
gods, he would also fall into degradation and perhaps become
heterosexual.  However I find this argument somewhat forced, and in
fact our homosexual readers have not seriously proposed that this is
what Paul meant.

However I am not convinced that Rom 1 is sufficient to create a law
against homosexuality for Christians.  What Paul is describing in Rom
1 is not homosexuality among Christians -- it's homosexuality that
appeared among idolaters as one part of a whole package of wickedness.
Despite the impression left by his impassioned rhetoric, I'm sure Paul
does not believe that pagans completely abandoned heterosexual sex.
Given his description of their situation, I rather assume that their
heterosexual sex would also be debased and shameless.  So yes, I do
believe that this passage indicates a negative view of homosexuality.
But in all fairness, the "shameless" nature of their acts is a
reflection of the general spiritual state of the people, and not a
specific feature of homosexuality.

My overall view of the situation is the following: I think we have
enough evidence to be confident that Paul disapproved of
homosexuality.  Rom 1 seems clear.  While I Cor 6:9 and I Tim 1:10 are
not unambiguous and general condemnations of homosexuality, they do
not seem like wording that would come from someone who approved of
homosexuality or even considered it acceptable in some cases.  On the
other hand, none of these passages contains explicit teachings on the
subject.  Rom 1 is really about idolatry.  It refers to homosexuality
in passing.

The result of this situation is that people interpret these passages
in light of their general approach to Scripture.  For those who look
to Scripture for laws about issues such as this, it not surprising
that they would consider these passages to be NT endorsement of the OT
prohibition.  For those whose approach to the Bible is more liberal,
it is not surprising that they regard Paul's negative view of
homosexuality as something that he took from his Jewish upbringing
without any serious reexamination in the light of the Gospel.  As
readers of this group know by now, the assumptions behind these
approaches are so radically different that people tend to foam at the
mouth when they see the opposing view described.  There's not a lot I
can do as moderator about such a situation.

A number of discussions in the past centered around the sort of
detailed exegesis of texts that is described above.  However in fact
I'm not convinced that defenders of homosexuality actually base their
own beliefs on such analyses.  The real issue seems to rest on the
question of whether Paul's judgement should apply to modern
homosexuality.

One commonly made claim is that Paul had simply never faced the kinds
of questions we are trying to deal with.  He encountered homosexuality
only in contexts where most people would probably agree that it was
wrong.  He had never faced the experience of Christians who try to act
"straight" and fail, and he had never faced Christians who are trying
to define a Christian homosexuality, which fits with general Christian
ideals of fidelity and of seeing sexuality as a mirror of the
relationship between God and man.  It is unfair to take Paul's
judgement on homosexuality among idolaters and use it to make
judgements on these questions.

Another is the following: In Paul's time homosexuality was associated
with a number of things that Christians would not find acceptable.  It
was part of temple prostitution.  Among private citizens, it often
occured between adults and children or free people and slaves.  I'm
not in a position to say that it always did, but there are some
reasons to think so.  The ancients distinguished between the active
and passive partner.  It was considered disgraceful for a free adult
to act as the passive partner.  (This is the reason that an active
mode homosexual prostitute would be considered disgraceful.  His
customers would all be people who enjoyed the passive role.)  This
supports the idea that it would tend not to be engaged in between two
free adult males, at least not without some degree of scandal.
Clearly Christian homosexuals would not condone sex with children,
slaves, or others who are not in a position to be fully responsible
partners.  (However Fee's commentary on I Cor cites some examples from
ancient literature of homosexual relationships that do seem to involve
free adults in a reasonably symmetrical way.  Thus the considerations
in this paragraph shouldn't be pushed too far.  Homosexuality may have
been discredited for Jews by some of these associations, but there
surely must be been cases that were not prostitutes and did not
involve slaves or children.)

Some people have argued that AIDS is a judgement against
homosexuality.  I'd like to point out that AIDS is transmitted by
promiscuous sex, both homosexual and heterosexual.  Someone who has a
homosexual relationship that meets Christian criteria for marriage is
not at risk for AIDS.

Note that there is good reason from Paul's general approach to doubt
that he would concede homosexuality as a fully equal alternative,
apart from any specific statements on homosexuality.  I believe his
use of the Genesis story would lead him to regard heterosexual
marriage as what God ordained.

However the way Paul deals with pastoral questions provides a warning
against being too quick to deal with this issue legally.

I claim that the question of how to counsel homosexual Christians is
not entirely a theological issue, but also a pastoral one.  Paul's
tendency, as we can see in issues such as eating meat and celebrating
holidays, is to be uncompromising on principle but in pastoral issues
to look very carefully at the good of the people involved, and to
avoid insisting on perfection when it would be personally damaging.
For example, while Paul clearly believed that it was acceptable to eat
meat, he wanted us to avoid pushing people into doing an action about
which they had personal qualms.  For another example, Paul obviously
would have preferred to see people (at least in some circumstances)
remain unmarried.  Yet if they were unable to do so, he certainly
would rather see them married than in a state where they might be
tempted to fornication.

I believe one could take a view like this even while accepting the
views Paul expressed in Rom 1.  One may believe that homosexuality is
not what God intended, that it occured as a result of sin, but still
conclude that at times we have to live with it.  Note that in the
creation story work enters human life as a result of sin.  This
doesn't mean that Christians can stop working when we are saved.  The
question is whether you believe that homosexuality is in itself sinful
or whether you believe that it's a misfortune that is in a broad sense
due to human sinfulness.  If you're willing to consider the latter
approach, then it becomes a pastoral judgement whether there is more
damage caused by finding a way to live with it or trying to cure it.
The dangers of trying to cure it are that the attempt most often
fails, and when it does, you end up with damage ranging from
psychological damage to suicide, as well as broken marriages when
attempts at living as a heterosexual fail.

This is going to depend upon one's assessment of the inherent nature
of homosexuality.  If you believe it is a very serious wrong, then you
may be willing to run high risks of serious damage to get rid of it.
Clearly we do not generally suggest that people live with a tendency
to steal or with drug addiction, even though attempts to cure these
conditions are also very difficult.  However these conditions are
intrinsically damaging in a way that is not so obvious for
homosexuality.  (Many problems associated with homosexuality are
actually problems of promiscuity, not homosexuality.  This includes
AIDS.  I take for granted that the only sort of homosexual
relationships a Christian would consider allowing would be equivalent
to Christian heterosexual relationships.)

In the course of discussing this over the last decade or so, we've
heard a lot of personal testimony from fellow Christians who are in
this situation.  I've also seen summaries of various research and the
results of various efforts for "conversion".  (Aside from the
Presbyterian report mentioned above, there's an FAQ that summarizes
our readers' reports on this question.)  The evidence is that
long-term success in changing orientation is rare enough to be on a
par with healing miracles.  The danger in advising Christians to
depend upon such a change is clear: When "conversion" doesn't happen,
which is almost always, the people are often left in despair, feeling
excluded from a Church that has nothing more to say but a requirement
of life-long celibacy.  Paul recognized (though in a different
context) that such a demand is not practical for most people, and I
think the history of clerical celibacy has strongly reinforced that
judgement.  The practical result is that homosexuals end up in the gay
sex clubs and the rest of the sordid side of homosexuality.  Maybe
homosexuality isn't God's original ideal, but I can well imagine Paul
preferring to see people in long-term, committed Christian
relationships than promiscuity.  As with work -- which Genesis
suggests wasn't part of God's original ideal either -- I think such
relationships can still be a vehicle for people sharing God's love
with each other.

There's an issue of Biblical interpretation underlying this
discussion.  The issue is that of "cultural relativism".  That is,
when Paul says that something is wrong, should this be taken as an
eternal statement, or are things wrong because of specific situations
in the culture of the time?  Conservative Christians generally insist
on taking prohibitions as absolute, since otherwise the Bible becomes
subjective -- what is to stop us from considering everything in it as
relative?

When looking at this issue, it's worth noting that no one completely
rejects the concept of cultural relativism.  There are a number of
judgements in the New Testament that even conservative Christians
consider to be relative.  The following judgements are at least as
clear in the Bible as anything said on homosexuality:

  - prohibition against charging interest (this occurs 18 times in
	the OT -- it's not in the NT, but I mention it here because
	until relatively recently the Church did consider it binding
	on Christians)
  - prohibition against swearing oaths
  - endorsement of slavery as an institution
  - judgement of tax collectors as sinner

We do not regard these items as binding.  In most cases, I believe the
argument is essentially one of cultural relativism.  Briefly:

  - prohibition of interest is appropriate to a specific
	agrarian society that the Bible was trying to build,
	but not to our market economy.
  - few people believe that American judicial oaths have the
	same characteristics as the kind of oaths Jesus was
	concerned about
  - most people believe that Paul was simply telling people
	how to live within slavery, but not endorsing it as
	an institution
  - for people believe that the IRS is morally equivalent to
	Roman tax farming

The point I'm trying to make is that before applying Biblical
prohibitions to the 20th Cent., we need to look at whether the 20th
Cent. actions are the same.  When Christian homosexuals say that their
relationships are different than the Greek homosexuality that Paul
would have been familiar with, this is exactly the same kind of
argument that is being made about judicial oaths and tax collectors.
Until fairly recently Christians prohibited taking of interest, and
many Christians regarded slavery as divinely endorsed.  (Indeed,
slavery is one of the more common metaphors for the relationship
between God and human beings -- Christians are often called servants
or slaves of God.)

I am not trying to say that everything in the Bible is culturally
relative.  Rather, I'm trying to say that *some* things are, and
therefore it is not enough to say that because something appears in
the Bible, that ends the discussion.  We need to look at whether the
action we're talking about now has the same moral implications as the
one that the Bible was talking about.  If Christians want to argue
that there are reasons to think that the prohibitions against
homosexuality are still binding, I'm willing to listen.  Those who
claim that the question doesn't need to be looked at are kidding
themselves (unless they are part of the small minority who really obey
all the rules listed above).

One thing that worries me is the great emotions that this issue
creates.  When you consider the weakness of the Biblical evidence --
some laws in Leviticus, a passage in Rom whose subject matter is
really idolatry rather than homosexuality, and a couple of lists whose
words are ambiguous -- the amount of concern this is raising among
Christians seems rather out of proportion.  This should suggest to
people that there are reasons other than simply Biblical involved.
This is true on both sides -- clearly homosexual Christians are as
strongly motivated to find ways of discrediting the Biblical arguments
as conservative Christians are to find Biblical arguments.  But I
can't help feeling that the Bible is being used by both sides as a way
of justifying attitudes which come from other sources.  This is a
dangerous situation for Christians.

On the other side of the issue, I would like to note some problems I
have with the pro-homosexual position as it is commonly presented.
One of the most common arguments is that homosexuality is biologically
determined.  I.e. "God made me homosexual", and I have no choice.  I
think "God made me homosexual" is a fine view for people who already
believe on other grounds that homosexuality is acceptable.  But I
don't see it as an argument for acceptability.

Many people think that alcholism is largely biological, and drug
addiction may turn out to be as well.  That doesn't mean it's OK.
Most of us have particular things we tend to do wrong.  Some people
get angry easily.  Others tend to be arrogant.  Others tend to be
attraced to women who are married to someone else.  Homosexuality (if
we view it as wrong) wouldn't be different than any of these other
things.  If we are going to follow God, we all end up at one time or
another having to work to overcome bad habits and particular
temptations that cause us problems.  None of us can sit back and say
that because God made us the way we are we can just relax.  As Jesus
said, we all have to take up our cross daily.  This concept of dying
to self (which also appears throughout Paul's letters) seems to
suggest that there are going to be things about ourselves that we we
are called on not to accept.  Paul's letters and the experience of
Christians throughout history show us that sin is ingrained in us, and
the battle against it is lifelong and difficult.  The fact that
homosexuality is difficult to fight doesn't necessarily say it's OK.
Maybe this isn't the place where we have to die to self.  But I'd like
to make sure that those who think it isn't are fighting the battle
somewhere else, and not rejecting the concept that all Christians have
to fight against the deeply engrained habits of sin.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21497
From: aaronc@athena.mit.edu (Aaron Bryce Cardenas)
Subject: Baptism requires Faith

It troubles me that there have been so many posts recently trying to support
the doctrine of Original Sin.  This is primarily a Catholic doctrine, with no
other purpose than to defend the idea of infant baptism.  Even among, its
supporters, however, people will stop short of saying that unbaptised infants
will go to hell.

It's very easy for just about anyone to come up with a partial list of
scripture to support any sort of wrong doctrine.  However, if we have the
heart to persevere in our beliefs to make sure that they are biblically
based, then we can come to an understanding of the truth.  Let's now take a
more complete look at scripture.

Colossians 2:11-12 "In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of
the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by Christ, having been
buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the
power of God, who raised him from the dead."

In baptism, we are raised to a new life in Christ (Romans 6:4) through a
personal faith in the power of God.  Our parent's faith cannot do this.  Do
infants have faith?  Let's look at what the Bible has to say about it.

Romans 10:16-17 "But not all the Israelites accepted the good news.  For
Isaiah says, 'Lord, who has believed our message?'  Consequently, faith
comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word
of Christ."

So then we receive God's gift of faith to us as we hear the message of the
gospel.  Faith is a possible response to hearing God's word preached.  Kids
are not yet spiritually, intellectually, or emotionally mature enough to
respond to God's word.  Hence they cannot have faith and therefore cannot
be raised in baptism to a new life.

Ezekiel 18:20 "The soul who sins will die.  The son will not share the
guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.  The
righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the
wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him."

If you read all of Ezekiel 18, you will see that God doesn't hold us guilty
for anyone else's sins.  So we can have no original guilt from Adam.

Ezekiel 18:31-32 "Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committted,
and get a new heart and a new spirit.  Why will you die, O house of Israel?
For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord.
Repent and live!"

The way to please God is to repent and get a new heart and spirit.  Kids
cannot do this.  Acts 2:38-39 says that when we repent and are baptized, we
will then receive a new spirit, the Holy Spirit.  Then we shall live.

Now then that we have a little more background as to why original sin is
not Biblical, let's look at some of the scriptures used to support it.

Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and
death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all
sinned--"

Sin and death entered the world when the first man sinned.  Death came to
each man because each man sinned.  Note that it's good to read through all
of Romans 5:12-21.  Some of the verses are easier to misunderstand than
others, but if we read them in context we will see that they are all
saying basically the same thing.  Let's look at one such.

Romans 5:19 "For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many
were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many
will be made righteous."

Through the disobedience of each individual, each was made a sinner.  In
the same way, through the obedience of Jesus, each will be made righteous.
We must remember when reading through this passage that death came to each
man only because each man sinned, not because of guilt from Adam.
Otherwise the Bible would contradict itself.  I encourage you to read
through this whole passage on your own, looking at it from this point of
view to see if it doesn't all fit together.

Psalm 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother
conceived me."

This whole Psalm is a wonderful example of how we should humble ourselves
before God in repentance for sinning.  David himself was a man after God's
own heart and wrote the Psalm after committing adultry with Bathsheba and
murdering her husband.  All that David is saying here is that he can't
remember a time when he wasn't sinful.  He is humbling himself before God
by confessing his sinfulness.  His saying that he was sinful at birth is
a hyperbole.  The Bible, being inspired by God, isn't limited to a literal
interpetation, but also uses figures of speech as did Jesus (John 16:25).
For another example of hyperbole, see Luke 14:26.

Now then, even though people see that baptism requires faith and that
original sin is not Biblical, they will still argue that infant baptism is
necessary because children sin by being selfish - not sharing toys with
other children, by being mean - hitting others and fighting, etc.

Certainly we have observed children doing wrong things, but my gut feeling
is always that they don't know any better.  Let's look to see if the Bible
agrees with my gut feelings.

Isaiah 7:14-15 "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign:  The
virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him
Immanuel.  He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the
wrong and choose the right."

Now just about any church leader will tell you that this is a prophecy
about Jesus.  If they don't, then point them to Matthew 1:23 and find a new
leader.  Jesus certainly couldn't have had less knowledge than normal human
babies.  Yet this passage says that he had to mature to a certain extent
before he would know the difference between right and wrong.  We see that
he did grow and become wiser in Luke 2:40 and 2:52.  The implication is
that Jesus did wrong things as a child before he knew to choose right over
wrong.  Since we know that Jesus was perfect -- without sin, we have rather
conclusive proof that babies cannot sin because they don't know to choose
the right instead of the wrong.

Jesus himself was baptized, albeit with John's baptism, not as an infant,
but as a thirty-year-old man (Luke 3:21-23) and started his ministry as
soon as he was baptized (Luke 3:23).  Immediately afterwards, he was
tempted by the devil (Luke 4:1-13; Matthew 4:1-11; Mark 1:12-13).

Thank you for your attention.

Moderator - this should finish up the subject for a while.  Perhaps you
would like to make a FAQ out of this response so that you can repost it
from time to time when the topic comes up.  Feel free to rearrange the
contents if you would like to, but please send me a copy of the final FAQ.

Sincerely,

Aaron Cardenas
aaronc@athena.mit.edu

[I think you're overly optimistic about the authoritative quality of
your response.  First, original sin is not a Catholic-only doctrine.
It was held by Luther and Calvin as well, and is still present in one
form or another in the Lutheran and Reformed traditions.  Second,
saying that it has no other purpose than defending infant baptism is
an ad hominem argument, which has considerable evidence against it.
The original Baptist theology included original sin, and some Baptists
still hold it.  And there are certainly groups that baptize infants
without believing in original sin.  Among Protestants, the sacraments
tend to be a bit more symbolic than among Catholics.  Protestants who
baptize infants see baptism as a sign of God's acceptance of us,
rather than our acceptance of God.  In traditional Protestant
theology, God's grace precedes our response, and is applicable to
children.  There are a number of passages one can cite to indicate
that God accepts even children.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21498
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell

|> Imagine the worst depth of despair you've
|> ever encountered, or the worst physical pain you've ever experienced.
|> Some people suffer such emotional, physical, and mental anguish
|> in their lives that their deaths seem to be merciful. But at least
|> the pain does end in death. What if you lived a hundred such lives,
|> at the conclusion of one you were instantly reborn into another?
|> What if you lived a million, a billion years in this state?
|> What if this kept going forever?


>Did this happen to Jesus? I don't think so, not from what I heard. He lived
>ONE DAY of suffering and died. If the wages of sin is the above paragraph, then
>JESUS DIDN'T PAY FOR OUR SINS, DID HE?

This is something I've always found a little curious. I've never quite understood
the trinity thing. On the one hand, Jesus is supposed to be God incarnate. But,
at the same time, he is God's son "For God so loved the world that he gave his
only begotten son". First question is, if Jesus was God in human form, how could
he really be God's son? If the Holy Ghost "planted the seed" in Mary, so to speak,
then it seems that Jesus' relationship to God would be the equivalent to the
human father/son relationship. While a son might inherit alot of the father's 
qualities, he is not the father. They are still two separite entities. To try
and say that a son is the same person as the father is obviously wrong. In that
case, Jesus and God aren't the same. On the other hand, if their relationship
isn't the same as the human father/son relationship, but Jesus is actually God
incarnate, then he's not really God's son and he never was. He's just God
manifesting himself as Jesus. At least, this is how I'm seeing it. Can someone
who is more knowledgeable about the trinity enlighten us? 

Getting back to the original question, what is the great price that Jesus paid
to redeem our sins? Was it dying on the cross? Since Jesus knew that he would
rise again in 3 days and then ascend back to heaven, I have a hard time seeing
how this is considered paying such a great price for humanity. His earthly body
may have been killed, but then, so what? He suffered a few hours of physical
pain, but then, there has been many a human who has suffered a great deal more.
The fact that Jesus was God's only begotten son doesn't seem to me to have much
meaning since God can beget as many sons as he wants to. Jesus being the only
one was simply a matter of choice. I suspect that these questions will be very
offensive to many Christians on this net. To those people, please accept my
sincere apologies. It is not my intention to offend or to trivialize Christ.
But, I do believe these are legitimate questions and I am genuinely curious.
 
[Note that the Trinity and Incarnation have to be looked at together.
First, your reading of the Virgin Birth is an uncommon one.  (In this
group, it's dangerous to say that no one believes something.)  You
seem to be suggesting the Jesus is God's son in a physical sense,
with the Holy Spirit as Father and Mary as Mother.  I consider that
terrible heresy, though some people react less violently.  The Virgin
Birth says that Jesus' birth is God's responsibility.  But it doesn't
imply that God's sperm was involved.  Indeed one (though by no means
the only) speculation is that God used Joseph's genetic material.

Second, Jesus is in some sense doubly indirect from the Father.  In a
Trinitarian context, the term Son refers to the eternal Logos, who is
a part of God.  The Son didn't come into existence with Jesus' birth.
Jesus is the incarnation of the Son.  So his sonness isn't
specifically a result of being incarnated.  Rather, it's the Son
who was incarnated.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21499
From: u9245669@athmail1.causeway.qub.ac.uk
Subject: Christianity and repeated lives

>There is a paragraph in the New Testament which in my opinion, clearly makes
>a positive inference to reincarnation. I don't remember which one it is off of
>the top of my head, but it basically goes like this: Jesus is talking with the
>apostles and they ask him why the pharisees say that before the messiah can 
>come Elijah must first come. Jesus replies that Elijah has come, but they did 
>not recognize him. It then says that the apostles perceived that he was refering 
>to John the Baptist. This seems to me to clearly imply reincarnation.

This was a popular belief in the Judaism of Jesus` time, that Elijah
would return again (as he had been taken in to heaven in a chariot and
did not actually die).  However Jesus was referring to John the
Baptist not in the sense that Elijah was reincarnated as John
(remember Elijah didn`t die) but that John was a similar prophet to
Elijah.  John was a fiery preacher, he wore sackcloth and wandered
rough through Israel preaching the coming kingdom.  The verses that
describe him (in Mark`s gospel) can be linked to OT references about
Elijah.  Hence John was similar to Elijah and Jesus was drawing the
parallels between the two just as he drew parallels with the Suffering
Servant in Isaiah (and other messianic figures) and himself.

A brief reply but I don`t have time to look up all the relevant stuff.

Suffice to say there is a very strong explanation.



Rick.

________________________________________________________________

Richard Johnston                             Queen`s University
73 Malone Road                               Belfast
Belfast                                 
Northern Ireland                          
BT9 6SB                                   

u9245669@athmail1.causeway.qub.ac.uk
________________________________________________________________

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21500
From: nichael@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Subject: Re: Variants in the NT Text (cont.)

From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
>Does anyone now where an English translation of the long recension of
>the Acts of the Apostles can be found?

1] An english translation of this can be found in:
   "The Acts of the Apostles, translated from the Codex Bezae, with an
   introduction on its Lucan Origin and Importance", J. M. Wilson
   (London, 1923).

2] Another work that might be useful is:
   "The Acts of the Apostles, a Critical Edition with Introduction and
   Notes on Selected Passages", Albert C. Clark (Oxford, 1933;
   reprinted 1970).

(This is an edition of text of Acts that makes the assumption that the
text in Codex Bezae is the more authentic.  I don't know if it
actually contains an english translation or not.)

3] Another useful that discusses many of the variants in detail is:
   "The Theological Tendency of the Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in
   Acts", Eldon J Epp (Cambridge, 1966).

4] The most recent reference I found was an edition in French from the
early '80s.  (I can supply the reference if anyone's interested.)

5] Now, many of the works are going to be difficult to find.  So if
you're interested in examining the differences in the long recension
an excellent (and easily obtainable) discussion can be found in:
   "A Textual Commentary on the Greek NT", Bruce Metzger (United Bible
   Society, 1971).

Metzger's book serves as a companion volume to the UBS 3rd edition of
the Greek NT.  It contains a discussion on the reasoning that went
behind the decisions on each of the 1440 variant readings included in
the UBS3.  Furthermore, notes on an addition 600 readings are
included in aTCotGNT (the majority of these occur in Acts).

In particular in the introduction to the section on Acts Metzger writes:
   "[An attempt was made] to set before the reader a more or less full
   report (with an English translation) of the several additions and
   other modifications that are attested by Western witnesses ...
   Since many of these have no corresponding apparatus in the
   text-volume, care was taken to supply an adequate conspectus of the
   evidence that supports the divergent readings." (p 272).

>I understand that one of the early codexes, Vaticanus and Siniaticus has
>this version of Acts.  It would be interesting to know what the
>differences are between the long and the short forms.

6] Most of the copies of the text of Acts that we have (including the
ones in Vaticanus and Siniaticus) adher pretty closely to the shorter
(or Alexandrian) version.  The longer version to which you refer is
usually called the "Western" version and its main witness is the Codex
Bezae (althought there are a few other rather fragmentary sources).

7] As far as size, the difference is that in Clark's edition
(mentioned above) the book of Acts contains 19,983 words whereas the
text edited by Westcott and Hort (a typical Alexandrian text) contains
18,401 words; i.e. a difference of about 8-1/2%.

8] To answer the obvious questions, no, there are no major revelations
in the longer text nor major omissions in the shorter text.  The main
difference seems to "expansion" of detail in the Western text (or, if
you prefer "contractions" in the Alexandrian).  The Western text seems
to be given to more detail.  There are some interesting specific
cases, but this probably not the place to go into it in detail.

9] The discussion over the years as to which of these versions is the
more authentic has been hot and heavy.  If there is anything
approaching a modern consensus it is (i) that neither text represents
purely the "authentic" version, (ii) each variant reading has to be
examined on its own merits however, (iii) the variant in the
Alexandrian text is the "better" more often than not.

N

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21501
From: dozier@utkux1.utk.edu (Anni Dozier)
Subject: SOC.RELIGION.CHRISTIAN

After reading the posts on this newsgroup for the pasts 4 months, it 
has become apparent to me that this group is primarily active with 
Liberals, Catholics, New Agers', and Athiests.  Someone might think 
to change the name to:  soc.religion.any   - or -  perhaps even
soc.religion.new.  It might seem to be more appropriate.
Heck, don't flame me, I'm Catholic, gay, and I voted 
for Bill Clinton.  I'm on your side!                      

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21502
From: simon@giaeb.cc.monash.edu.au
Subject: Virtues of Purity, Modesty and innocence

Heres a nice story to help explain the virtues of purity, innocence
and modesty, and their importance.



    The Most Beautiful Virtues

    This story is an excerpt taken from The  Basket  of  Flowers   by
    Johann Christoph von Schmid


    In a certain little market town, over a hundred years ago,	there
    lived  an  upright	and  intelligent man named Jacob Rede. He was
    married to a most virtuous young woman and they lived happily  in
    a  humble  home which was in the midst of a large, beautiful val-
    ley. After living many, happy years together, Jacob's wife	died,
    leaving  him alone with only one friend...his daughter Mary. Even
    as a child Mary was uncommonly pretty; but as she grew in  years,
    her piety, her innocence, her modesty and her unfeigned kindne ss
    towards all she came in contact with, gave to her beauty  a  rare
    and  peculiar  charm. Her face was lighted up with a look of such
    indescribable goodness, that  it  seemed  almost  as  though  one
    looked upon an angel.

    Mary's greatest delight was the beautiful garden and her  favour-
    ite  flowers  were the violet, the lily and the rose. Jacob loved
    to point to them as emblems of the virtues most becoming  to  her
    gender.  When	she  once, early in March brought the first violet to
    him and joyfully called upon him to admire it, he said:

    Let the modest violet, my dear Mary, be to you an image of humil-
    ity  and  of the benevolence that does good in secret. It clothes
    itself in the tender colours of modesty; it prefers to  bloom  in
    retired  grots; it fills the air with its fragrance while remain-
    ing hidden beneath the leaves.  May you also, my  dear  Mary,  be
    like  the  retiring violet, avoiding vain display, not seeking to
    attract the public	eye,  but  preferring  ever  to  do  good  in
    quietude and peace.

    One morning when the roses and lilies were in full bloom and  the
    garden appeared in its richest array, Jacob said to his daughter,
    as he pointed out a beautiful lily,  which	was  beaming  in  the
    morning sun:

    Let the lily my dear child, be to you the emblem
     of purity. Look how beautiful, how pure and fair it is! The whi-
    test  linen is as nothing compared with the purity of its petals:
    they are like the snow. Happy the maiden whose heart is  as  pure
    and as free from stain. But the purest of all colours is also the
    hardest

				   -5-







    to preserve pure. Easily is the petal of the lily  soiled;	touch
    it	but carelessly or roughly and a stain is left behind.  In the
    same way, a word or a thought may stain the purity of  innocence!
    Then pointing to a rose he said:

     Let the rose my dear Mary, be to you an emblem of modesty.  More
    beautiful  than the colour of the rose is the blush that rises to
    the cheek of a modest girl. It is a sign that she is  still  pure
    of	heart  and  innocent in thought. Happy is the maiden whom the
    suggestion of a thought that is indelicate, will cause to  blush,
    as	she  is thus put on her guard against the approach of danger.
    The cheeks which readily blush will remain for a long  time  with
    their  roseate  hue, while those which fail to blush at the least
    indelicacy of thought will soon  become  pale  and	wan,  and  go
    before their time to the grave."




    Among the many fruit trees that adorned the garden there was  one
    that  was  prized above all the others. It was an apple tree, not
    much larger than a rose bush, and stood by itself in  the  middle
    of	the garden. Mary's father had planted it the day that she was
    born and every year it bore a number of beautiful apples. Once it
    blossomed  earlier	than  usual  and with unusual luxuriance. The
    tree was one mass of blossom. Mary was so delighted with it  that
    she went every morning as soon as she was dressed to look at
     it. Once, when it was in full bloom, she called  to  her  father
    and said:

    Look father, how beautiful! Was there ever such a lovely mingling
    of	red  and  white?  The whole tree looks like one huge bunch of
    flowers!

    The next morning she hastened into the garden to feast  her  eyes
    once  more	upon the tree. But what was her grief to see that the
    frost had nipped it and destroyed all its flowers. They were  all
    become  brown  and	yellow	and  when  the	sun came forth in its
    strength they withered and fell to the ground. Mary  wept  bitter
    tears at the sight. Then said the father:

    Thus, does sinful pleasure destroy the  bloom  of  youth.  Oh  my
    child,  never  cease to remember how dreadful it is to be seduced
    from the path of right! Behold in the example of the  apple  tree
    an	image of what would happen if you were to wander from the way
    - if the hopes your conduct  hitherto  has	raised	in  my	heart
    should  vanish,  not  merely for a day or year, but for life. Ah,
    then how much more bitter would be the tears which I  would  shed
    over your lapse from virtue than those which now course down your
    cheeks! Life would have no joys for me: with tears in my eyes  I
    should

				   -6-







    go down sorrowfully to my grave.

    As he spoke, the tears stood in his eyes; Mary was deeply  moved,
    and  the words he uttered made so profound an impression upon her
    mind that she never forgot them.

    Under the eyes of a father so  loving  and	wise,  and  amid  the
    flowers  of  her  garden, Mary grew daily in stature and intelli-
    gence - blooming as a rose, pure as a  lily  and  retiring	as  a
    violet, and as full of promise as a tree laden with blossom.

    Happy was the old man at all times to behold how plenteously  the
    fruits  of	his  garden  rewarded his diligent toil; but with how
    much more happiness and content did he mark the  gracious  effect
    produced  upon  the heart and mind of his beloved daughter by his
    pious teaching and example.

    Jacob plucked several roses and lilies, tied them together	in  a
    bunch and gave them to Mary with the words:

    The lily and the rose, sister flowers as they are, belong the one
    to	the  other;  both incomparable in their beauty, they are ren-
    dered still more lovely by being together. In  the	same  way  my
    dear  child  are innocence and modesty twin sisters of virtue and
    cannot be separated




    The greatest and most powerful guardian of purity is the  thought
    of the presence of God

-- 
Internet: simon@giaeb.cc.monash.edu.au  
Viva Cristo Rey !! Long Live Christ the King.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21503
From: scott@prism.gatech.edu (Scott Holt)
Subject: hate the sin...

"Hate the sin but love the sinner"...I've heard that quite a bit recently, 
often in the context of discussions about Christianity and homosexuality...
but the context really isn't that important. My question is whether that
statement is consistent with Christianity. I would think not.

Hate begets more hate, never love. Consider some sin. I'll leave it unnamed
since I don't want this to digress into an argument as to whether or not 
something is a sin. Now lets apply our "hate the sin..." philosophy and see
what happens. If we truly hate the sin, then the more we see it, the 
stronger our hatred of it will become. Eventually this hate becomes so 
strong that we become disgusted with the sinner and eventually come to hate
the sinner. In addition, our hatred of the sin often causes us to say and 
do things which are taken personally by the sinner (who often does not even 
believe what they are doing is a sin). After enough of this, the sinner begins
to hate us (they certainly don't love us for our constant criticism of their
behavior). Hate builds up and drives people away from God...this certainly
cannot be a good way to build love.

In the summary of the law, Christ commands us to love God and to love our 
neighbors. He doesn't say anything about hate. In fact, if anything, he 
commands us to save our criticisms for ourselves. So, how are Christians
supposed to deal with the sin of others? I suppose that there is only one
way to deal with sin (either in others or ourselves)...through prayer. We
need to ask God to help us with our own sin, and to help those we love 
with theirs. Only love can conquer sin...hatred has no place. The best way to
love someone is to pray for them. 

- Scott
-- 
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Scott Holt                 		Internet: scott@prism.gatech.edu
Georgia Tech 				UUCP: ..!gatech!prism!scott
Office of Information Technology, Technical Services

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21504
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse


   This is what the LORD Almighty says: "You who now hear these words spoken by
the prophets who were there when the foundation was laid for the house of the
LORD Almighty, let your hands be strong so that the temple may be built.

Zechariah 8:9

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21505
From: af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.)
Subject: _Christianity In Crisis_ by Hank Hanegraaff

Has anyone read this important book?  If so, what are your feelings about it?

Frank
-- 
"If one wished to contend with Him, he could not answer Him one time out
 of a thousand."  JOB 9:3

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21506
From: aidler@sol.uvic.ca (E Alan  Idler)
Subject: Re: Mormon beliefs about bastards

erh0362@tesla.njit.edu writes:

>    Could anyone enlighten me on how the Mormon church views 
>children born out of wedlock?  In particular I'm interested to know if any 
>stigma is attached to the children as opposed to the parents.  

All children are born pure, i.e., without sin.
However, most saints would view a pregnancy
outside of marriage as an occasion of mourning.
(Some church members would be much more
judgmental, but that is *their* problem.)

In situations where welfare assistance is 
provided through our Church, bishops usually
require that the family be making some effort to
live the Gospel standards and provide for 
themselves.

However, there are occasions when assistance is
provided because of the children in the home.
As a former bishop of mine said, "Children are 
always worthy before God."

>I'm especially 
>keen to learn if there is or is not any prohibition in the Mormon faith on 
>bastards entering heaven or having their names entered in the big genealogical 
>book the Mormons keep in Salt Lake City.  

I am not sure what you mean by the term "bastards"
in this context.

Latter-Day Saints believe that through the
temple ordinances the family unit may be
preserved in eternity.

If you use genealogical material or software
produced by the Church, you may notice a section
for "temple ordinances."  Within that section
there should be a spot for signifying "BIC"
which stands for "born in the covenant."

The children born to couple sealed (married)
within the temple are "born in the covenant"
and are eligible to be part of that eternal
family unit.
Children born to other couples (whether in a
civil marriage or not) would have to be
sealed to their parents after their marriage
is solemnized for eternity.

Supposing a child were born to a woman out of
wedlock, he or she could be sealed to his or
her parents at a later date or adopted into 
any eternal family unit (which may include one
of the birth parents).

>If this is an issue on which the 
>"official" position has changed over time, I'm interested in learning both old 
>and new beliefs.  E-mail or posting is fine.  All information or pointers are 
>appreciated.

I can't say if this principle of adoption
was revealed at the same time as the sealing 
ordinances, but it has been accepted for the 
~15 years I have been in the Church.

I would tend to discount any admonitions from
the Church authorities against having children
out of wedlock because even though there are
provisions within the Lord's plan to recover
what we have done wrong the Church does not
want to give anyone the impression we can sin
and repent at our leisure.

A IDLER

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21507
From: gchin@ssf.Eng.Sun.COM (Gary Chin)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article 27611@athos.rutgers.edu, mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:
>In <May.7.01.08.16.1993.14381@athos.rutgers.edu> whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell) writes:
>Homosexual Christians have indeed "checked out" these verses.  Some of
>them are used against us only through incredibly perverse interpretations.
>Others simply do not address the issues.
>
>You would seem to be more in need of a careful and Spirit-led course
>in exegesis than most of the gay Christians I know.  I suggest that
>you stop "proof-texting" about things you know nothing about.

Let me say that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is
central to Christianity. If you personally believe that Jesus Christ
died for you, you are a part of the Christian body of believers.

We are all still human. We don't know it all, but homosexual or heterosexual,
we all strive to follow Jesus.  The world is dying and needs to hear about
Jesus Christ.

Are you working together with other Christians to spread the Gospel?

|-------------------|
| Gary Chin         |
| Staff Engineer    |
| Sun Microsystems  |
| Mt. View, CA      |
| gchin@Eng.Sun.Com |
|-------------------|

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21508
From: ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis)
Subject: Re: Deuterocanicals, eps. Sirach

Thanks for the responses so far. I hope that I have 
sparked some thought (which is more my intent than 
to restart one of the Reformations).

I'm just going to tug on two threads:

In Message-ID: <May.10.05.07.21.1993.3479@athos.rutgers.edu>
db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes, 

>	And I must point out that
>the Jews only drew up their canon in 90 AD, 60 years after the founding
>of the Christian Religion upon the Cross.  Why should we adhere to a
>canon that was drawn up by the faithless, in reaction to the Chrsitian
>use of the Greek Septuagint, which includes the deutero-canon?  

I was simply observing that as a non-Jew, I am not in that community
which might be bound by such a decision (I don't know much about
the Council of Jamnia, but I have heard that it is not well-attested
historically). 'Faithless' has nothing to do with it, and I prefer
not to speculate about motives.

>As early
>as 150 AD, St. Justin had already accused the Jews of mutilating the
>Canon of Scripture by their removal of certain books.  

I wish the Dialogue_with_Trypho were a real transcript of a real
dialogue,, but I think it a fictional effect on Justin's part.
Putting that to one side, Justin's point may be evidential; one
would want to know- 'which books?'

>Protestants apparently prefer to think that God's revelation was limited 
>by a decree of the Jews [...]

Perhaps the reformers were traveling in all the light (MS evidence)
they had. Let's stick to the issues. Again, I prefer not to speculate
about motives. One would need quotes from Luther, Calvin, etc. to
evidence this 'preference'.

-----
In Message-ID: <May.9.05.38.22.1993.27327@athos.rutgers.edu>
wagner@grace.math.uh.edu (David Wagner)

>That is not quite accurate.  Otherwise we would have the book
>of Enoch in the canon (as Dave noted).  One can say that the 
>apocrypha are not quoted by Christ.  

Is this the principle: 'Any (BC) text not quoted by Christ cannot
be counted as Scripture' ? Think well about this- Job, Ruth...?

I wrote:
 		These is a logically invalid *a priori*. 
 		Besides, we are talking about OT texts- 
 		which in many parts are superceded by the NT
 		(in the Xtian view). Would not this same
 		principle exclude _Ecclesiastes_?
 		This principle cannot be consistently applied.

Dave W. answers:
 
>I have to reject your argument here.  The Spirit speaks with one
>voice, and he does not contradict himself.  

Meaning what? Do you affirm the principle (that the D.c's can be
excluded since they contain 'false doctrine') or do you deny it? 
If affirmed (as is implied in your statement) how does one determine 
that doctrine X is false? Do you affirm every teaching in _Ecclesiastes_?

>The ultimate test of canonicity is whether the words are inspired
>by the Spirit, i.e., God-breathed.  It is a test which is more
>guided by faith than by reason or logic.  

If so, it may be a test that cannot be applied. The Orthodox
faithfully believe that Psalm 151 is canonical. How can my
faith say 'Not!' ? All I hear here is the *a priori* I mentioned
before.

>The deutero-canonical books were added much later in the church's
>history.  

This is contrary to fact.

>They do not have the same spiritual quality as the
>rest of Scripture.  

Can this be elevated to a principle? How is 'spiritual quality'
measured? I'll take the 'spiritual quality' of most of Sirach over 
Joshua or Chronicles, any day.

>I do not believe the church that added these
>books was guided by the Spirit in so doing.  

What can I say? You believe what you believe- I'm asking for
a consistency check. I don't see that the books were added- in any
construction this formulation begs the question. No one can validly
ask me to 'have faith' that these books are noncanonical.


Dave Davis, ddavis@ma30.bull.com
These are my opinions & activities alone

QOTD:

"Christianity is not a doctrine, not, I mean, a theory about what has
 happened and will happen to the human soul, but a description of something
 that actually takes place in a human life.  For `consciousness of sin' is a
 real event, and so are despair and salvation through faith.  Those who speak
 of such things (Bunyan, for instance) are simply describing what has happened
 to them, whatever anyone may want to say about it." -- Ludwig Wittgenstein

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21509
From: dan@ingres.com (a Rose arose)
Subject: Re: Legal definition of religion

e_p@unl.edu (edgar pearlstein) writes:
: 
:   .
:            It's my understanding that the U.S. Supreme Court has never 
:        given a legal definition of religion.  This despite the many 
:        cases involving religion that have come before the Court. 
:            Can anyone verify or falsify this?  
:            Has any state or other government tried to give a legal 
:        definition of religion? 

According to the legal practices of today's America, I imagine the legal
definition of religion, if defined, may resemble the following:

	"Any system of belief or practice to which people are committed
	for the benefit of society which must, in the opinion of secular
	thought, be isolated from political and educational influence."

	"Should any system of belief or practice to which people are
	committed be harmful or void of any benefit to society in the
	opinion of religious thought as defined in the previous paragraph,
	isolation of such from political and educational influence would
	constitute unreasonable censorship and an unlawful violation of
	civil rights."

Someday, perhaps they'll legalize benevolence :-)
                 ^^^^^^^?

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21510
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <May.9.05.42.07.1993.27611@athos.rutgers.edu> mls@panix.com (Michael
Siemon) writes:

>>	Romans 1:27
>>	I Corinthians 6:9
>>	I Timothy 1:10
>>	Jude 1:7
>>	II Peter 2:6-9
>>	Gen. 19
>>	Lev  18:22
>>(to name a few of the verses that pertain to homosexuality)
>
>Homosexual Christians have indeed "checked out" these verses.  Some of
>them are used against us only through incredibly perverse interpretations.
>Others simply do not address the issues.
>
>You would seem to be more in need of a careful and Spirit-led course
>in exegesis than most of the gay Christians I know.  I suggest that
>you stop "proof-texting" about things you know nothing about.
>-- 
>Michael

Well, Michael,  I don't know if clh has left them in the faq  (Maybe you should
post the "how to get there map again), but I posted two or three lengthy
exegetical paper on these verses.  They looked at the OT, NT and
intertestimental usages of terms in reference.  I would suggest you read those
before you talk about a "need" in exegetical studies.  If those aren't enough,
I could also provide "The source and NT Meaning of Apsevokoitai".  Dr James
DeYoung published it in THE MASTERS SEMINARY JOURNAL in fall of '92.  To read
any of these 4 papers shows that the shoe is on the other foot as far as a need
for honest exegesis.

Again, please refer to the faq file, or if you are unable to acess it, drop me
a line and I will enclose them to you.

Rexlex@fnal.fnal.gov 

[They're in a separate file, which I gave a pointer to in my posting
yesterday.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21511
From: bradk@isdgsm.eurpd.csg.mot.com (Brad Kaiser)
Subject: Re: What WAS the immaculate conception

In article <May.6.00.35.55.1993.15474@geneva.rutgers.edu> Joe Moore writes,
speaking of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin:

>It was a gift from God.  I think basically the reasoning was that the
>tradition in the Church held that Mary was also without sin as was Jesus.

Yes.  For examples of this in the writings of the early fathers, consider:

    You alone and your Mother
        are more beautiful than any others;
    For there is no blemish in you,
        nor any stains upon your Mother.
    Who of my children
        can compare in beauty to these?
                -- St. Ephrem the Syrian, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8, around
                   A.D. 370

    Lift me up not from Sara but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled 
    but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.
                -- St. Ambrose, "Commentary on Psalm 118", 22:30, ca. A.D. 388

There are many others.

>As the tenets of faith developed, particularly with Augustine, sin was
>more and more equated with sex, and thus Mary was assumed to be a virgin
>for life (since she never sinned, and since she was the spouse of God, etc.)

No.  We have, for instance:

    Was there ever anyone of any breeding who dared to speak the name of
    Holy Mary, and being questioned, did not immediately add, "the Virgin"?
    ... And to Holy Mary, Virgin is invariably added, for that Holy Woman
    remains undefiled.
                -- St. Epiphanus of Salamis, "Panacea against all heresies",
                   between A.D. 374-377.

    We surely cannot deny that you were right in correcting the doctrine
    about children of Mary ... For the Lord Jesus would not have chosen
    to be born of a virgin if He had judged that she would be so incontinent
    as to taint the birthplace of the Body of the Lord, home of the Eternal
    King, with the seed of human intercourse.  Anyone who proposes this is
    merely proposing ... that Christ could not be born of a virgin.
                -- Pope St. Siricius, Letter to Anysius, Bishop of 
                   Thessalonica, A.D. 392

Note that St. Augustine's conversion to Christianity was in A.D. 387.  I
don't know offhand when his election as bishop of Hippo was, but I'm quite
sure it was after 392.  The belief in Mary's perpetual virginity originated
long before Augustine's time.  We hold that it originated with the 
Apostles.

Strictly speaking, however, Mary's perpetual virginity is independent
of her Immaculate Conception.  Mary could have been Immaculately 
Conceived and not remained a virgin; she could have remained a virgin
and not been Immaculately Conceived.

>Since we also had this notion of original sin, ie. that man is born with
>a predisposition to sin, and since Mary did not have this predisposition
>because she did not ever sin, she didn't have original sin.  When science
>discovered the process of conception, the next step was to assume that
>Mary was conceived without original sin, the Immaculate Conception.

No.  It has been held in the Church since ancient times that original
sin was transmitted at conception, when a person's life begins.
Biology had nothing to do with it.  Prayerfully reflecting on the
truth of Mary's sinlessness, and the means by which God could have
achieved this, the Church arrived at the truth of the Immaculate
Conception.  Thus, the Immaculate Conception is not a new doctrine,
but the logical result of our understanding of two old ones.

The celebration of the Feast of the Immaculate Conception itself was
given by Pope Sixtus IV (1471-84) and the Feast was made a precept
feast of the Church by Pope Clement XI (1700-21).

>Mary at that time appeared to a girl named Bernadette at Lourdes.  She 
>refered to herself as the Immaculate Conception.  Since a nine year old 
>would have no way of knowing about the doctrine, the apparition was deemed
>to be true and it sealed the case for the doctrine.

No.  First of all, Lourdes is private revelation, and doctrine is not
based on private revelation.  The most that private revelation can do
is enhance and deepen our understanding of existing public revelation,
which ended with the death of St. John the Apostle.

Second, the "case for the doctrine" was irreformably sealed in 1854 
with the ex cathedra promulgation of the Bull "Ineffabilis Deus" by
Pope Pius IX.  This meant that the doctrine was formally recognized as
a dogma; a dogma, by definition, cannot change and is required to be
believed by the faithful.

The apparition at Lourdes happened in 1858, four years later.  The most
that might be claimed is that Lourdes gave the infallible proclamation
of 1854 a sort of heavenly stamp of approval, but the Church has never
claimed that, nor shall she.

In Christ's Peace,

Brad Kaiser
(bradk@isdgsm.eurpd.csg.mot.com)

	  Those who trust in Him shall understand truth,
	  and the faithful shall abide with Him in love;
	  Because grace and mercy are with His holy ones,
	  and His care is with His elect.
		    -- Wis 3:9 [NAB]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21512
From: Rick_Granberry@pts.mot.com (Rick Granberry)
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

In article <May.10.05.07.56.1993.3582@athos.rutgers.edu>, 
muddmj@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
> > Therefore, until someone is capable of comprehending 
> > God's laws they are not accountable for living them. 
> > They are in the book of life and are not removed until 
> > they can make a conscious decision to disobey God. 
> > 
> > A IDLER 
> 
> If babies are not supposed to be baptised then why doesn't the Bible 
> ever say so.  It never comes right and says "Only people that know 
> right from wrong or who are taught can be baptised." 
>         What Christ did say was : 
> 
>         "I solemly assure you, NO ONE can enter God's kingdom without 
>          being born of water and Spirit ... Do not be surprised that I 
>          tell you you must ALL be begotten from above." 
> 
> Could this be because everyone is born with original sin? 
> 
> Mike 

Do we attach some meaning of the Israelites entering "the promised land" to 
Christianity?

   I submit God did not hold the children responsible when the adults chose 
to follow the bad report of the 10 spies over Joshua and Caleb.  This is 
recorded for us in Deuteronomy 1:39 "Moreover your little ones, which ye said 
should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge 
between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give 
it, and they shall possess it."

   At least to me it seems there was/is an age, or point in maturity where 
they were/are held responsible, and could not enter the "Promised Land", 
younger ones were not held to the same "rules", at least not by God.


| "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." |
| "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."  |
| (proverbs 26:4&5)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21513
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: What WAS the immaculate conception?

Joe Buehler writes:

>There are various explanations for her reaction to the angel's
>greeting.  One is that she grasped what the angel was getting at, that
>she was to be the mother of the Messiah.  And knew what this entailed,
>all the suffering.  This gave her a moment's pause.

A priest I know gave me an interesting explanation.  He said that the
words of Mary point not to doubt or troubled thoughts, but rather to
complete humbleness.  Those who are humble and do not revel in
themselves frequently are confused when given high praise about
themselves, as Mary would rightly be.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21514
From: autry@magellan.stlouis.sgi.com (Larry Autry)
Subject: Definition of Christianity?

I have enrolled in "The History of Christianity" at a college here in
St. Louis. The teacher of the class is what I consider to be
closed-minded and bigotted on the subject of what the definition of
Christianity is.  His definition is tied directly to that of the
Trinity and the Catholic church's definition of it and belief in
Jesus Christ is not sufficient to call one's self a Christian.

While his saying it doesn't make it so,  I nevertheless feel insulted
(or am I just neurotic? :^) ). I would like to be able to respond to
him with some sense of literacy while maintaining an amiable
student-teacher relationship.

So, is there common definition of what Christianity is?  As the
previous discussion of the Trinity did not lend itself to an exchange
of flames, I am hopeful that this will also not produce major
flames.

Regards,
--
Larry Autry
Silicon Graphics, St. Louis
autry@sgi.com 



[Often we get into discussions about who is Christian.  Unfortunately
there are a number of possible definitions.  Starting from the 
broadest, commonly used definitions are:

  a historical definition
  people who accept Christ as Lord and savior
  a broad doctrinal definition
  narrow doctrinal definitions

1) By a historical definition I mean the sort of definition a secular
historian would likely use.  This would include any group that
developed out of the Christian church, and continues within the same
broad culture.  E.g. some Unitarians would fail just about any
doctrinal test you could come up with.  Yet it's clear that that group
developed from Christianity, and people from very different
backgrounds (e.g. Hindus) would likely see them as part of
Christianity.  This is not a definition most Christians like, but it's
relevant in some political and ethnic contexts.

2) Accepting Christ as Lord and savior is a test used by many
Christian groups for membership, e.g. the Southern Baptists and
Presbyterian Church (USA).  I would qualify it by saying that what
most people have in mind is an exclusive commitment to Christ, so that
someone who accepted Christ as one of many gods would not fit.  It's
an attempt to formulate a criterion that is religious but is not based
on technical doctrine.  By this definition, groups such as Arians
would be viewed as heretical Christians, but still Christians.  In the
modern context this would include Mormons, JW's, and "oneness
Pentecostals".  They would be viewed as heretical Christians, but
still Christian.  In practice I believe just about everyone who falls
into this category would accept the Apostle's Creed.

3) The next level is an attempt to give a broad doctrinal definition,
which includes all of the major strands of Christianity, but excludes
groups that are felt to be outside "historic Christianity."  This is
of course a slippery enterprise, since Catholics could argue that
Protestants are outside historic Christianity, etc.  But I think the
most commonly accepted definition would be based on something like the
Nicene Creed and the Formula of Chalcedon.  The attempt is to
characterize doctrines that all major strands of Christianity agree
are key.  Obviously this is to some extent a matter of judgement.  A
Mormon will regard the LDS church as a major strand, and thus will not
want to include anything that contradicts their beliefs.  But I think
this definition would have fairly broad acceptance.

4) Finally, some people use definitions that I would say are limited
to a specific Christian tradition.  E.g. some evangelicals only
consider someone Christian if he has had an evangelical-style
conversion experience, and some I've even heard of groups that limit
it to their specific church.

I think you can find contexts where each of these definitions is used.
A lot is going to depend upon the purpose you're using it for.  If
you're using it descriptively, e.g. in history or anthropology, you'll
probably use definition 1 or 2.  If you're using it normatively, i.e.
to say what you believe the Christian message is, you'll probably use
a definition like 3 or even 4.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21515
From: lmvec@westminster.ac.uk (William Hargreaves)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

muirm@argon.gas.organpipe.uug.arizona.edu (maxwell c muir) writes:
: 
: In the NT, the clear references are all from Paul's letters.  In Rom
: 1, there is a passage that presupposes that homosexuality is an evil.
: Note that the passage isn't about homosexuality -- it's about
: idolatry.  Homosexuality is visited on people as a punishment, or at
: least result, of idolatry.  There are a number of arguments over this
: passage.  It does not use the word "homosexuality", and it is referring
: to people who are by nature heterosexual practicing homosexuality.
: So it's not what I'd call an explicit teaching against all homosexuality.

That's like saying that murder is only wrong for those of us who aren't natural
murders, and stealing is only wrong for those of us who aren't natural
thieves.

Will
-- 
============================================
| Dallas Cowboys - World Champions 1992-93 |
============================================

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21516
From: koberg@spot.Colorado.EDU (Allen Koberg)
Subject: Re: Satan kicked out of heaven: Biblical?

In article <May.9.05.42.00.1993.27592@athos.rutgers.edu> mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker) writes:
>easteee@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:

>>     I have a question about Satan.  I was taught a long time ago
>>that Satan was really an angel of God and was kicked out of heaven
>>because he challenged God's authority.  The problem is, I cannot
>>find this in the Bible.  Is it in the Bible?  If not, where did it
>>originate?

>	The quick answer:  Revelation 12:7-9


And as someone mentioned earlier, from the apocryphal Book of Enoch,
satan was apparently kicked out for three times asserting his own will,
"I will".  Hmmm...pro-choice looks kinda creepy here.

Then there are the references around the Bible about taking a third
of the angels, getting a third of the heavens or something.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21517
From: gtd259a@prism.gatech.edu (Matt Kressel)
Subject: a few questions


	I am writing a paper on religion and how it reflects 
and or affects modern music.  This brief questionaire is summary of
the questions I would like answered.  A response is requested and 
can be mailed to me directly at: 
                   
                    gtd259a@prism.gatech.edu 
          
                   *PLEASE MAIL - DO NOT POST*

Thanks in advance,
Matt Kressel


----------------------------------------------------------------------

1.) How do you feel about groups like Diecide, Slayer, and Dio who
freely admit to practicing satanism and preach it in their songs?


2.) How do you feel about groups like Petra, old Stryper, Whitecross,
and Holy Soldier who promote and sing about Cristianity?


3.) How do you feel about groups like Front 242, XTC, Revolting Cocks,
Minor Threat, and Ministry who condone and sing about atheism?


4.) How do you feel about bands like Shelter who preach the Hare
Krishna religion and other minority(but not unheard of) religions?


5.a) Do you feel there is any difference between promoting music that
supports Cristianity and music that condones satanism?

  b) Why do you feel this way?


6.) What types of music do you listen to?


7.a) How often do you purchase music?

  b) How often does that music contain lyrics with undertones in
religion?


8.a) Do you feel that music one listens to affects the way one views
a particular religion? Religion in general?

  b) How does it affect the way you view your religion? All religions?


9.)  FEEL FREE TO ADD ANY COMMENTS HERE





-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
Matthew Owen Kressel(gtd259a@prism.gatech.edu)
"...nothing settles a man's mind more wonderfully than the knowledge that he
will be hanged in the morning."  - Arthur C. Clarke

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21518
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

In article <May.11.02.36.27.1993.28065@athos.rutgers.edu> biz@soil.princeton.edu writes:

>Who is the "atheist's prayer" being said to?


My roommate, the atheist, says "to anyone out there who might be 
listening."
 
-- 
Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock 
Catechist
gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21519
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock)
Subject: Re: homosexual issues in Christianity

In response to alleged circular reasoning concerning the morality of      
homosexuality, clh poses the following challenge:

>In order to break the circle there's got to be some other
>reason to think homosexuality is wrong.

I answer,

The circle is simple to break.   The Church teaches that homosexual
behavior is immoral.  This teaching is raw, impassionate, unassailable
dogma.  That closes the argument for me.


-- 
Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock 
Catechist
gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu 

[Right.  I understand that people have other reasons for not
accepting homosexuality.  The point I was making was that the
specific argument given wouldn't stand on its own.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21520
From: mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker)
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno ) writes:

>Joseph H. Buehler writes:

>>This all obviously applies equally well to infants or adults, since
>>both have souls.  Infants must be baptized, therefore, or they cannot
>>enter into Heaven.  They too need this form of life in them, or they
>>cannot enter into Heaven.

>Are you saying that baptism has nothing to do with asking Jesus to come into
>your heart and accepting him as your savior, but is just a ritual that we
>must go through to enable us to enter Heaven?


	My feeling on baptism is this:  parents baptize their baby so that the
	baby has the sanctifying grace of baptism (and thus removal of original
	sin) on its soul in the event of an unexpected death.
	
	That is, the parents speak on behalf of the child which is too young
	to speak on its own.  This should not surprise anyone:  don't parents
	*always* do what they believe is the best for their baby?  Why would
	that apply to the baby's physical needs only but not his/her spiritual
	needs to have God's grace?
	
	The purpose of confirmation is for the baby (now young adult) to 
	decide to re-affirm for himself/herself the promises that his/her
	parents made at baptism.  That is where accepting Jesus into your
	heart comes in.  In baptism, the parents ask Jesus to come into their
	baby's heart; at confirmation the child repeats that request 
	independently.
	
	(By the way, these are my personal feelings, though I believe they are
	pretty close to what the doctrinal position of the Catholic Church on
	this issue.  Can anyone out there back me up or correct me?

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21521
From: mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker)
Subject: Re: Mary's assumption

mpaul@unl.edu (marxhausen paul) writes:

>I hate to sound flippant, having shot off my mouth badly on the net
>before, but I'm afraid that much of this material only adds to my
>feeling that "the assumption of Mary" would be better phrased "our
>assumptions _about_ Mary."  In all the time I've been reading about
>Mary on this group, I can not recall reading much about Mary that
>did not sound like wishful veneration with scant, if any, Scriptural
>foundation.  

>I find in the New Testament a very real portrait of Christ's parents
>as compellingly human persons; to be honored and admired for their
>humility and submission to God's working, beyond doubt.  But the almalga-
>mation of theories and dogma that has accreted around them gives me
>an image of alien and inhuman creatures, untouched by sin or human
>desire.  Only Christ himself was so truly sanctified, and even He knew
>temptation, albeit without submitting to it.

>I also don't see the _necessity_ of saying the Holy Parents were some-
>how sanctified beyond normal humanity: it sounds like our own inability
>to grasp the immensity of God's grace in being incarnated through an or-
>dinary human being.  

>I won't start yelling about how people are "worshipping" Mary, etc.,
>since folks have told me otherwise about that, but I do think we
>lose part of the wonder of God's Incarnation in Christ when we make
>his parents out to be sinless, sexless, deathless, otherworldly beings.
>  
>--
>paul marxhausen .... ....... ............. ............ ............ .......... 

	Paul-

	You did a wonderful job of not doing anything humany possible to 
offend us Catholics; hopefully I can be just as careful in my wording as you
were.
	I also don't want to extend this topic into an entire major issue of
debate (anymore than it already is), but just a note or two:

	1.  Please don't talk about Jesus' "parents"--the doctrinal positions
		of the church an unequivocally different regarding Mary and
		Joseph.  I (personally) have never heard of anything being
		attributed to St. Joseph other than his sainthood; that is,
		no reference *ever* to him being sinless, assumed into heaven,
		immaculately conceived, etc.--all these ideas apply only to
		Mary.

	2.  I would agree there is very little scriptural evidence for our
		doctrines about Mary.  Needless to say, that presents a 
		significant problem to those who accept the bible as the only
		source of doctrine.  If, however, one turns to the sacred 
		traditions of the undivided Christian Church, there is no
		problem finding plently of evidence that it was basically a
		unanimous belief among the apostles and all the early 
		generation that Mary was assumed into heaven, body and soul,
		etc. etc.  It wasn't until the reformation that these doctrines
		were called into question.  As far as I am concerned (again, my
		personaly feelings) if it's a choice between the apostles or
		Luther, I'll choose the apostles every time, whether or not
		it is recorded within the writings that the traditions of men
		have determined to be "the bible".

	Like a said, just a couple of notes.  As is often said, I believe that
we must agree to (politely) disagree.  
	May God's peace and blessings be with you always in your search to
discover His absolute truth.  
			- Mike Walker
			  mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
			  (Univ. of Illinois)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21522
From: mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker)
Subject: New thought on Deuterocanonicals


	Often times (most recently on this list in the last few days) I've
heard the passage from revelation:

	"...whoever adds to the sacred words of this book...whoever removes
	 words from this book..."    

	 used as an arguement against the deutercanonical books.

	 I feel this is ridiculous for two reasons:

	 1.  They weren't added later by the Catholic Church; they were
		*always* part of what was considered inspired scripture.
		(This has been dealt with in previous postings...no reason
		to repeat the info.)

	2.  It is more likely than not that when St. John (or whomever) wrote
		the book of Revelation WHAT WAS THEN CONSIDERED SCRIPTURE was
		** NOT ** the same thing you and I are holding in our hands!

	If one takes the translation of "this book" in REV 18:22 (or somewhere
	around there) to mean "all of scripture", then all of us are likely
	holding something that is in violation of this command.

	It is impossible to exactly date the scriptures, even the N.T. ones
	(they didn't like to date their letters, I guess).  I really wish I
	had my bible with me right now to get the facts straight, but I believe
	that several of the N.T. letters, chief among them 2 Peter, have their
	most likely date of composition in the early second century A.D.
		Revelation was almost certainly written durin the reign of 
	Domition (sp?), A.D. 80-96.  Thus it could be argues that we are all
	in sin if we accept 2 Peter as scripture, since it was "added" to the
	book after the composition of Revelation, when we are told to add 
	nothing more.

	If you want to get the exact dates, get a copy of the New American
	Bible.  I'll try to follow this up tomorrow if I remember.
					- Mike Walker
					  mdw3310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
					  (Univ. of Illinois)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21523
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock)
Subject: On Capital Punishment

In article <May.11.02.37.49.1993.28198@athos.rutgers.edu>
 mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:

>I would say only to the extent that the Roman Catholic Church
>neither approves nor disapproves of capital punishment, as
>confirmed in the recent catechism, though there are many RCs
>who were rather surprised and upset that capital punishment was
>not explicitly condemned.

I quote from the journal, "30 Days In the Church and In the World,"
1992, No. 8/9, p. 29. 

Regarding the new draft of the Universal Catechism:

	In procuring the common good of society the need could arise
	that the aggressor be placed in the position where he cannot
	cause harm.  By virtue of this, the right and obligation of 
	public authorities to punish with proportionate penalties,
	including the death penalty, is acknowledged.  For similar
	reasons, legimate authorities have the right to impede
	aggressors in society with the use of arms.  The Church's 
	traditional teaching has always been expressed and will 
	continue to be expressed in the 
	consideration of the real conditions of common good and the
	effective means for preserving public order and personal
	safety.  To the degree that means other than the death
	penalty and military operations are sufficient to keep the
	peace, then these non-violent provisions are to be preferred
	because they are more in proportion and in keeping with the
	final goal of protection of peace and human dignity.  

As is clearly shown by this excerpt, the Church's teaching on capital
punishment remains today as it has always been in the past - in total
accord with my sentiment that I do not disagree with the use of deadly
force in those cases for which this option is justifiable.  

>I do not think your biblical quote can automatically be taken
>as support for capital punishment. I take it that as a Roman
>Catholic you are opposed to abortion, and would still onsider
>it wrong, and something to be objected to even if legalised by
>"authority".

I seek to conform my will to the will of God as expounded by His
instrument of the visible Church here on earth whenever the question
of faith or morals arises.  


-- 
Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock 
Catechist
gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21524
From: koberg@spot.Colorado.EDU (Allen Koberg)
Subject: Re: The Bible available in every language (was Re: SATANIC TOUNGES)

In article <May.9.05.38.18.1993.27323@athos.rutgers.edu> bjorn.b.larsen@delab.sintef.no writes:
>In article <May.5.02.53.10.1993.28880@athos.rutgers.edu>
>koberg@spot.Colorado.EDU (Allen Koberg) writes:

>> The concept of tongues as used at Pentecost seems an outdated concept
>> now.  With the Bible available in nearly every language, and missionaries
>> who are out there in ALL languages, why does the church need tongues?

>I guess there are at least some people who are not able to support
>this claim. There are still a lot of languages without the Bible, or a
>part of the Bible. There are still many languages which we are not
>able to write, simply because the written version of the language has
>not yet been defined!

Yes, I suppose that's true.  Of course, notice I qualified with NEARLY
every language :-).  And there are missionaries out there who can
speak every imaginable language AND dialect.  But then, the fact that
not all languages have a WRITTEN gospel lends no credence to the 
concept of "pentecost" type xenoglossolalia since most tongues occur not
in these places of un-written language, but rather in churches full
of people who do have a written language and a Bible in that language.

But I nitpick.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21525
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: The Bible on the Immaculate COnception

Andy Byler writes on the Biblical basis for the dogma of the
Immaculate Conception:

 +  I will put enmity between you [the Serpent] and the woman, and
 + between your seed and her seed, she [can also be read he] shall
 + crush your head and you shall bruise her [or his] heel.
 + -Genesis 3.15

 +  He who commits sin is of the devil ...    -1 John 3.8

 +  Hail, full of grace [greek - kecharitomene], the Lord is with
 + thee ...    -Luke 1.28

In the Hebrew of Genesis 3:15, the gender is clearly masculine.

 + HE shall crush your head, and you shall bruise HIS heel.

The Latin has feminine forms, only by an accident of grammar.

Andrew stated that KECHARITOMENE means not just "full of grace" but
"having a plenitude or perfection of grace." The word is used
elsewhere in the New Testament only in Ephesians 1:6

 + Unto the praise of the glory of his grace, in which he hath
 + GRACED us in his beloved Son. (Rheims-Douay translation)

I cannot find any indication in my dictionary that the verb implies
anything as strong as Andrew suggests, nor does the Ephesians
passage suggest that the verb means "to preserve from any taint of
original or actual sin from the first moment of existence." I should
like to see a comment on the meaning of the verb, preferably not
from s writer who is discussing Luke 1:28 at the moment.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21526
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: two nits picked

Gerry Palo writes:

 > Between Adam and Eve and Golgotha the whole process of the fall
 > of man occurred.  This involved a gradual dimming of
 > consciousness of the spiritual world.  This is discernable in
 > the world outlooks of different peoples through history.  The
 > Greek, for example, could say, "better a beggar in the land of
 > the living than a king in the land of the dead."  (Iliad, I
 > think).

I would not swear that nothing of the sort is found in the Iliad,
but the first passage I thought of was the Odyssey 11:480 or
thereabouts (my copy has no line numbers). The ghost of Acchilles
speaks (Robert FitzGerald translation):

 > Better, I say, to break sod as a farm hand
 > for some poor country man, on iron rations,
 > than lord it over all the exhausted dead.

The next passage I thought of was from Ecclesiastes 9:4

 + A living dog is better than a dead lion.

 > On the other hand, there is one notion firmly embedded in
 > Christianity that originated most definitely in a pagan source.
 > The idea that the human being consists essentially of soul
 > only, and that the soul is created at birth, was consciously
 > adopted from Aristotle, whose ideas dominated Christian thought
 > for fifteen hundred years and still does today....

Surely Aristotle had little influence on Christian thought before
about 1250 AD.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21527
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: Bernadette dates

Joe Moore writes:

 > Mary at that time appeared to a girl named Bernadette at
 > Lourdes.  She referred to herself as the Immaculate Conception.
 > Since a nine year old would have no way of knowing about the
 > doctrine, the apparition was deemed to be true and it sealed
 > the case for the doctrine.

Bernadette was 14 years old when she had her visions, in 1858,
four years after the dogma had been officially proclaimed by the
Pope.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21528
From: mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Subject: Re: SATANIC TOUNGES

In article <May.10.05.08.50.1993.3730@athos.rutgers.edu> bjorn.b.larsen@delab.sintef.no writes:
>We chose to believe whetever we want, but we are not allowed to define
>our own Christianity. we see in parts. If you see something that I do
>not see, or vice versa, it does not give me the right to play jokes on
>your belief!
>
It is important if Christianity is being damaged by it. If
people who "speak in tongues" make claims that they are
miraculously speaking a foreign language through the power of
the Holy Spirit, when it can easily be shown that they are simply
making noises, it damages all Christians, since many who are
not Christians do not distinguish between the various sects.

The more modest claim for "tongues" that it is simply
uncontrolled praise in which "words fail you" is surely the one
that should be used by those who make use of this practice.

I agree with the point that "Charismatic" practices like this
can lead to forms of worship which are more about the
worshipper showing off than genuine praise for God; one of the
things Jesus warned us about.

Matthew Huntbach

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21529
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: Jacob and Esau

Gerry Palo wrote that there is nothing in Christianity that excludes
the theory of a succession of lives.

I wrote that the Apostle Paul, in Romans 9, speaks of God as
choosing Jacob over Esau, and adds that this is not as a result of
anything that either child had done, since they had not been born
yet.

Clearly, Paul does not believe that they had had previous lives, nor
does he suppose that his readers will believe it. For if they had
had previous lives, it would not make sense to say, "Neither of them
has done anything good or bad as yet, since they are not yet born."

Daniel Cossack writes to ask whether it is fair for God to hate
Easau when Esau has done nothing bad?

I reply that in Hebrew it is standard usage to speak of hating when
what is meant is simply putting in second place. As an example,
consider the saying in Matthew 6:24

 + No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one
 + and love the other, or....

Now, it is obviously false that a man with two masters must hate one
of them. But it is obviously true that he must put one of them in
second place. A dog that always comes when either Billy or Bobby
calls will have a problem if they stand in different places and call
simultaneously. It cannot give first priority to both. One must take
second place. In our original example, second place means that
Jacob, not Esau, is chosen to bear the covenant blessing and
obligation, and to be the ancestor of Christ.

     *****     *****     *****     *****     *****

Eugene Bigelow mentions Matthew 11:14 which says of John the
Baptist:

 + And if ye will receive it, this is ELijah, who was to come.

I take this to mean that John was an Elijah-like figure, dressing
and living like Elijah, preaching like Elijah, and fulfilling the
prediction that Elijah would prepare the way for the Messiah.  I do
not think that he was Elijah in a literal sense, and, appareently,
neither did he (John 1:21).

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21531
From: brother.roy@almac.co.uk (Brother Roy)
Subject: RFD: soc.religion.taize

This is a RFD on a proposal for a newsgroup which would promote a 
sharing on the "Johannine hours" as proposed each month by the monks of 
the ecumenical community of Taize (pronounced te-zay) in France.

NAME OF PROPOSED NEWSGROUP: 
==========================

soc.religion.taize (Unmoderated)


PURPOSE OF THE GROUP: 
====================

The Taize Community is an international ecumenical community of monks 
based in France. Many young adults come there to search for meaning in 
their life and to deepen their understanding of their faith through a 
sharing with others. This newsgroup will allow such a sharing through a 
monthly "Johannine Hour" which will be posted at the beginning of each 
month. A "Johannine hour" involves a short commentary on a given Bible 
passage, followed by some questions for reflection.  Any thoughts that 
may arise in consequence and that you wish to share with others can be 
posted here. We are not interested in theological debate, and even less 
in polemics. No expertise is required! The idea is to help one another 
to deepen our understanding of Scripture as it is related to our own 
life-journey.

The idea of "Johannine hours" was born in Taize as a simple response
to all those who were trying to assimilate the Bible's message in the
midst of their daily life. Because of work or studies, it is often
impossible to spend long hours in silence and reflection, but
everyone can take an hour from time to time to enter a church, sit
quietly at home or go out for a walk in the woods. There, in silence,
we can meditate on a passage of Scripture to listen to the voice of
Christ.

During the time of silence, it is important to concentrate on what we 
understand and not waste time worrying if, in some Biblical expressions, 
we find it difficult to hear the voice of Christ. The idea is to 
communicate to others what we have understood of Christ, not burdening 
them with our own hesitations but rather telling them what has brought 
us joy, what has led us to run the risk of trusting more deeply.

Perhaps those who read and think about the "Johannine Hours" in this
newsgroup could share their reflections and discoveries with others.

The important thing is the complementarity between two aspects, the
personal aspect of silent, personal reflection and the communal aspect
of sharing, which through Usenet makes us a part of a worldwide network.

BACKGROUND OF THE TAIZE COMMUNITY:
=================================

The following provides some background information on the life and
vocation of the Taize (pronounced te-zay) community.

"A PARABLE OF COMMUNION": August 1940, with Europe in the grip of
World War II, Brother Roger, aged 25, set up home in the almost
abandoned village of Taize, in Eastern France. His dream: to bring
together a monastic community which would live out "a parable of
community", a sign of reconciliation in the midst of the distress of
the time. Centering his life on prayer, he used his house to conceal
refugees, especially Jews fleeing from the Nazi occupation.

AN INTERNATIONAL AND ECUMENICAL COMMUNITY: Taize's founder spent the
first two years alone. Others joined him later and at Easter 1949,
seven brothers committed themselves together to common life and
celibacy. Year by year, still others have entered the community, each
one making a lifelong commitment after several years of preparation.
Today, there are 90 brothers, Catholics and from various Protestant
backgrounds, from over twenty different countries. Some of them are
living in small groups in poor neighbourhoods in Asia, Africa, North
and South America. The brothers accept no donations or gifts for
themselves, not even family inheritances, and the community holds no
capital. The brothers earn their living and share with others
entirely through their own work. In 1966, Sisters of Saint Andrew, an
international Catholic community founded 750 years ago, came to live
in the neighbouring village, to share the responsibility of welcoming
people in Taize.

TAIZE AND THE YOUNG; THE INTERCONTINENTAL MEETINGS: Young adults, and
less young, have been coming to Taize in ever greater numbers since
1957. Hundreds of thousands of people from Europe and far beyond have
thus been brought together in a common search. Intercontinental
meetings take place each week, Sunday to Sunday, throughout the year
and they include youth from between 35 and 60 countries during any
one week. The meetings give each person the opportunity to explore
the roots of their faith and to reflect on how to unite the inner
life and human solidarity. The meetings in summer can have up to
6,000 participants a week. Three times every day, the brothers and
everybody on the hill come together for common prayer in the Church
of Reconciliation, built in 1962 when the village church became too
small.

"A PILGRIMAGE OF TRUST ON EARTH" The community has never wanted to
create a "movement" around itself. Instead, people are called to
commit themselves in their church at home, in their neighbourhood,
their city or village. To support them in this, Taize has created
what it calls "a pilgrimage of trust on earth". At the end of each
year, the pilgrimage has a "European meeting" which brings together
tens of thousands of young adults from every part of Europe for
several days in a major city. There have also been meetings in Asia
and in the United States. Every year, Brother Roger writes an open
letter to the young. Usually completed during a stay in one of the
poor regions of the world, these are translated into thirty languages
and provide themes for reflexion for the following year.

NOTE:  Discussion on the creation of this newsgroup will take place in 
       news.groups.

For any further information contact: Brother.Roy@almac.co.uk

               brother.roy@almac.co.uk
-- 
 . 1st 1.10b #332 . Taize-Community, 71250 TAIZE, France

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21532
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: legal definition of religion

Edgar Pearlstein asks (Fri 7 May 1993) whether the Supreme Court, or
any other government authority, has attempted a legal definition of
religion.

The Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1958 exempted
from the draft those whose "religious training and belief" was
opposed to participation in war in any form. It defined "R T & B" as
"an individual's belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving
duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but [not
including] essentially political, sociological, or philosophical
views or a merely personal moral code."

In the 1965 case of UNITED STATES V. SEEGER, the Supreme Court
broadened the definition so as not to restrict it to explicit
theists. Justice Tom Clark, delivering the Court's opinion, said:

   We have concluded that Congress, in using the expression "Supreme
   Being" rather than the designation "God," .... the test of belief
   "in a relation to a Superme Being" is whether a given belief that
   is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its
   possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God
   of one who clearly qualifies for the exemption. Where such
   beliefs have parallel positions in the lives of their respective
   holders we cannot say that one is "in a relation to a Supreme
   Being" and the other is not...."

My immediate reference is THE FIRST FREEDOM, by Nat Hentoff,
(Delacorte 1980, Dell 1981).

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21533
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Athiests and Hell

In article <May.11.02.36.29.1993.28068@athos.rutgers.edu>
ptrei@bistromath.mitre.org (Peter Trei) writes:
>In article <May.9.05.38.49.1993.27375@athos.rutgers.edu> REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
writes:
>[much deleted] 
>>point today might be the Masons.  (Just a note, that they too worshipped 
>>Osiris in Egypt...)
>[much deleted] 
>
>     It bugs me when I see this kind of nonsense.
>
>     First, there is no reasonable evidence linking Masonry to ancient
>Egypt, or even that it existed prior to the late 14th century (and
>there's nothing definitive before the 17th).

My wifes uncle was a 30+ level mason.  He let me look at some of the books
(which after his death his "brothers" came over and took from his greiving
widow before his body had even cooled).  Don't tell me you don't worship
Osiris.  You must not be past your 20th level.  You should read Wilkinson's
Egyptians and how he shows this Egyptian religion paralleling his own British
Masonry.  There is a man here at this laboratory who is a 33 degree black
mason.  I've talked with him, though much he likes to hide ("mystery"). 
Special handshakes and all.  When he first started trying to "evangelize" me,
he told me all kinds on special this, and special that.  Here is truely a
"mystery" religion.  THere is the public side with motorcyle mania and
childrens hospitals and then there is the priviate side that only the highest
degree mason every learns of.
>
>     Second, worship of Osiris is not, nor has it ever been, a part of
>Masonic practice (we are strictly non-denominational).
>
I haven't read it, but the literature that is offered by the silver haired
apologist (can't remember his name) on TV, didn't exactly come to this same
conclusion.  

"Khons, the son of the great goddess-mother, seems to have been gernaerally
represented as a full-grown god. The Babylonian divinity was also represented
very frequently in Egupt in the very same wayas in the land of his nativity
-i.e. as a child in his mother's arems.  THis was the way in which Osiris, 'the
son, the husband of his mother,' was often exhibited, and what we learn of this
god, equally as in the case of Khonso, shows that in his original he was none
other than Nimrod.  It is admitted that the secret system of Free Masonry was
originally founded on the Mysteries of the Egyptian Isis, the goddess-mother,
or wife of Osiris.  But what could have led to the union of a Masonic body with
these Mysteries, had they not had particular reference to architecture, and had
the god who was worshipped in them not been celebrated for his success in
perfecting the arts of fortification and building?  Now, if such were the case,
considering the relation in which, as we have already seen, Egypt stood to
Babylon, who would naturally be liiked up to there as the great patron of the
Masonic art?  The strong presumption is, that Nimrod must have been the man. 
He was the first that gained faim in this way.  As the child of the Babylonian
goddess-mother, he was worshipped in the character of Ala mahozim, 'The God of
Fortification.'  Osiris, the child of the Egyptian Modonna, was equally
celebrated as 'the strong chief of the buildings.'  THis strong chief of the
buildings was origninally worshipped in Egypt with every physicall
characteristic of Nimrod.  I have already noticed the fact that Nimrod, as the
son of Cush, was a negro.  Now, there was a tradition in Egypt, recorded by
Plutarch, that 'Osiris was black'......."  Hislop

It was like a cold slap to my face, when my wifes uncle brought out his
cerimonial dress and it was leopard skin.  I mean real leopard skin.   He told
me that only the highest of degrees wore the leopard skin.  (The reason that he
started telling me all this was that he had just been given a couple of months
to live and my wife had led him to a saving faith in Christ and he immediately
repented from 'mysteries' of the lodge!)

Nimr-rod from Nimr, a "leopard," and rada or rad "To subdue."  It is a
universal principle in all idolatries, that the high priest wears the insignia
of the god he serves.  Any representation of Osiris usually show the wearing of
some leopard.  It is interesting that the Druids of Britian also show, or
should I say hide, this representation.  They, however, worshipped the "spotted
cow".

I'll stand by my statements.  Masonry is of the "mystery" religions that all
find their source in Babylon, the great harlot. Sorry Peter,  I do not mean to
be a "cold slap to the face" but there is to much evidence to the contrary that
Masonry doesn't find its origins in Egypt.  Of the Masons I have personally
talked to, all refered to Egypt as their origin.  Why are you now separating
yourself from this which not many years ago, was freely admitted?

-Rex

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21534
From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal F Lillywhite)
Subject: Eternal Marriage (was Mormon Temples)

In article <May.11.02.39.09.1993.28334@athos.rutgers.edu> dhammers@pacific.? (David Hammerslag) writes:

>This paragraph brought to mind a question.  How do you (Mormons) reconcile
>the idea of eternal marriage with Christ's statement that in the ressurection
>people will neither marry nor be given in marriage (Luke, chapt. 20)?

Well, here is something I wrote some time ago in response to a
similar question.  I hope it helps:

[Begin repeat of previous post]

As for the scripture mentioned I agree that it does seem to be a 
problem, not only for eternal marriage but marriage in general.  
Luke's version has Jesus saying that the children of this world 
marry and are given in marriage but not those who will attain
the kingdom of heaven.  It almost sounds like marriage disqualifies
one for salvation.  (Matthew and Mark both omit this statement.)   I
think the accounts are not as clear as they might be.  Let's have a
look at the incident and see if we can come up with some reasonable
ideas of what it means.  The scriptures involved are Mat 22:23-30,
Mark 12:18-25, and Luke 20:27-36.

What happened was that the Sadducees, who did not believe in the
resurrection, thought they could trap Jesus.  They made reference to
the "Leverite" marriage which required the brother of a man who died
without children to take the widow to wife and raise up children.  
The children would be considered children of the deceased, just as
though the woman's first husband had fathered them.  It seems
obvious from this that the woman was still considered in a way to be
the wife of her first husband.  However, the Sadducees concocted a
scene in which 6 brothers of the deceased each in his turn failed to
father children by the widow.  They seem to imply that the Leverite
marriage was equal to the first for they ask, "Whose wife shall she
be in the resurrection?"  At this point it seems obvious that if she
is anybody's wife, it is the first husband.  After all, had she
borne children they would have been credited to him regardless of
which brother was the biological father.  It is possible Jesus was
refering to this when he says, "Ye do err, not knowing the
scriptures or the power of God." (Mat 22:29, compare Mark 12:24,
phrase not in Luke's account).

Anyway, the Sadducees ask, "Whose wife will she be in the
resurrection, seeing that all 7 had her?"  Jesus answer is that,
"In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in
marriage..." (Mat 22:30) "When they rise from the dead they neither
marry..." (Mark 12:25)  "They which are accounted worthy to obtain
that world neither marry..." (Luke 20:35)  All 3 accounts go on to
say, "but are as the angels in heaven" or the equivalent.  I find
this last not very helpful since the Bible does not define angels
nor give any idea what their life is like.  (Some ministers claim
that they are sexless, different that humans etc. but I can find no
Biblical support for this.)

I think what Jesus is saying here (and it is clearest in Matthew's
and Mark's accounts) is that marriages will not be performed in the
resurrection.  This goes along with our belief that if a person is
to marry at all it must be done on this earth.  However, we do
believe that a marriage performed by the authority of God can be
binding in eternity.  In fact, the first marriage appears to have
been performed by God himself before death entered the world (in the
Garden of Eden).  What therefore God hath joined together, let not
man put asunder. (Mat 19:6)  Jesus also told Peter and the other
apostles that whatsoever they should bind on earth should be bound
in heaven (Mat 16:19, 18:18).  I believe that this also refers to
marriages performed by the proper authority.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21535
From: dm112660@nevada.edu (Don Miller)
Subject: Christian Counseling/Psychology Folks out there?

Hello.
Hoping to net some netters
who are in the helping professions 
(counseling, psychology, psychiatry, social work, therapy etc.)
to network on some topics and consider
the possibility of a sci.counseling.christian type newsgroup
or list.

The integration of psychology and counseling and theology 
is a subject of great debate and one of particular interest
to me.

If you're out there, please lemme know.

Email me direct if you will so we can get to know one another
off the news.

Don Miller
UNLV
dm112660@helios.nevada.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21536
From: smayo@world.std.com (Scott A Mayo)
Subject: Re: Dreams and out of body incidents

dt4%cs@hub.ucsb.edu (David E. Goggin) writes:

>I'm fairly new to these groups, tho' some have heard from me before.
Welcome.

>I'd like to get your comments on a question that has been on my mind a
>lot:  What morals/ethics apply to dreams and out-of-body incidents?
>In normal dreams, you can't control anything, so obviously
>you aren't morally responsible for your actions.

Hm. I get a little queasy around the phrase "aren't morally 
responsible", perhaps because I've heard it misused so many times.
(I remember in college some folk trying to argue that a person who
was drunk was not morally responsible for his actions.) In general,
most folk can't control their dreams, but perhaps what you do all day
and think about has some impact on them, hm? And I'm not sure what
"actions" are in a dream. But I will note that Jesus does seem adamant
about the fact that our thought-life is at least as important as
our actions. Go lightly with this argument - we are all morally
responsible for *who we are* and dreams might well be an important
part of that.

>Now, there seem to be 3 alternatives:
>1) Dreams and OOBEs are totally mental phenomena.  In this case no morality
>applies beyond what might be called 'mental hygiene', that is, not trying
>to think about anything evil, or indulgining in overly sexy or violent
>thoughts.
I don't know a thing about Out Of Body Experiences. I've had dreams, some
fairly vivid ones; is an OOBE just a very vivid dream? I would argue that
extreme interest in this sort of phenomena is a tad risky; it is probably
much better to think about who Jesus is, and who we are in relation to that,
than to cultivate a strong interest in dreams. Unless you feel plagued by
dreams that are painful and out of control; then pray about it and/or get help.

>2) Dreams and OOBEs have a reality of their own (i.e. are 'another plane')
>Evidence for this is that often dreams and OOBEs are sometimes done in
>common by more than one person.
What on Earth is your definition of "often"? I know exactly one case of
two people who had substantially the same dream at the same time, and
as they were brothers who had spent the day doing the same things I could
see why their dreams might be similiar. Anyway, the only "other plane" I
know of is the spiritual realm. I don't think *anyone's* dreams,
perhaps outside the occasional prophet's, represent actual actions on an
alternate plane. If they were real actions, or conscious thoughts, then
yes they would have direct moral significance.

>3) Like (2), but here we assume that [garbled text: "because the dream occurs
in a different environment, then different moral laws apply" is my guess of
what you said.]
I don't see the slightest hint in Christian writings that ones "environment"
changes the way a person determines what is moral. For a Christian won't
it *always* come down to "what Jesus would have us do?"

>So... There it is.  Is one of these cases the truth, or does anyone know
>of another alternative?  respond by post or email.
Truth? I don't claim to be an expert in dreams. I'll note that the Bible
doesn't talk much about dreams outside of the realm of God using them to speak
to us, with the caveat that such messages are not always very clear, as it
warns somewhere in the OT. Given that, I would not give them a lot of
attention unless you feel your dreams are trying to tell you something.

I would discount talk of "alternate planes," though. The only places such
concepts are commonly bandied about are for the most part hostile to
Christianity, though I've run into the occasional exception. If you are,
or want to be, a Christian, you want to be very careful about ideas like
this. 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21537
From: e_p@unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)
Subject: Re: Bastards (was Mormon beliefs about bastards)


       .
  Of some relevance to the posts on this subject might be Deut.23:2,
     
       "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord;
       even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the
       congregation of the Lord." 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21538
From: creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

In article <May.11.02.38.18.1993.28241@athos.rutgers.edu> adamsj@gtewd.mtv.gtegsc.com writes:
>2 Samuel 12:21-23 (RSV) : 
[...]
>Anyhow, many interpret this to mean that the child has gone to Heaven
>(where David will someday go). I don't claim to know for sure if this
>applies to all babies or not. But even if it's just this one, what
>would you say to this?

   That brings up an interesting question.  If this interpretation is
correct, how would these people be getting into Heaven before Jesus
opened the gates of Heaven?

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21539
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Dreams and out of body incidents

In article <May.11.02.37.40.1993.28185@athos.rutgers.edu> dt4%cs@hub.ucsb.edu (David E. Goggin) writes:
>I'd like to get your comments on a question that has been on my mind a
>lot:  What morals/ethics apply to dreams and out-of-body incidents?
>In normal dreams, you can't control anything, so obviously
>you aren't morally responsible for your actions.  But if you can contrive
>to control the action in dreams or do an OOBE, it seems like a morality applies.

I think that if someone often has immoral dreams, like lustful dreams, 
or dreams where you commit acts of violence, etc. etc. it may be a sign 
that he has something sinful in his heart.  It may be the Holy Spirit's
way of allowing the sinfulness that is in us to come to light so that
we can pray about it and have it removed.  Generally, if one has a 
pure heart, and sets his mind on things that are holy, he will be holy
even when he dreams.

Dreams also can be from the Lord.  Joseph and Nebucadnezzar are two examples
of people in the Bible who received dreams from the Lord.  

Regarding out of body experiences, this is something that we have to be
careful with.  What is called an OOBE can be spiritual in nature, especially
if what one saw is the same as an experience witnessed by someone else.
Christians should certainly avoid any occult activity that would generate
an out of body experience.  Some things that might be called an OOBE
might actually be from the Lord.  Paul wrote of what might of been an OOBE.
In II Corinthians 12, he wrote of a spiritual experience of being caught
up into the third heaven.  Is an OOBE truely an OOBE?  Does one really
leave his body, or is he just seeing an image being shown to him by a
spirit, be it a demon or the Holy Spirit?  I don't think it matters
that much.  Paul could not tell.  

Be that as it may, we should be careful not to open ourselves up to Satan
to experience OOBE's.  We should not meditate and pretend we are in a 
place until our spirits apparently float there.  This is dangerous.  If
God wants to gice us what seems like an OOBE, then He can do that of His
own sovereign will.  In the Bible, most often it seems that prophets are
just taken up by God's sovereign will, and not because they are seeking
an OOBE.  John was in the Spirit praying on the Lord's day when he was
caught up in the visions he received.  Ezekial was talking with some
Jewish leaders when he was caught up into the visions of God one
time.  If God wants to take one of us up into a vision, he can do it.
People should be careful not to open themselves up to evil spirits
for the sake of a few thrills.

Link Hudson.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21540
From: creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

In article <May.11.02.39.02.1993.28325@athos.rutgers.edu> Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com writes:
>>This all obviously applies equally well to infants or adults, since
>>both have souls.  Infants must be baptized, therefore, or they cannot
>>enter into Heaven.  They too need this form of life in them, or they
>>cannot enter into Heaven.
>
>Are you saying that baptism has nothing to do with asking Jesus to come into
>your heart and accepting him as your savior, but is just a ritual that we
>must go through to enable us to enter Heaven?

   I don't think Joe was saying any such thing.  However, your question
on "asking Jesus to come into your heart" seems to imply that infants
are not allowed to have Christ in theirs.  Why must Baptism always be
viewed by some people as a sort of "prodigal son" type of thing; i.e. a
sudden change of heart, going from not accepting Christ to suddenly
accepting Christ?  Why can't people start out with Christ from shortly
after birth, and build their relationship from there?  After all, does
a man suddenly meet a woman, and then marry her that same day?  From my
experiences, I've learned that all relationships must be built,
including one's relationship with God.

   Also Joe is speaking from the standpoint that Baptism is not just a
ritual, but that through it God bestows sacramental grace upon the
recipient.  Certainly for those with the mental faculties to know Christ
it is necessary to believe in Him.  However, the Sacrament itself
bestows grace on the recipient, and makes a permanent mark of adoption
into God's family on the soul.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21541
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: more on 2 Peter 1:20

I wrote that I thought that 2 Peter 1:20 meant, "no prophecy of
Scripture (or, as one reader suggests, no written prophecy) is
merely the private opinion of the writer."

Tony Zamora replies (Sat 8 May 1993) that this in turn implies that
it is not subject to the private interpretation of the reader
either. I am not sure that I understand this.
     In one sense, no statement by another is subject to my private
interpretation. If reliable historians tell me that the Athenians
lost the Pelopennesian War, I cannot simply interpret this away
because I wanted the Athenians to win. Facts are facts and do not go
away because I want them to be otherwise.
     In another sense, every statement is subject to private
interpretation, in that I have to depend on my brains and
expereience to decide what it means, and whether it is sufficiently
well attested to merit my assent. Even if the statement occurs in an
inspired writing, I still have to decide, using my own best
judgement, whether it is in fact inspired. This is not arrogance --
it is just an inescapable fact.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21542
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: earthquake prediction

In article <May.11.02.37.28.1993.28163@athos.rutgers.edu> dan@ingres.com (a Rose arose) writes:

>4--were God to call me to be a prophet and I were to misrepresent God's Word,
>   my calling would be lost forever.  God's Word would command the people
>   never to listen to or fear my words as I would be a false prophet.  My
>   bridges would be burnt forever.  Perhaps I could repent and be saved, but
>   I could never again be a prophet of God.

Though there is a command in the law not to heed to one who prophecies 
falsely, it is still possible for the one who has prophecied falsely
to prophecy truely again.  Take, for example the story in Kings about the
man of God from Judah who came to israel and prophecied against a king.
The Lord had commanded him to not eat or drink till he returned home.
Another prophet wanted this man of God to stay in his house, so he
prophecied falsely that the Lord wanted the man of God to stay in his 
house.  While they ate and drank in his house, the Lord gave the prophet
who lied a word that the man of God would die from breaking the word of
the Lord.  It came to pass.

Link Hudson.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21543
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: homosexual issues in Christianity

>[There's some ambiguity about the meaning of the words in the passage
>you quote.  Both liberal and conservative sources seem to agree that
>"homosexual" is not the general term for homosexuals, but is likely to
>have a meaning like homosexual prostitute.  

From what I understand of my experience in looking up this word, and 
discussing it with a Greek-literate individual, the meaning of the 
word is rather clear.  Basically it literally means "he who beds with a man"
or "he who has sex with a man."  The burden of proof is on the 
pro-homosexuality side of the argument to show that the word has an 
idiomatic meaning nor evident from its literal meaning.  One can speculate
all day long that it might mean something else, but we need evidence
before we create new doctrines, and get rid of the historical understanding
of the meaning of this word.

Link Hudson.


[I've read enough discussions of this passage, in both liberal and
conservative sources, to be sure that the meaning -- even the literal
meaning -- is not certain.  That doesn't mean one can't come to some
conclusion, nor does it mean that I think there's any doubt about what
Paul thinks of homosexuality.  But there are plausible arguments for
a couple of different meanings.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21544
From: sfp@lemur.cit.cornell.edu (Sheila Patterson)
Subject: Re: Mary's assumption

In article <May.11.02.37.01.1993.28111@athos.rutgers.edu>, mpaul@unl.edu (marxhausen paul) writes:|> feeling that "the assumption of Mary" would be better phrased "our

[text deleted] 
|> I also don't see the _necessity_ of saying the Holy Parents were some-
|> how sanctified beyond normal humanity: it sounds like our own inability
|> to grasp the immensity of God's grace in being incarnated through an or-
|> dinary human being.  
|> 
[text deleted]
|> --
|> paul marxhausen 

Thank you very much Paul.  I have always been impressed by the very human-ness of
Mary.  That God chose a woman, like me, to bring into this world the incarnation
of Himself proves to me that this God is MY God. He reaches down from His
perfection to touch me. Ah, the wonder of it all :-)

-- 
  Sheila Patterson, CIT CR-Technical Support Group
  315 CCC - Cornell University
  Ithaca, NY  14853
  (607) 255-5388

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21545
From: dan@ingres.com (a Rose arose)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians

news@cbnewsk.att.com writes:
: Arrogance is arrogance.  It is not the result of religion, it is the result
: of people knowing or firmly believing in an idea and one's desire to show
: others of one's rightness.  I assume that God decided to be judge for our
: sake as much as his own, if we allow him who is kind and merciful be the 
: judge, we'll probably be better off than if others judged us or we judged 
: ourselves.  

I'm not sure I agree with this 100%.  I agree that arrogance is not the result
of religion and that God is a far better judge than we are.  I also agree if
you mean to say that arrogance shows up in the form of trying to prove one's
superior knowledge, rightness, or holiness over another person's beliefs.

I need to be careful to understand what you mean here so that I do not fall
into the mistake of misrepresenting your views.  If I fall down in this area
I hope you will forgive me.

Arrogance is not the result of believing one is right or of believing that
one's God is greater than the god's of others or of believing that one's
religion is better than other religions.  These are all naturally self-implied
beliefs.

It is self-contradictory to say that I believe my current beliefs to be wrong.
Were I to find myself in error, my beliefs would naturally change and follow
what I believe to be right.  Therefore, I must always consider my beliefs
correct.  That's not arrogance.  That's unavoidable behavior.

It is nonsense to say that I believe another person's god to be greater than
my God.  Were his or her god greater, wouldn't I be obligated to change so
that their god would become my God?  We are naturally obligated to worship
that God which we deem to be the greatest.  Why should we feel obligated to
worship a second best god for the sake of feeling humble?

Arrogance is not necessarily thinking onesself to be better looking or more
intelligent or stronger or having more resources than another person.  No
doubt many will have to chew on this one awhile.  Were passive observation
of one's superior points arrogance, then God would be most arrogant of all.

Humility does not rest in slandering or belittling God's work of creation in
our lives.  People often go around trying to be humble saying to one another,
"I'm not very smart.  I'm poor.  I'm not good looking.  I'm just a worm in
the ground.  I'm such a weak person and although I don't want to sin, I
really cannot help it."  Were this person truely humble, he would take a
different approach.  "God, thank you for making me the way you did.  I know
that you never do anything second best.  Yet with all that you have given me,
I have been so unthankful.  You've given me power to resist the devil.  I
have not used it but have indulged myself in doing exactly what you have said
not to do.  I have slandered your creation in my life and have credited myself
with humility for doing so.  Lord, with all you've given me, I have been
completely unfaithful and I do not deserve your forgiveness.  And, yet Your
love for me is so boundless that you would give Yourself to die for me to
save me.  As terribly evil as I am, I deserve to go straight to hell, yet it
pleases you somehow to rescue me from this terrible life I've led.  Lord,
please forgive me and help me stay on the right track so that I can bring
glory to Your Name instead of insult.  Lord I'm so sorry for my wrongs.  Please
help me to change."

: 
: I think people take exceptional offense to religious arrogance because
: they don't want to be wrong.  If I find someone arrogant, I typically
: don't have anything to do with them.

For me, I've often found it hard to tell the difference.  Often times, the
most humble christian has come across to me as arrogant while the most
proud "worm in the ground" false humility type person has been found to be
most comfortable company.

When I'm wrong and arrogant about my wrongness, I certainly don't feel like
being confronted by my wrongness.  Were someone to confront me verbally with
my wrongness, I'd be likely to snap at them and examine them head to toe for
all their faults and charge them with hypocricy for what they said to me.
At the root, my desire would be to make them shut up so that I can go about
living my life arrogantly as I wish.  However, were someone to confront me
silently by their example, earn my respect, and perhaps mention it to me in
humility in private, I'd feel broken down and challenged to seek God for help
in changing from the error of my ways.

The hard part is getting to the point to where I can be humble before anyone
regardless of their humility or pride--regardless of their hypocricy or
sincerity--regardless of whether onlookers will frown down upon me or not.
It isn't easy to take this pain in love with thankfulness for the opportunity
to improve in one's ability to serve God.  It's easier to cast aside any hope
of reaching true humility and merely hide behind slandering God's creation
in our lives instead.

: But we should examine ourselves [I hope I typed this back in right]
: and why we react to certain situations with such emotions.  For instance,
: many of us feel "justified" to be insulted by an arrogant person.  As if
: we needed a reason to feel insulted.  But after being insulted over and
: over again by the words of others, you'd think we'd either toughen up
: or decide not to be insulted, or ignore the insult.  Just because you
: can justify feelings of anger or insult or outrage, that doesn't make that
: reaction the appropriate one.  It is in this light of self-examination
: that we can change our emotional reactions.
: 

Sometimes it helps when we can understand and feel the difference between
what is a true statement of our character and what is a false and slanderous
statement of our character.  The devil is the accuser of the bretheren.  He
would love us to feel hopelessly guilty where we are innocent and feel arrogant
and self-righteous where we are indeed wrong.  The devil's aim is to get us
into as much misery as he can.  Just think of the devil as a cruel and merci-
less criminal who torments a parent by burning his or her children with
hot irons.  The way the devil gets under the Father's skin is by hurting
those that the Father loves so much.


--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
	"I deplore the horrible crime of child murder...
	 We want prevention, not merely punishment.
	 We must reach the root of the evil...
	 It is practiced by those whose inmost souls revolt
	 from the dreadful deed...
	 No mater what the motive, love of ease,
		or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent,
		the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed...
	 but oh! thrice guilty is he who drove her
		to the desperation which impelled her to the crime."

		- Susan B. Anthony,
		  The Revolution July 8, 1869

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21546
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be
my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the
earth." 
Acts 1:8

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21547
From: creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

In article <May.11.02.39.07.1993.28331@athos.rutgers.edu> Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com writes:
>>If babies are not supposed to be baptised then why doesn't the Bible
>>ever say so.  It never comes right and says "Only people that know
>>right from wrong or who are taught can be baptised."
>
>This is not a very sound argument for baptising babies. It assumes that
>if the Bible doesn't say specifically that you don't need to do something,
>then that must mean that you do need to do it. I know there's a specific
>term for this form of logic, but it escapes me right now. However, if it
>were sound, then you should be able to apply it this way; If the Bible
>doesn't specifically say that something is wrong, then it must be OK,
>which, coincidentally, leads perfectly into a question I've often pondered.

   This is no less logical than the assumption that if something is
_not_ in the Bible, then it _must not_ be done.  But I don't really
think that's what he's saying anyway.  See below.

>If slavery is immoral (which I believe it is, can I assume that everyone
>else in this group does too?), why doesn't Jesus or any of the apostles
>speak out against it? Owning slaves was common practice back then. Paul
>speaks about everything else that is immoral. He apparently thought it
>was important enough to talk about things like not being a drunkard. Why
>doesn't anyone mention slavery? If God's morals are eternal and don't
>change like the morals of society, then it must have been just as immoral then
>as it is today.

   What about the letter to Philemon?  In it Paul at least hints that a
certain slave be released.  Also, slavery in those times was not the
same as the type of slavery we had in the U.S.  I think a better
comparison would be to indentured servitude.  I don't really want to get
into a discussion on slavery.  Anyway, although it does demonstrate your
point, I don't think it is relevent, because the original poster did not
say that absence of specific condemenation proves something is not
immoral.

   Back to the original poster's assertion.  He is not in fact making
the logical error of which you accuse him.  He stated the fact that the
Bible does not say that babies cannot be baptized.  Also, we know that
the Bible says that _everyone_ must be baptized to enter Heaven.
_Everyone_ includes infants, unless there is other Scripture to the
contrary, i.e. an exception.  Since there is no exception listed in the
Bible, we must assume (to be on the safe side) that the Bible means what
it says, that _everyone_ must be baptized to enter Heaven.  And so we
baptize infants.

   To summarize, you accused the original poster of saying if something
is not forbidden by the Bible, then that proves it is OK; i.e. if
something cannot be disproven, it is true.  He rather seemed to be
asserting that since the Bible does not forbid, _you cannot prove_,
using the Bible, that it is _not_ OK.  There is a difference between
proving whether or not something can be proven or disproven (there are
theories on provability in the field of Logic, by the way) and actually
proving or disproving it.  The other logical error we must avoid falling
into is the converse: that if something cannot be proven, then it is
false.  This seems to be the error of many _sola scriptura_ believers.

   I think the only thing that can be proven here is that one cannot use
Scripture alone to prove something either way about infant Baptism,
although the evidence seems to me to favor it.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21548
From: koberg@spot.Colorado.EDU (Allen Koberg)
Subject: Re: SATANIC TOUNGES

In article <May.11.02.38.52.1993.28313@athos.rutgers.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>In article <May.9.05.40.36.1993.27495@athos.rutgers.edu> koberg@spot.Colorado.EDU (Allen Koberg) writes:
>>Hmmm...in the old testament story about the tower of Babel, we see how
>>God PUNISHED by giving us different language.  Can we assume then that
>>if angels have their own language at all, that they have the SAME one
>>amongst other angels?  After all, THEY were not punished in any manner.
>
>If the languages we sepak are the result of Babel, then it stands to
>reason that angels would speak a different language from us.  You do 
>have a valid point about multiple angelic languages.  But angelic
>beings maybe of different species so to speak.  maybe different species
>communicate differently.  

I don't know either.  Truth be known, so little is known of angels
to even guess.  All we really know is that angels ALWAYS speak in
the nativ tongue of the person they're talking to, so perhaps they
don't have ANY language of their own.

>>Trouble is, while such stories abound, any and all attempts at
>>verification (and we are to test the spirit...) either show that
>>the witness had no real idea of the circumstances, or that outright
>>fabrication was involved.  The Brother Puka story in a previous post
>>seems like a "friend of a friend" thing.  And linguistically, a two
>>syllable word hardly qualifies as language, inflection or no.
>
>I have heard an eyewitness account, myself.  Such things are hard to prove.
>They don't lend themselves to a laboratory thing very well.  I don';t
>know if it is a very holy thing to take gifts into a laboratory anyway.

Well, we are told to test the spirits.  While you could do this
scripturally, to see if someones claims are backed by the bible,
I see nothing wrong with making sure that that guy Lazarus really
was dead and now he's alive.

>>Much as many faith healers have trouble proving their "victories" (since
>>most ailments "cured" are just plain unprovable) and modern day
>>ressurrections have never been validated, so is it true that no
>>modern day xenoglossolalia has been proved by clergy OR lay.
>
>That's an unprovable statement.  How can you prove if somethings been proved?
>There is no way to know that you've seen all the evidence.  Once I 
>saw an orthodontists records complete with photographs showing how one of
>his patients severe underbite was cured by constant prayer.  

It's a common fallacy you commit.  The non-falsifiability trick.  How
can I prove it when not all the evidence may be seen?  Answer:  I
can't.  The fallacy is in assuming that it is up to me to prove 
anything.  

When I say it has never been proven, I'm talking about the ones
making the claims, not the skeptics, who are doing the proving.

The burden of proof rest with the claimant.  Unfortunately, 
(pontification warning) our legal system seems to be headed in
the dangerous realm of making people prove their innocence (end
pontification).

But truthfully, Corinthians was so poorly written (or maybe just
so poorly translated into English) that much remains unknown
about just what Paul really intended (despite claims of hard
proof one way or another).  Some will see his writings in
1 cor 12-14 as saying don't do this don't do this and using
sarcasm, metaphor, etc. while yet others take what he says literally
sarcasms and metaphors notwithstanding.

Me?  When I read 1 Cor 14 about praying/speaking in tongues regarding
building oneself/the church, I see him using compare/contrast,
saying do this because it build the church, while doing this
builds onself (implying don't do that).  It's a common usage
of writing that we all employ, and it is easily seen how it
COULD be interpreted this way.  Why some do and some don't is
a mystery.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21549
From: bluelobster+@cmu.edu (David O Hunt)
Subject: Re: How I got saved...

My first and most important point is that regardless of how your recovery
happened, I'm glad it did!

On 10-May-93 in Re: How I got saved...       
user Karen Lauro@camelot.brad writes:
>	I found it ore than coincidental that less than 2 weeks after
>I put my faith where my mouth was, one more in the long line of doctors
>and not even an orthopeodic specialist, diagnosed my problems with no
>difficulty, set me on the path to an effective cure, and I was walking
>and running again without the pain that had stopped me from that for
>4 years. The diagnosis was something he felt the other doctors must have
>"overlooked" because it was perfectly obvious from my test results.

NOW!  The point that I'll try to make is that coincidences like this occur
with a very high frequency.  How many of us have been thinking of someone
and had that person call?  Much of the whole psychic phenomenon is easily
explicable by this - one forgets the misses.  Consider your astrological
forcast in the newspaper.  How many times have you said "That's me" vs
"That's not me"?  You'll remember the hits, but the misses will be much more
frequent.

On 10-May-93 in Re: How I got saved...       
user Karen Lauro@camelot.brad writes:
>	Maybe this doesn't hit you as miraculous. But to me it really
>is. Imagine an active 17 year old being told she may not be able to
>walk mcuh longer...and is now a happy 18 year old who can dance and run
>knowing that the problem was there all along and was "revealed" just
>after she did what she knew was right. As the song says...

And what if, instead if being healed, your affliction got much worse and
you ended up paralyzed?  Would you have attributed that to god as well?
Or would that have been the work of satan?  If you believe that would have
been so, why ONLY good from god, and ONLY evil from satan?  Couldn't the
agony have come from god?  Think about what he did to poor Job!



David Hunt - Graduate Slave |     My mind is my own.      | Towards both a
Mechanical Engineering      | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and
Carnegie Mellon University  | <<<Use Golden Rule v2.0>>>  | Jewish homeland!
====T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=========T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=====
Email:  bluelobster+@cmu.edu    Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper"

The gostak distims the doches!

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21550
From: mdw@sitar.hr.att.com (Mark Wuest)
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

In article <May.11.02.38.56.1993.28319@athos.rutgers.edu> Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com writes:

>>Eugene Bigelow writes:

>>>Doesn't the Bible say that God is a fair god [sic]?  If this is true,
>>how can >this possibly be fair to the infants?

>Andrew Byler writes:

>>[What do you mean fair?  God is just, giving to everyone what they
>>deserve. As all infants are in sin from the time of conception (cf
>>Romans 5.12, Psalm 1.7), they cannot possibly merit heaven, and as
>>purgatory is for the purging of temporal punishment and venial sins, it
>>is impossible that origianl sin can be forgiven....

>Why is it fair to punish you, me and the rest of humanity because of
>what Adam and Eve did? Suppose your parents committed some crime before
>you were born and one day the cops come to your door and throw you in
>jail for it. Would you really think that is fair? I know I wouldn't.

Well, suppose your mother was a crack addict and crack user/abuser while
she was pregnant? Suppose your husband gave you some SDT (this recently
happened to a close friend of my wife and mine)?

OFTEN, the consequences of our sin are at least partially inflicted on
innocent people. Several times in the OT, this is pointed out, even
saying that descendants would suffer consequences for a person's sin
for several generations. Even today, we see multi-generational (to
coin a phrase) effects from alcoholism, child abuse, and spousal
abuse just to name three.

So, God's definition of fair and ours differ.

Some points of perspective:

Though the predisposition towards sinning is now inbred (see Webster's
first definition of inbred) thanks to Adam, it is arrogant and foolish
for any of us to think we would have done any different if we were in
their shoes. I know myself pretty well, and I'm just not that good. Take
God's word for it, neither are you. "There is no one righteous..."

More important, when a person decides to be a disciple of Jesus, God
promises supernatural help in overcoming our physical self's sinful
tendency. We can, of course, choose to ignore this help. (Rom 7,8)

"...God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many
schemes." -Eccl

Mark
-- 
Mark Wuest                              |     *MY* opinions, not AT&T's!!
mdw@violin.hr.att.com (Sun Mailtool Ok) |
mdw@trumpet.hr.att.com (NeXT Mail)      |

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21551
From: kutz@andy.bgsu.edu (Ken Kutz)
Subject: Re: FAQ essay on homosexuality

Our moderator writes:

> I believe one could take a view like this even while accepting the
> views Paul expressed in Rom 1.  One may believe that homosexuality is
> not what God intended, that it occured as a result of sin, but still
> conclude that at times we have to live with it.  Note that in the
> creation story work enters human life as a result of sin.  This
> doesn't mean that Christians can stop working when we are saved.

Please note that God commanded Adam to work before the fall:

"The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work
 it and take care of it." (Gen 2:15, NIV).  

Work was God's design from the beginning.

-- 
Ken

[I'll clarify the wording.  There was obviously a rather different
kind of labor imposed after the fall, but the statement as it
stands is misleading.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21552
From: Rick_Granberry@pts.mot.com (Rick Granberry)
Subject: Re: FAQ essay on homosexuality

Before you finalize your file in the FAQs (or after), you might want to 
correct the typo in the following:

> Kinsey (see below) is the source 
> of the figure 10 percent.  He defines sexuality by behavior, not by 
> orientation, and ranked all persons on a scale from Zero (completely 
> heterosexual) to 6 (completely heterosexual).

It seems one or the other end of the rating scale should be identified with 
"homosexual".

As a personal note, I guess I differ with you on the question of work 
entering human life as a result of sin.  
> Note that in the 
> creation story work enters human life as a result of sin.
 
Before the fall (Gen 2:15) "And the LORD God took the man, and put him into 
the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it." which I would call "work".  
For me, the difference introduced by sin is the painful aspects of work added 
at the fall (I take the cursing of the ground in vs.17-19 to apply to the 
work for sustenance).  In a way, some view "work" as a blessing (Ecclesiastes 
is a fun book! - for melancholies).

I hope I do not sound caustic, maybe you can enlighten me further.

Well, this is certainly a delicate subject, and I guess you accomplished what 
you state as your purpose "It summarizes arguments for allowing Christian 
homosexuality", not for me the most noble goal, but you are writing a FAQ.

I wonder if you might temporize the apparent "sentence" of the specific 
homosexual you propose (arguably tenuously define).
> The danger in advising Christians to
> depend upon such a change is clear: When "conversion" doesn't happen,
> which is almost always, the people are often left in despair, feeling
> excluded from a Church that has nothing more to say but a requirement
> of life-long celibacy. 
  Perhaps that would be true of "celibacy from homosexual relations", or 
refrainng from their choice relationships, but that does not forbid 
heterosexual.  Could they not have/enjoy heterosexual relations "for what it 
was worth"?
 
[This depends upon the person.  In some cases I think the answer is
no.  Even with those who could, consider what you're asking.  I assume
we're talking about marriage -- I certainly would not want to suggest
sex outside that.  You're talking about a permanent commitment to a
kind of sexual relationship that they aren't really sure they can live
with.  There may be people for whom this is a possible solution, but I
wonder whether it's entirely fair to the other partner.  I have a
cousin who was a victim of exactly this situation.  We found out later
(after her death) that her husband had had problems with his sexual
identity.  His family (conservative Christians) knew it, and pushed
him into getting married.  He continued having problems, and they were
near divorce.  She died in an accident whose circumstances some of the
relatives consider odd.  He has since had a sex change operation, and
has been moving around from state to state without being able to hold
a job, keeping their children in a kind of home life both sets of
grandparents consider irresponsible.  I hope you can understand why I
am not enthusiastic about pushing homosexuals into marriage.  I really
liked my cousin.  This is sort of an emotional issue for me.  Again,
it may be possible for some, but this is the sort of situation that
needs to be dealt with pastorally and not as a matter of fixed
ideology.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21553
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <May.11.02.36.45.1993.28090@athos.rutgers.edu> news@cbnewsk.att.com writes:
>Paul repeatedly talks about the
>"thorn" in his side, some think it refers to lust, others pride, but
>who knows.  Whatever the thorn was, apparently it was not "compatible"
>with Christianity, yet does that make his epistles any less?

There is no reason to believe that Paul's thorn in the flesh was 
a sin in his life.  That makes little sense in the light of Paul'
writings taken in totality.  He writes of how he presses for the
mark, and keeps his body submitted.  No doubt Paul had to struggle
with the flesh just like every Christian.  Paul does associate his 
thorn with a Satanic messenger, and with physical infirmities and tribulation,
but not with a sin in his life.

Link Hudson.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21554
From: creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)
Subject: Catholic doctrine of predestination

In article <May.11.02.37.03.1993.28114@athos.rutgers.edu> noye@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>really?  you may be right, but i'd like proof.  as far as i know (and
>i am not a div school student!) the catholic church does not seem to
>accept predestination.  my chaplain told me "beware of greeks bearing
>gifts" with reference to this doctrine: it seems to have the curious
>result that human beings are not held responsible for their own
>actions!  i'll answer how you deal with this in a minute.

   The Catholic doctrine of predestination does not exclude free will in
any way.  Since God knows everything, He therefore knows everything that
is going to happen to us.  We have free will, and are able to change
what happens to us.  However, since God knows everything, He knows all
the choices we will make "in advance" (God is not subject to time).  Too
often arguments pit predestination against free will.  We believe in
both.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21555
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: An quoted argument for theism

On Sun 2 May 1993, Damon wrote:

 > A Christian friend of mine once reasoned that if we were never
 > created, we could not exists. Therefore we were created, and
 > therefore there exists a Creator.

I hesitate to comment on the validity of this, because I do not know
what your friend meant by it. If he meant that whatever exists must
have been created, then he is open to the obvious retort that God
exists, and so God must have been created.

Perhaps your friend meant that we exist now but that there was a
time when we did not exist, and therefore something other than
ourselves must have brought us into existence. This seems plausible,
but an atheist might reply, "So my parents engendered me. So what?"
Here your friend would have to explain why an infinite regress of
causes is not a satisfactory explanation. He would have some support
from philosophers who are not ordinarily considered religious (Ayn
Rand, and some others who are in the tradition of Aristotle). Having
argued for a First Cause, he would have to bridge the gap between
said entity and the God of Abraham. If he merely asserts that the
things we observe are ultimately dependent on things radically
unlike them, few physicists would disagree.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21556
From: AKF@stud.hsn.no (ANN KRISTIN FRYSTAD)
Subject: Re: How I got saved

Hello, Brycen ?!
I'm a Norwegian journalist student - and also a Christian. Thanks for your 
testimony! But I want to ask you one question: What do you think of Heavy 
Metal music after you became a Christian? You know there are Christian bands 
like Barren Cross, Whitecross, Bloodgood and Stryper, that play that kind of 
music. I like some of it, I feel like it sometimes. Of course I listen to 
the lyrics too. I don't listen to any Christian band, but it's better than 
listening to secular music anyway. 
Hope you're still going strong - with Christ!!

Ann Kristin Froeystad, College of Nordland, Norway.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21557
From: creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

In article <May.11.02.38.56.1993.28319@athos.rutgers.edu> Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com writes:
>As St. Augustine said, "I did not invent original sin, which the
>Catholic faith holds from ancient time; but you, who deny it, without a
>doubt are a follower of a new heresy."  (De nuptiis, lib. 11.c.12)]
>
>Why is it fair to punish you, me and the rest of humanity because of
>what Adam and Eve did? Suppose your parents committed some crime before
>you were born and one day the cops come to your door and throw you in
>jail for it. Would you really think that is fair? I know I wouldn't.

   You may not think that it is fair, but how many sins do you know of
that affect only the sinner?  Is it fair for us even to be able to get
into Heaven?  Do we have a _right_ to Heaven, even if we were to lead
sinless lives?  Anyway, your argument seems to be saying, "If _I_ were
God, I certainly wouldn't do things that way; therefore, God doesn't do
things that way."

	Isaiah 55:8-9:

	"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my
	ways, saith the LORD.  For as the heavens are higher than the
	earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts
	than your thoughts."

   Original Sin is biblical:

	Romans 5:12-14:

	"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death
	by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have
	sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not
	imputed when there is no law.  Nevertheless death reigned from
	Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the
	similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him
	that was to come."

	1 Corinthians 15:22:

	"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made
	alive."

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21558
From: crs@carson.u.washington.edu (Cliff Slaughterbeck)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christiani

OFM writes:

>This is an issue throughout the Presbyterian Church.  On the other
>side, one of the major churches in Cincinnati has been ordaining
>homosexual elders, and has ignored Presbytery instructions not to do
>so.  And the church in Rochester where the judicial commission said
>they couldn't install a homosexual pastor has made her an
>"evangelist".  These situations, as well as the one you describe, do
>not appear to be stable.  This will certainly be a major topic for the
>General Assembly next month.  If the church can't come up with a
>solution that will let people live with each other, I think we're end
>up with a split.  Clearly neither side wants that, but I think we'll
>get pushed into it by actions of both sides.
>
>--clh]

The Moderator of the General Assembly, the Rev. John Fife, visited our
church about a week ago (just 4 days after Rev. Spahr--it's been a busy
week for our small church!!).  He was asked specifically about the issue
of homosexuality and what he thinks will happen at the GA meeting next
month.  Evidently, there are 15-20 known resolutions pending that range
the gamut from "outlawing" homosexuality altogether to "legalizing" it
completely.  He will readily admit that this is probabaly the most difficult
issue that the church has had to deal with since the Presbyterian church
split in two over the issue of slavery more than 100 years ago.  Without
question, the issue may split the church again after we've been reunited
for all of a dozen years or so.  He is hopeful that it will not and is
pushing the same attitude that helped the church deal with the abortion
issue last year as a solution.

He is hoping to pass a resolution that more or less states that we, the
members of the church "Agree to Disagree" on the issue, admitting that
both sides have honestly studied the Scriptures and had the Spirit lead
them to different conclusions.  It worked last year when the abortion
issue threatened to do more or less the same thing, and he is hopeful that
the GA can foster a loving and caring attitude about people who disagree
with their own view.

--
Cliff Slaughterbeck           | 
Dept. of Physics, FM-15       |   It's time for the sermon on the
University of Washington      |   Grand Torino!
Seattle, WA 98195             |

[It's going to be hard to agree to disagree.  If we allow
disagreement, then some presbyteries and churches are going to ordain
people that others will not recognize.  That's a difficult situation
in a connectional church.  I could live with it, but I think a lot of
people would not be willing to.  Note that the church was not willing
to live with this kind of compromise with ordination of women.  The
one thing that will definitely prevent a person from becoming a
Presbyterian minister is if they indicate that they don't accept
ordination of women.  The argument is that we can't have half the
church not accepting the leaders of the other half.  Maybe people will
decide to live with it in this case when they didn't in the other, but
I wonder.  I admit that my own Presbytery submitted an overture to the
GA that would have exactly this effect, and we considered the
ambiguity better than the current situation.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21559
From: mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server)
Subject: Re: homosexual issues in Christianity

whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell) sent in a list of verses 
which he felt condemn homosexuality.  mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) wrote in 
response that some of these verses "are used against us only through incredibly 
perverse interpretations" and that others "simply do not address the issues."

In response, I wrote:
>I can see that some of the above verses do not clearly address the issues, 
>however, a couple of them seem as though they do not require "incredibly 
>perverse interpretations" in order to be seen as condemning homosexuality.
> 
>"... Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, 
>nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, 
>nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom  of God.  And such were 
>some of you..."  I Cor. 6:9-11.
> 
>Would someone care to comment on the fact that the above seems to say
>fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of God?  How does this apply
>to homosexuals?  I understand "fornication" to be sex outside of
>marriage.  Is this an accurate definition?  Is there any such thing as
>same-sex marriage in the Bible?  My understanding has always been that
>the New Testament blesses sexual intercourse only between a husband
>and his wife.  I am, however, willing to listen to Scriptural evidence
>to the contrary.
[remainder of my post deleted]  The moderator then made some comments I would 
like to address:

>[There's some ambiguity about the meaning of the words in the passage
>you quote.  Both liberal and conservative sources seem to agree that
>"homosexual" is not the general term for homosexuals, but is likely to
>have a meaning like homosexual prostitute.  That doesn't meant that I
>think all the Biblical evidence vanishes, but the nature of the
>evidence is such that you can't just quote one verse and solve things.

If you are referring to the terms "effeminate" and "homosexuals" in
the above passage, I agree that the accuracy of the translation has
been challenged.  However, I was simply commenting on the charge that
it is an "incredibly perverse" interpretation to read this as a
condemnation of homosexuality.  Such a charge seems to imply that no
reasonable person would ever conclude from the verse that Paul
intended to condemn homosexuality; however, I think I can see how a
reasonable person might very well take this view of the verse.
Therefore I do not believe it is "incredibly perverse" to read it in
this way.

>I think your argument from fornication is circular.  Why is
>homosexuality wrong?  Because it's fornication.  Why is it
>fornication?  Because they're not married.  Why aren't they married?
>Because the church refuses to do a marriage ceremony. Why does the
>church refuse to do a marriage ceremony?  Because homosexuality is
>wrong.  In order to break the circle there's got to be some other
>reason to think homosexuality is wrong.
> 
>--clh]

Actually, I wasn't thinking of the church at all.  After all, a couple
doesn't have to be married by a minister.  A secular justice of the
peace could do the job, and the two people would be married.  My point
was that it is easy to find a biblical basis for heterosexual
marriage, but where in the Bible would one get a Christian marriage
between two people of the same sex?  And if you do see a biblical
basis for same-sex marriages, how willing would gay Christians be to
"save themselves" for such a marriage and to never have sexual
intercourse with anyone outside of that marriage relationship?  Please
note that I am not trying to imply that gay Christians would not be
willing to be so monogamous, I am genuinely interested in hearing
opinions on the subject.  I have heard comments from gays in the past
that lead me to believe they regard promiscuity as one of the main
points of being homosexual, yet I tend to doubt that gays who want to
be Christian would advocate such a position.  So what is the gay view?

- Mark

[Yes, I agree that a reasonable person might conclude that Paul is
condemning homosexuality.  I was responding to certain details of
your posting.  That doesn't mean I agree with Michael in all
respects.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21560
From: mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server)
Subject: Re: Dreams and out of body incidents

dt4%cs@hub.ucsb.edu (David E. Goggin) writes:

>1) Dreams and OOBEs are totally mental phenomena.  In this case no morality
...
>2) Dreams and OOBEs have a reality of their own (i.e. are 'another plane')
...
>3) Like (2), but here we assume that though the dreeam and OOBE environs have 
>a
>real existence, a different moral/ethics apply there, and no (or maybe 
>different) moral laws apply there.


I can think of another alternative:

4)  OOBE's are a form of contact with the demonic world, whereby one 
intentionally or unintentionally surrenders control of his or her perceptions 
to spiritual beings whose purpose is to deceive and entrap them.

- Mark

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21561
From: jlin@convex1.tcs.tulane.edu.tulane.edu (Jonah Lin)
Subject: Re: SATANIC TOUNGES

In article <May.9.05.40.36.1993.27495@athos.rutgers.edu> koberg@spot.Colorado.EDU (Allen Koberg) writes:
>
>Hmmm...in the old testament story about the tower of Babel, we see how
>God PUNISHED by giving us different language.  Can we assume then that
>if angels have their own language at all, that they have the SAME one
>amongst other angels?  After all, THEY were not punished in any manner.
>

Maybe before Babel,everyone including angels spoke the same language,so at
Babel, God punished us by giving us languages different from the original one.
So if that's the case,then angels now would be speaking in the tongue  mankind
spoke before Babel.

Jonah

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21562
From: revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

Dan Schaertel,,, (dps@nasa.kodak.com) wrote:
: In article 15441@geneva.rutgers.edu, loisc@microsoft.com (Lois Christiansen) writes:

: |>You might visit some congregations of Christians, who happen to be homosexuals,
: |>that are spirit-filled believers, not MCC'rs; before you go lumping us all
: |>together with Troy Perry.  
: |>

: Gee, I think there are some real criminals (robbers, muderers, drug
: addicts) who appear to be fun loving caring people too.  So what's
: your point?  Is it OK. just because the people are nice?

The point is not about being "nice."  "Nice" is not a christian virtue.  The
point is that the gifts and fruits of the spirit (by their fruits you shall
know them- Mt 7:20) are manifested by and among prayerful, spirit-filled
GAY christians.  It was the manifestation of the spirit among the gentiles
that convinced Peter (Acts 10) that his prejudice against them (based on
scripture, I might add) was not in accordance with God's intentions.

: I think the old saying " hate the sin and not the sinner" is
: appropriate here.  Many who belive homosexuality is wrong probably
: don't hate the people.  I don't.  I don't hate my kids when they do
: wrong either.  But I tell them what is right, and if they lie or don't
: admit they are wrong, or just don't make an effort to improve or
: repent, they get punished.  I think this is quite appropriate.  You
: may want to be careful about how you think satan is working here.
: Maybe he is trying to destroy our sense of right and wrong through
: feel goodism.  Maybe he is trying to convince you that you know more
: than God.  Kind of like the Adam and Eve story.  Read it and compare
: it to today's mentality.  You may be suprised.

Of course the whole issue is one of discernment.  It may be that Satan
is trying to convince us that we know more than God.  Or it may be that
God is trying (as God did with Peter) to teach us something we don't
know- that "God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears
him and does what is right is acceptable to him." (Acts 10:34-35).

revdak@netcom.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21563
From: revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille)
Subject: Re: Deuterocanonicals, esp. Sirach

poram@ihlpb.att.com wrote:
: Lets talk about principles. If we accept that God sets the
: standards for what ought to be included in Scripture - then we
: can ask:
: 1. Is it authoritative?

"Authoritative" is not a quality of the writing itself- it is a statement
by the community of faith whether it will accept the writing as normative.

: 2. Is it prophetic?

How is "prophecy" to be defined? If it is "speaking forth" of God's message,
much of the apocrypha must surely qualify.

: 3. Is it authentic?

Again, by what standard?  Is "authenticity" a function of the authors? the
historical accuracy? 

: 4. Is it dynamic?

What is this supposed to mean?  Many of the apocryphal books are highly
"dynamic" -thought provoking, faithful, even exciting.

: 5. Is it received, collected, read and used?

By whom?  Of course the apocryphal books were received (by some),
collected (or else we would not have them), read and used (and they still are,
in the Catholic and Orthodox churches).

: On these counts, the apocrapha falls short of the glory of God.

This is demonstrably false.

: To quote Unger's Bible Dictionary on the Apocrapha:
: 1. They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and
: anachronisms.

So do other books of the Bible.

: 2. They teach doctrines which are false and foster practices
: which are at variance with sacred Scripture.

"False" by whose interpretation?  Those churches that accept them find no
contradiction with the rest of scripture.  

: 3. They resort to literary types and display an artificiality of
: subject matter and styling out of keeping with sacred Scripture.

This is a purely subjective evaluation.  The apocryphal books demonstrate
the same categories and forms of writing found in the other scriptures.
(In fact, one could argue that the apocryphal "Additions to the Book of
Esther" act rather to bring the "unscripturelike" book of Esther more into
line with other books.)

: 4. They lack the distinctive elements which give genuine
: Scripture their divine character, such as prophetic power and
: poetic and religious feeling.

Have you ever read the Wisdom of Ben Sira or the Wisdom of Solomon?  They
exhibit every bit as much "poetic and religious feeling" as Psalms or
Proverbs.

[deletions]

: How do you then view the words: "I warn everyone who  hears the
: words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to
: them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
: And if anyone takes away from this book the prophecy, God will
: take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the
: holy city" (Rev 22.18-9)
: Surely this sets the standard and not just man-made traditions.

These words clearly were meant to refer to the book of Revelation alone,
not to the whole body of scripture.  Revelation itself was accepted very
late into the canon.  The church simply did not see it as having a primary
role of any kind in identifying and limiting scripture.

: It is also noteworthy to consider Jesus' attitude. He had no
: argument with the pharisees over any of the OT canon (John
: 10.31-6), and explained to his followers on the road to Emmaus 
: that in the law, prophets and psalms which referred to him - the 
: OT division of Scripture (Luke 24.44), as well as in Luke 11.51
: taking Genesis to Chronicles (the jewish order - we would say
: Genesis to Malachi) as Scripture.

Jesus does not refer to the canon for the simple reason that in his day,
the canon had not been established as a closed collection.  The books
of the apocrypha were part of the Septuagint (which was the Bible of
the early church).  The Hebrew canon was not closed until 90 c.e.
The Torah (Pentateuch/ "Law") was established in Jesus' day, as were
the Prophets (with the _exclusion_ of Daniel).  The Writings, however,
were still in flux.  Jesus does not refer to the Writings, only to the
Psalms, which were part of them.  The books of the apocrypha were all
part of the literature that was eventually sifted and separated.

To argue that Jesus is referring to the Jewish canonical order in Luke 11:51
is weak at best; he is not quoting scripture, but telling a chronological
story.  And, as mentioned above, the Hebrew canon (especially in the
present order) did not exist as such in Jesus' day.

revdak@netcom.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21564
From: wagner@grace.math.uh.edu (David Wagner)
Subject: Re: Deuterocanonicals, esp. Sirach

"Larry" == Larry L. Overacker <shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com> writes:

I, not Dave Davis, wrote:
>
>The deutero-canonical books were added much later in the church's
>history.  They do not have the same spiritual quality as the rest of
>Scripture.  I do not believe the church that added these books was
>guided by the Spirit in so doing.  And that is where this sort of
>discussion ultimately ends.

Sorry, I put my foot in my mouth, concerning the church's history.
It is correct to say that the Council of Hippo 393 listed the 
deuterocanonical books among those accepted for use in the
church, and that this was ratified by the Council of Carthage,
and by Pope Innoent I and Gelasius I (414 AD).

Yet Eerdman's History of the Church says: 

"At the end of the fourth century views still differed in regard to
the extent of the canon, or the number of the books which should
be acknowledged as divine and authoritative.

   The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew bible, was universally 
received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version
of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books
suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between
canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings.
And justly; for those books, while they have great historical
value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New,
all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and the cannot
be therefore regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited
by Christ or the aposteles."

"In the Western church the canon of both Testaments was closed
at the end of the fourth century through the authority of
Jerome (who wavered, however, between critical doubts and the
principle of tradition), and more especially of Augustine,
who firmly followed the Alexandrian canon of the Septuagint,
and the preponderant tradition in reference to the Catholic
Epistles and the Revelation; though he himself, in some
places, inclines to consider the Old Testament Apocrypha
as *deutero* canonical, bearing a subordinate authority."

This history goes on to say that Augustine attended both the
Council of Hippo and of Carthage.

It is interesting to note, however, the following footnote to
the fourth session of the Council of Trent.  The footnote 
lists various Synods which endorsed lists of canonical 
books, but then says "The Tridentine list or decree was the
first *infallible* and effectually promulgated declaration
on the Canon of the Holy Scriptures."

Which leads one to think that the RC canon was not official
until Trent.  Thus my previous erroneous statement was
not entirely groundless.

It is also interesting to note that the Council of Trent
went on to uphold "the old Latin Vulgate Edition" of 
the Scriptures as authentic.  Which, I would suppose, 
today's Catholic scholars wish the Council had never said.
Also the council made no distinction between deutero-canonical
and canonical books--in contrast to (Eerdman's statement of) the
fourth century views.

David Wagner
a confessional Lutheran

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21565
From: fortmann@superbowl.und.ac.za (Paul Fortmann - PG)
Subject: Praying for Justice

I recently came across this article which I found interesting. I have 
posted it to hear what other people feel about the issue.

I realise it is rather long (12 pages in Wordperfect) by may well be worth 
the read.

Except for the first page (which I typed) the rest was scanned inusing 
Omnipage. Some of the f's have come out as t's and visa-versa. I have tried 
to correct as much as possible.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Peter Hammond is the founder of Frontline Fellowship, a
missionary organisation witnessing to the communist countries in
Southern Africa. He has also made several visits to many East
European countries.

FRONTLINE FELLOWSHIP NEWS                          ISSN 1018-144X

PRAYING FOR JUSTICE
(by Peter Hammond)

To those involved in ministering to Christians suffering
persecution the imprecatory Psalms are a tremendous source of
comfort. And those of us who are fighting for the right to life
of the preborn, or battling social evils such as pornography or
crime, are beginning to appreciate what an important weapon God
has entrusted to us in the imprecatory Psalms.


THE IMPRECATORY PSALMS

Early in my Christian walk I encountered the prayers for
judgement in the Psalms and was quite at loss to know how to
respond to them. Prayers such as:
"Break the arm of the wicked and evil men; call him to account for
his wickedness ..." Psalm 10:15 did not seem consistent with the
gospel of love which I had accepted. Yet Psalm 10:15 was clearly
motivated by love for God ("The Lord is King for ever and ever;
the nation will perish from His land" 10:16, and "Why does the
wicked man revile God? 10:13), and by love for the innocent who
suffer ("You hear, O Lord, the desire of the afflicted; You
encourage them, and You listen to their cry, defending the
fatherless and oppressed, in order that man, who is of the earth,
may terrify no more." 10:17-18)

Nevertheless, I grew increasingly uncomfortable reading such
graphic prayers for God to judge the wicked as: "Pour out your
wrath on them; let Your fierce anger overtake them" 64:24; "O
Lord, the God avenges, O God who avenges, shine forth. Rise up, O
Judge of the earth, pay back to the proud what they deserve."
95:1-2; "Break the teeth in their mouths, O God; ...let them
vanish like water .. let their arrows be blunted ... The
righteous will be glad when they are avenged, when they bathe
their feet in the blood of the wicked. Then men will way, "Surely
the righteous still are rewarded; surely there is a God who
judges the earth.'" 58:6-11

Certainly I wanted God to be honoured and yes I was deeply
destressed by the prevalence of evil -  but could I actually pray
for God to "pour out His wrath" on the wicked?

The scripture make it clear that these prayers are not to be
prayed for own selfish motives, nor against our personal enemies.
Rather they are to be prayed in Christ, for His glory and against
His enemies. The psalmist describes the targets of these
imprecation as: those who devise injustice in their heart and
whose hands mete out violence (58:2) those who "boast of evil"
and "are a disgrace in the eyes of God. Your tongue plots
destruction, it is like a sharpened razor, and you who practise
deceit. You love evil rather than good, falsehood rather than
speaking the truth." 52:1-3; "They crush your people ... They
slay the widow and the alien; they murder the fatherless." 94:5-
6; "With cunning they conspire against Your people; they plot
against those You cherish." 83:3; "You hate all who do wrong. You
destroy those who tell lies; bloodthirsty and deceitful men the
Lord abhors." 5:5-6.

To those unrepentant enemies of God the psalmist declares:
"Surely God will bring you down to everlasting ruin" 52:5;
"Surely God will crush the heads of His enemies ... of those who
go on in their sins" 68:21.

And the purpose of these prayers for justice is declared: "Then
it will be known to the ends of the earth that God rules ..."
59:13; "to proclaim the powers of God" 68:34; "All kings will bow
down to Him and all nations will serve Him " 72:11; "Who knows
the power of Your anger? For Your wrath is as great as the fear
that is due You. " 90:11

Yet despite the fact that 90 of the 150 Psalms include
imprecations (prayers invoking God's righteous judgement upon the
wicked) such prayers are rare in the average Western church.
However, amongst the persecuted churches these prayers are much
more common.


PRAYING AGAINST THE PERSECUTORS

Amidst the burnt out churches and devastation of Marxist Angola I
found the survivors of communist persecution including the
crippled and maimed, and widows and orphans praying for God to
strike down the wicked and remove the persecutors of the Church.
I was shocked - yet it was Biblical (Even the martyrs in heaven
pray "How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge
the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?" Revelation
6:10).

The initiator of the communist persecution in Angola was Agestino
Neto. Described as a "drunken, psychotic, marxist poet", Neto had
been installed by Cuban troops as the first dictator of Angola.
He boasted that: "Within 20 years there won't be a Bible or a
church left in Angola. I will have eradicated Christianity." Yet
despite the vicious wave of church burning and massacres it is
not Christianity that was eradicated in Angola but Agestino Neto.
Neto died in mysterious circumstances on an operating table in
Moscow.

In Romania I learnt of a series of remarkable incidents recorded
of God judging the persecutors of the Church in answer to prayer:
  *  A communist official ordered a certain pastor to be
     arrested. the next day the official died of a heart attack.
  *  Another communist party official ordered that all the Bibles
     in his district were to be collected and pulped, to be
     turned into toilet paper. This blasphemous project was in
     fact carried out. But the next day when the official was
     medically examined, he was informed that he had terminal
     cancer. He died shortly afterwards.
  *  On another occasion, a communist official who had ordered a
     Baptist church to be demolished by bulldozers died in a car
     crash the very next day.
  *  When an order was given to dismantle a place of worship on
     the mountainside in a forest, the workmen flatly refused to
     carry out the order. At gunpoint a group of conscripted
     gypsies also refused to touch the church. In desperation,
     the communist police forced prisoners at bayonet-point to
     dismantle the structure. Yet the officer in charge pleaded
     with the local Christians to pray for him, that God would
     not judge him. He emphasised that he had nothing against
     Christians and was only obeying strict orders. The building
     was in fact reconstructed later, and again used for worship.
     "They were all seized with Sear and the Name of the Lord
     Jesus was held in high honour... in this way the Word of the
     Lord spread widely and grew in power. " Acts 19:17,20

Nicolae Ceaucescu the dictator who ordered much of the
persecution in Romania was overthrown by his own army and
executed on Christmas day, 1989, to joyous shouts of "the
antiChrist is dead" in the streets. Many testified that this was
in answer to the fervent prayers of the long suffering people of
Romania.

Another persecutor of the Church who challenged God was Samora
Machel, the first dictator of Marxist Mozambique. Samora Machel
was a cannibal who ate human flesh in witchcraft ceremonies in
the 1960's. He pledged his soul to Satan and vowed that he would
destroy the Church and turn Mozambique into the first truly
Marxist-Leninist state in Africa. Thousands of churches in
Mozambique were closed confiscated, "nationalised" chained and
padlocked, burnt down or boarded up. Missionaries were expelled,
some being imprisoned first. Evangelism was forbidden. Bibles
were ceremonially burnt and tens of thousands of Christians,
including many pastors and elders, were shipped off to
concentration camps - most were never seen again.

A month before his sudden death Samora Machel cursed God publicly
and challenged Him to prove His existence by striking him
(Machel) dead. On 19 October 1986, while several churches were
specifically praying for God to stop the persecution in
Mozambique, Machel's Soviet Tupelov aircraft crashed in a violent
thunderstorm. The plane crashed 200 metres within South Africa's
boundary with Mozambique. Amidst the wreckage the marxist plans
for overthrowing the government of Malawi were discovered and
published. Not only had God judged a blasphemer and a persecutor,
but He had also saved a country from persecution.

In the months leading up to the first multi-party elections in
Zambia many churches fasted and prayed tor God to remove the 27
year socialist dictatorship of Kenneth Kaunda. This was done on
31st October 1991 when Fredrick Chiluba (a man converted to
Christ whilst imprisoned for opposing Kaunda) was elected
president of Zambia and covenanted to make Zambia a Christian
country.

It is recorded in history that the wicked Mary, Queen of Scots,
declared trembling and in tears: "I am more afraid of John Knox's
prayers than of an army of ten thousand".

On 3 April 1993 the Secretary General of the South African
Communist Party Chris Hani was shot dead. From the unprecedented
international wave of condolences and adulation reported one
could be forgiven for assuming that this man was a saint and a
martyr. Certainly it was not the death and resurrection of Christ
Jesus which dominated the thoughts and headlines of South Africa
this Easter, but the assassination of Chris Hani.

The stunning hypocrisy of the situation is that 20 135 people
were murdered in South Africa in 1992, yet more collective
concern and anguish were reported over the death of the head of
the SA Communist Party than for all the thousands of other
victims. Indeed the SA government, the international community
and the mass media have apparently had greater sorrow reported
over this one death than for all the 50 000 South Africans
murdered since 2nd February 1990 when the ANC, SACP and PAC were
unbanned!

Yet as a member of the ANC Revolutionary Council since 1973,
Deputy Commander of Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) the ANC's "military
wing" - from 1982, and Chief of Staff of MK from 1987, Chris Hani
had approved and ordered bombings and assassinations of many
unarmed civilians. As Jesus warned: "all who live by the sword
will die by the sword " Matt 26:52.

After personally confronting Hani about his terrorist activities
at a press conference in Washington DC (where he publicly
declared his support for Fidel Castro, Col. Gaddafi, Yasser
Arafat and Saddam Hussein and defended the placing of car bombs
and limpet mines in public places during "the struggle") I told
him that I was a Christian and, while I didn't hate him, I did
hate communism and I was praying for him - that God would either
bring him to repentance and salvation in Christ, or that God
would remove him. He responded by swearing and declaring that he
was an atheist.

Several other people also prayed that God would either bring Hani
to repentance or remove him. Similarly several churches in
America have begun to pray the imprecatory Psalms against
unrepentant abortionists. In one town 8 abortionists were struck
down, with heart attacks, strokes, car accidents and cancer,
within months of these public prayers for God to stop these
killers of preborn babies.

Some praised God for His righteous acts of judgement and quoted:
"When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous and terror
to evildoers " Proverbs 21:15. Others were shocked that any
Christian could express satisfaction at the misfortune of any -
even of the blatantly wicked. Yet the Apostles prayed imprecatory
prayers (Acts 13:8-12; Galatians 1:8-9; 2 Tim 4:14-15) and so did
our Lord (Matt 11:20-24).

What then should our attitude towards the imprecatory Psalms be?
Should we be praying the Psalms? To tackle these thorny issues I
would like to present a short summary of an excellent book, "War
Psalms of the Prince of Peace - Lessons From The Imprecatory
Psalms" by James E Adams, (published by the Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Company):

Our Lord Jesus Christ & His apostles used the Psalms constantly
in teaching men to know God. The New Testament (NT) quotes the
Old Testament (OT) over 283 times. 41% of all OT quotes in the NT
are from the Psalms. Christ Himself alluded to the Psalms over 50
times. The Psalms are the Prayer Book of the Bible.


1. Are the imprecatory Psalms the oracles of God?

Some Christian commentators & theologians reject these Psalms as
"devilish", "diabolical ", "unsuited to the church", and "Not God
's pronouncements of His wrath on the wicked; but the prayers of
a man for vengeance on his enemies, just the opposite of Jesus'
teaching that we should love our enemies. "

Yet 2 Tim 3:16-17 declares:
"All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching,
rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the
man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. "
(see also 2 Peter 3:15-16).

The fact that something in the Word of God is beyond our
comprehension is not grounds to denying or even questioning its
inspiration. To make ourselves the judge of what is good or evil
is to impudently take the place of God.

Do we imagine ourselves to be holier than God? Wrong ideas of God
have led many to become "evangelic plastic surgeons who have made
it their job to "clean up" God's Word according to their own
ideas of what is proper. They have forgotten that it is God alone
who must determine what Christianity is and what is suitable for
His Church. The essence of what many have done is to question the
authority of God's Word (like Eve's original sin of listening to
Satan's question "Yes, hath God said... ?").

The Psalms are part of God's revelation of Himself and His
attributes, and they are reaffirmed by the NT as the
authoritative Word of God. Those imprecatory Psalms which these
evangelical plastic surgeons reject as "unsuited" and "unworthy"
for the Church are the very Psalms Christ used to testify about
Himself (eg: Mark 12:36; Matt 22:43-44) and which the Apostles
used as authoritative Scripture (eg: Acts 1:16-20; Acts 4:25; Heb
4:7). See also: 2 Samuel 23:1-2.

CH Spurgeon said concerning the imprecatory Psalms, (especially
Ps 109):
"Truly this is one of the hard places of Scripture, a passage
which the soul trembles to read, yet it is not ours to sit in
judgement upon it, but to bow our ear to what the Lord would
speak to us therein. "

The rejection of any part of God's Word is a rejection of the
giver of that Word, God Himself.


2. Who is praying these Psalms?

Christ quoted the Psalms not merely as prophesy; He actually
spoke the Psalms as His own words. The Psalms occupied an
enormous place in the life of our Lord. He used it as His prayer
book and song book - from the Synagogue to the festivals and at
the Last Supper.

On the cross Christ quoted from the Psalms - not as some ancient
authority that He adapted for His own use, but as His very own
words - the words of the Lord's Anointed - which as David's Son
He truly was.
"Father, into your hands I commit my Spirit" Ps 31:5
"My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" Ps 22:1

In His ministry Christ foretells what He will say as the Judge on
the day of judgement, and He quotes the Psalms in doing so!
Matt 7:23 "Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away
from me, you evildoers'. " Ps 6:8

In Heb 10:5 the apostle attributes Ps 40:6-8 directly to Christ
although nowhere in the Gospels is Christ recorded as having said
these words. Similarly Hebrews 2 : 12 attributes Ps 22:22
directly to Christ despite there being no record of His having
spoken these words while on earth. Clearly the apostles believed
Christ is speaking in the Psalms.

Christ came to establish His kingdom and to extend His mercy in
all the earth. But let us never forget that Jesus will come again
to execute Judgement on the wicked.
David as the anointed king of the chosen people of God was a
prototype of Jesus Christ. Acts 2:30:
"being therefore a prophet, ... he foresaw and spoke of the
resurrection of Christ. "
David was a witness to Christ in his office, in his lite, and in
his words. The same words which David spoke, the future Messiah
spoke through him. The prayers of David were prayed also by
Christ. Or better Christ Himself prayed these Psalms through His
forerunner David.

The imprecatory Psalms are expressions of the infinite justice of
God, of His indignation against wrong doing, and His compassion
for the wronged.


3. But what about the Psalms of repentance?

Christ is also the Lamb of God, the substitutionary sacrifice for
our sins. Christ in the day of His crucifixion was charged with
the sin of His people. He appropriated to Himself those debts for
which He had made Himself responsible. Our Lord was the
substitution for the sinner. He took the sinners place (Isaiah
53).

"God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we
might become the righteousness of God. " 2 Cor 5:21

In history the Psalms, especially the imprecatory Psalms, have
been understood to have been the prayers of Christ by: St
Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, Tertullian, Luther and many others.
All the Psalms are the voice of Christ. Christ is praying the
imprecatory Psalms! All the Psalms are messianic. It is the Lord
Jesus Christ who is praying these prayers of vengeance. It is
only right for the righteous King of Peace to ask God to destroy
His enemies.

These prayers signal an alarm to all who are still enemies of
King Jesus. His prayers will be answered! God's Word is revealed
upon all who oppose Christ. Anyone who rejects God's way of
forgiveness in the cross of Christ will bear the dreadful curses
of God.

He who prays Psalm 69:23-28 will one day make this prayer a
reality when He declares to those on His left:
"Depart from me you who are cursed into the eternal fire prepared
for the devil and his angels. " Matt 25:41

All the enemies of the Lord need to hear these Psalms. *God's
Kingdom is at War.* The powers of evil will tall and God alone
will reign forever!
"With justice He judges and makes war...out of His mouth comes a
sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. He will rule
them with an iron sceptre; He treads the winepress of the fury of
the wrath of God Almighty...King of Kings and Lord of Lords. "
Rev 19 : 15


4. Are Jesus' prayers contradictory?

What about Jesus' command to love our enemies and to bless those
who curse us (Matt 5:44)?

Christ is of course the loving and merciful Saviour who forgives
sin; but He is also the awesome Judge who is coming in Judgement
on those who disobey His Gospel.

"God is just. He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you
and give relief to you who are troubled...This will happen when
the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with His
powerful angels. He will punish those who do not obey the Gospel
of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting
destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from
the majesty of His power on the day He comes to be glorified in
His holy people and to be marvelled at among au those who have
believed. " 2 Thess 1:6-10

Jesus has power on earth to forgive sins, and He has power on
earth to execute judgement upon His enemies. In the Psalms we see
both the vengeance and the love ot God.

Even in the N.T. & in the Gospels we see imprecations.
"Woe to you,...hypocrites...blind guides...blind fools...full of
greed and self indulgence...whitewashed tombs...you snakes! You
brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to Hell ? "
Matt 23

In Matt 26:23-24 Christ quotes from Ps 69 and 109 to refer to His
betrayal by Judas.

We also need to acknowledge that Christ's prayers of blessing are
not for all. In John 17:6-9 it is clear that Christ is only
praying to the elect of God - those who have:
"obeyed your Word"... "accepted" God's Word ... and have
"believed ". (see Luke 10:8-16 - Those who reject the
message of God's kingdom will be judged.)


5. May we pray the imprecatory Psalms?

Martin Luther pointed out that when one prays: "Hallowed be Thy
Name, Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done " then "he must put all
the opposition to this in one pile and say: 'Curses, maledictions
and disgrace upon every other name and every other kingdom. May
they be ruined and torn apart and may all their schemes and
wisdom and plans run aground' . "

To pray tor the extension of God's kingdom is to solicit the
destruction of all other kingdoms, eg: Dan 2:44: "The God of
heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed ... it
will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it
will itself endure forever. "

* Advance and victory for the Church means defeat and retreat for
the kingdom of darkness. *

There is a life & death struggle between two kingdoms. The Church
cannot exclude hatred tor satan's kingdom from its love for God's
kingdom. God's kingdom cannot come without satan's kingdom being
destroyed. God's will cannot be done on earth without the
destruction of evil. The glory of God demands the destruction of
evil. Instead of being influenced by a sickly sentimentalism
which insists upon the assumed, but really non-existent, rights
of man - we should focus instead upon the rights of God.

Note Psalm 83 where the Psalmist prays against those who "plot
together" against God and His people:
"Cover their faces with shame so that men will seek your Name O
Lord... Do to them as You did to Midian, as you did to Sisera and
Jabin at the river Kishon, who perished at Endor and became like
refuse on the ground. "

The story of Sisera in the book of Judges (Chapter 4 and 5)
provides a vivid example of God's judgement on the wicked. Sisera
"cruelly oppressed the Israelites for twenty years" and they
"cried to the Lord for help" Judges 4:3. In response to those
prayers: "The Lord routed Sisera and all his chariots and army by
the sword, and Sisera abandoned his chariot and fled on foot...
All the troops of Sisera fell by the sword; not a man was left. "
Judges 4:15-16

The account then goes on to describe how Sisera escaped to the
tent of Jael where she lulled him into a false sense of safety
and then drove a tent peg through his temple with a hammer. The
song of victory by Deborah and Barak celebrated the crushing of
the head of Sisera in graphic detail (Judges 5:25-27). And it is
this that Psalm 83 implores God to again do to His enemies.. "As
you did to Sisera ..."


6. The blessings of obedience and the curse of disobedience

The imprecatory Psalms are fully consistent with the Law of God:
     "If you do not carefully follow all the words of this Law,
     which are written in this book, and do not revere this
     glorious and awesome Name - the Lord your God - the Lord
     will send fearful plagues on you and your descendants. He
     will bring upon you all the diseases of Egypt that you
     dreaded, and they will cling to you. The Lord will also
     bring on you every kind of sickness and disaster not
     recorded in this Book of the Law until you are
     destroyed...because you did not obey the Lord your God ...
     so it will please Him to ruin and destroy you. You will be
     uprooted from the land you are entering to possess. "
     Deuteronomy 28:58-63

The covenant God made with His people included curses for
disobedience as well as blessings for obedience. Deuteronomy 27
records the formal giving and receiving of the covenant terms in
an awesome account:
"The Levites shall recite to all the people of Israel in a loud
voice:
"Cursed is the man who carves an image or casts an idol - a thing
detestable to the Lord, the work of the craftsman's hands - and
sets it up in secret. "
Then all the people shall say, "Amen!" "
"Cursed is the man who dishonours his father or his mother...
"Cursed is the man who moves his neighbour's boundary stone...
"Cursed is the man who leads the blind astray on the roads...
"Cursed is the man who withholds justice from the alien, the
fatherless or the widow...
"Cursed is the man who kills his neighbour secretly...
"Cursed is the man who accepts a bribe to kill an innocent
person.
"Cursed is the man who does not uphold the words of the Law by
carrying them out.
Then all the people shall say, "Amen!" " Deut 27:14-26

The New Testament confirms that the inevitable consequence of
rejecting Christ is the curse. "If anyone does not love the
Lord - a curse be on him. " 1 Corinthians 16:22

(See also: Romans 12:19-21; Hebrews 1:1-3; 3:7-12; 3:1519; 10:26-
31; 12:14-29.)


7. How can we preach these prayers?

The Church of Jesus Christ is an army under orders.
Scripture constitutes the official dispatch from the Commander-
in-Chief. But we have a problem: those who are called to pass on
those orders to others are refusing to do so. How then can we
expect to be a united, effective army? Is it any wonder that the
troops have lost sight of their commission to demolish the
strongholds of the kingdom of darkness? If the Church does not
hear the battle cries of her Captain, how will she follow Him
onto the battlefield?

Pastors are commissioned to pass on the orders of the Church's
Commander, never withholding or changing His words. One whose job
is to carry dispatches to troops in wartime would face certain
and severe punishment if he dared to amend the general's orders.
The pastor's charge is of greater importance than that of a
courier in any earthly army. There's no place tor the dispatcher
to decide he doesn't agree with his Commander's strategy.

When Jesus Christ sent seventy-two disciples on a preaching
mission, He told them to proclaim the coming of God's Kingdom (Lk
10:9) - that is, to announce that people must submit to God's
rule in their lives. Jesus instructed them to pray for peace on
any house they approach, assuring them that if anyone rejected
it, the peace would return on the disciples (verse 5). But we
must consider what He said they should do if their message were
rejected - that is, if the hearers persisted in rebellion against
God's rule - "But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go
into its 'streets and say, 'Even the dust of your town that
sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this:
The kingdom of God is near"' Luke 10:11.

What would be the result of that denunciation? I tell you, it
will be more bearable on that day for Sodom [on which God sent
fire from Heaven in judgement for its wickedness] than for that
town (verse 12). Immediately Jesus added curses on Korazin,
Bethsaida, and Capernaum tor their rejection of His message
(verses 13-15). He then explained to the disciples the great
authority He had given them: "He who listens to you listens to
Me; he who rejects you rejects Me; but he who rejects Me rejects
him who sent Me " (verse 16). This is the fundamental basis tor
calling down God's curses on anyone: his persistent rebellion
against God's authority expressed in His Law and the ministry of
His servants.

We need to clearly and forcefully proclaim the war cries of the
Prince of Peace. Only then will the Church awake from its
lethargy and once again enter the battle. If we tail to pass on
the battle cry then a lack of urgency and confusion in the ranks
will be inevitable.

Like Psalm 1 our preaching needs to clearly show the blessings of
obedience and the curse of disobedience. The eternal truth is
that God cannot be mocked. Whatever a man sows - that shall he
reap (Galatians 6:7). The curses pronounced on disobedience in
Deut 28:47-53 were fulfilled in detail in Samaria (2 Kings
6:2&29) and in Judea (AD 70). The wrath of God upon covenant
breakers is real.

The "I" of the Psalms is Jesus Christ. The "we" of the Psalms
includes those of us in the Lord Jesus. The enemies are not our
own, individually, but those of the Lord and of His Church. The
Psalms are ot Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King. They record
Christ's march in victory against the kingdom of darkness. As
Christ is the author of the Psalms, so, too, is He the final
fulfilment of the covenant on which they are based. God will
answer the psalmist's prayers completely in Jesus Christ on the
final day of judgment. While on earth Jesus foretold the day when
He will say: "But those enemies of Mine who did not want Me to be
King over them - bring them here and kill them in front of Me"
Luke 19:27.

A fatal end awaits everyone who refuses to acknowledge and to
obey Jesus as King and Lord. Hearing expositions of these war
psalms of the Prince of Peace will remind His people that God's
kingdom is at war! The kingdom of darkness is being overcome by
the kingdom of Jesus Christ, a war in which each local
congregation of believers plays a vital part. You must rally your
battalion to put on the whole armour of God, including "the sword
of the Spirit, which is the Word of God " Eph 6:17. That battle-
readiness also involves "pray(ing) in the Spirit on all occasions
with all kinds of prayers and requests n Eph 6:18.

Christ teaches His army to pray for the utter destruction of the
enemies of God as the psalmist did: "Pour out Your wrath on the
nations that do not acknowledge You, on the kingdoms that do not
call on Your Name" Ps 79:6.

To deal with the very real hurts and injustices in this world it
is necessary for us to pray for God's justice. Those who are
persecuted need the comfort of these prayers.

"Let the saints rejoice in His honour and sing for joy...May the
praise of God be in their mouths and a double-edged sword in
their hands, to inflict vengeance on the nations and punishment
on the peoples, to bind their kings with fetters, their nobles
with shackles of iron, to carry out the sentences written against
them. This is the glory of all His saints. Praise the Lord. " Ps
149:5-9

Prayer is, in fact, spiritual warfare. One weapon is prayer for
conversion of spiritual enemies; another is prayer for judgement
on those who finally refuse to be converted. We handicap the army
of God when we refuse to use both of these great weapons that He
has given us. It is at all times a part of the task of the people
nf God to destroy evil.

If you have been guilty of dulling your sword, by neglecting or
undermining these psalms, repent of that sin, sharpen your sword
anew, and go forth to do battle in the Name and for the Glory of
Jesus - until "the knowledge of the Lord will cover the earth as
the waters cover the sea" Hab 2:14.

The full book "War Psalms of the Prince of Peace " is available,
at R25, from Frontline Fellowship, PO Box 74 Newlands, 7725 RSA.


PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE
Those wishing to reproduce or quote from any edition of FF News
are encouraged to do so. We only request that due acknowledgement
of the source be mentioned and that a copy be sent to us.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21566
From: daniels@math.ufl.edu (TV's Big Dealer)
Subject: Re: Deuterocanonicals, esp. Sirach


	What we call today the "Old Testament" was being written up to approx-
imately 168 BCE, according to most modern scholars.  Aside from the book of
Daniel, the whole OT predates Alexander (the Great).  These books were written
(predominantly) in Hebrew.
	There were also other books being written at about this time and later
by Greek-speaking, or "Hellenistic", Jews.  These books are those which are
reckoned by many denominations as "Apocrypha".
	Before the closing of the Writings, the third part of what is today
called the canon, all of the books were in use by Jews of the day.  However,
there were those who reckoned (based on Zech. 13) that prophecy had ceased.
This faction maintained that there were no true prophets in their day.  They
also maintained that literature of a prophetic character could not be genuine
teachings from God.
	By the time of c.65 CE, another faction had entered the mess.  Christians
had come in claiming that THEIR writings were also suitable to be read in
synagogues and used for worship.  Therefore, the Palestinian Jewish leaders
got together and stated that the books written from the time of Ben Sira (Sirach)
onward were not sacred writings.  They justified this from Zech. 13.  In
particular, they said, the writings of the Christians (called heretics) were
not inspired.
	At about 90 CE, they codified things further by closing the canon in
somewhat of an official sense at the Council of Jamnia.  A few books (Ecclesi-
astes, Song of Songs, Esther) made it in after that date, but these were those
which had been written prior to the official cut off point (the time of Ben
Sira) for inclusion that they had established in order to keep out the Christian
and Hellenistic writings.
	Jerome excluded the 'apocrypha' because they were not in use by Jews
of his day and because they were (except for Sirach) not found in Hebrew in his
time.  His criterion for separating them from the other pre-Christian writings
was not based on 'inspiration'.

	There is plenty more to say, but I do not have time.
	The passage you quote concerns the book (Rev.) in which it is found.
						Frank D.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21567
From: Rick_Granberry@pts.mot.com (Rick Granberry)
Subject: Boston C of C

Note:  the following article is submitted on behalf of someone (Frank 
daniels) who has difficulty posting to s.r.c, email replies to 
daniels@math.ufl.edu

	I am unable to post to the bitnet groups.
	Here is a capsule history of the Shepherding/Discipleship Movement in
the Churches of Christ (i.e. Crossroads/Boston):

	I could trace the Movement back as far as 1800, and indeed some of its
roots go back that far, but these were really "influences" on the Movement,
and not the actual movement, per se.
	I will start in c.1920.
	In that day, there were 'white' churches and 'colored' churches in
nearly every area (due to segregation).  Modern Pentecostalism was developing
as a predominantly 'colored' phenomenon.  Here, there was great fanaticism,
emphasis on emotional experiences, and belief in a personal guidance and
indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
	Many 'white' Protestant churches were growing into what became known
as conservative fundamentalism.  By the 1940s, the evangelical movement was
in full swing, and many groups were becoming part of it.
	When the civil rights movement grew stronger (in the 1950's and 
1960's),
many 'white' church groups began to be influenced by the 'black' churches and
by what was going on there.  This spread started in the most liberal of groups
and spread to the more conservative ones by the late '60's.  In 1969, even the
Catholic Church was displaying evidence of influence by the other 
groups...still
evident today.

	The Churches of Christ are (and were) a very conservative Protestant
group.  When the influence from outside began to reach the CofC in c.1965, it
was generally not appreciated.  Conservative groups are very strongly 
resistant
to change, and the new movement was VERY different from the CofC status quo.
	The magazines put out at that time by CofC folks tell the story as it
unfolds.  New ideas came into the CofC.  There was a big push to reach out to
college students, young adults, and teens.  Some called this the Campus 
Evangel-
ism Movement.  Emotions, generally not highly regarded in the CofC at large,
played a more important role in the new movement.  In some places, people 
began
to speak in tongues (as their Pentecostal predecessors did).
	This was met with extreme criticism from within the Churches of 
Christ.
In some places, people were fired from their jobs for speaking in tongues or 
for
advocating the "Holy Spirit Movement", another name for the new branch.  The
term "Underground Church of Christ" also came into use because these people 
had
to hide their differences (or they might be ostricised).
	There were several congregations, however, whose leaderships were
receptive to the new ideas (at least in part; the tongues-speaking never 
really
caught on).  One of these was the 14th Street Church of Christ in Gainesville,
FL.  Campus Ministry had already been regarded as important at 14th Street, 
and
the new ideas seemed to be very helpful tools for evangelism.  They also 
seemed
to put vitality into the church, which many felt had been lacking.
	In October of 1967, the 14th Street congregation hired Chuck Lucas to
be its Campus Minister.  By 1970, he would move to being the congregation's
(lead) Minister.  In the late 60's/early 70's, the congregation worked with 
many
other groups.  They held Bible discussions at Daytona Beach during Spring 
Break.
They organized talks in the fraternities on the University of Florida campus.
They also worked with UF sports people.
	In 1972, the congregation ordered a larger building to be constructed.
When it was finished, the group moved and changed its name (now no longer
appropriate).  It became the Crossroads Church of Christ from then on, a name
that would become legendary.

	By this time, Crossroads was basically the only CofC whose programs
were fully aligned to the new movement.  While they didn't start it, they 
continued it and were responsible for where it wound up going.
	By 1975, none of the other Churches of Christ in the area felt that
they could cooperate with Crossroads, due to what they recognized as doctrinal
problems at Crossroads.
	Crossroads had begun to heavily emphasize, and later require 
attendance
at all church functions.  It was seen as a good thing for each member to have
at least one close relationship, a person with whom you would share all of
your problems, pray, and get help from.  The concept was called Prayer 
Partners,
which later became Discipleship Partners and also later became mandatory.  The
leadership was assigning prayer partners to people for a while.
	The book called "The Master Plan of Evangelism" was a strong influence
on Chuck Lucas.  He (and the group) believed that it was every person's duty
and life purpose to carry out the great commission.  Crossroads was growing
in number, and numbers became VERY important (some would say all-important).
	A person who "was evangelistic" was "spiritual".  Evangelism meant
inviting people to Crossroads events; if you did this a lot and some of them
converted, then you were "spiritual".  There were sermons about how if you
bought groceries, the cashier and bag boy ought to receive invitations to
services.  Everyone at your job ought to receive invitations.  Since these
people needed Jesus, you should be "aggressive"--don't take 'no' for an
answer.
	If you did not evangelize enough, you came to be called "lazy" or
"unspiritual".
	By the end of the decade, the Prayer Partner system was integrated 
into
a structure.  The Elders and Ministers were on top (like a big pyramid).  Then
the group leaders, Bible study leaders, and members.  Everyone who came in had
someone placed over them.
	It is at this time, 1978-1980, that the bad press about Crossroads
began to circulate.  The problem with rape on the University of Florida campus
was tremendous, but Crossroads was considered a bigger and more immediate
problem.  There were many complaints about the congregation and its "pushy"
evangelistic tactics.  Crossroads was considering the other Churches of Christ
to be "dead" churches, which aggravated them; it was aggressively recruiting
out of the other church groups (denominations), which aggravated THEM.

	By this time, Crossroads had grown numerically to the point (1100)
where not only did they believe that they would soon need a new building, but
also they were sending out "planting" [create a new church] and 
"reconstructing"
[reorganize an existing church] teams to other cities.  By this time, the
Crossroads Movement was underway.
	A group was sent to the 30-member Lexington Church of Christ in 
Boston,
MA.  The team was headed up by Kip McKean, who had been converted out of a
fraternity by Crossroads (in Gainesville).  Kip held a still stronger view of
church authority, which he believed was heavily vested in the Evangelist(s),
and not so much in the Elders.  He had been fired in 1977 from the 
congregation
that he had been working at when the elders there found numerous things wrong
with his theology, including the practice of what came to be called one-over-
one
Christianity.  [Called this by critics]
	In the first year, half of the 30 people felt that they did not want 
to
be a part of the new congregation.  They left.  But others began coming into
the new Boston Church of Christ.
	Ah, but I'm ahead of myself.
	At Crossroads, the heavy-handed system had begun to take its toll on
the members.  Many have said that they felt that they were working hard, but
they were not achieving the results that were so important.  The numbers were
dropping.  From 1978, Crossroads membership declined steadily.  The leadership
began to tighten the reigns on the congregation, who was seen as being largely
"unproductive" and "unfruitful".  The "fruit" passages in the NT were 
interpreted
as referring to new converts.  If you were not bearing fruit, said John 15, 
you
would be cast into the fire!  [Boston still teaches this.]
	If you love your neighbor, you'll save his soul (invite him to church
and convert him).  If you're not doing that, you don't love your neighbor.
And if you don't love, you're in danger of backsliding.  The logical arguments
continue in this vein.
	In 1985, Chuck Lucas was fired from his job as minister, due to 
recurring
sins in his life.  These struggles were never revealed to the congregation at
large, although many people outside the congregation had heard about them.  
For
by now, there was very little contact (on a friendship level) between most
Crossroads members and those outside.  [If you have contact, your focus should
be on converting them.  Bring them to a Bible Study.]
	Chuck's replacement was Joe Woods, who was fully supportive of the
Boston system.  As Boston grew in number, they began to offer 'training' 
sessions
for other ministers.  Joe went to Boston to be trained and returned to Cross-
roads ready to emphasize the "total commitment" to the church that Boston and
Kip McKean were now emphasizing.  Eventually, in Fall of 1987, the Elders at 
Crossroads (now 2 in number--Dick Whitehead and Bill Hogle) made a decision.
Boston was demanding that all of the other churches in the movement come under
the direction of the church in Boston.  The Elders refused, citing their 
belief
that each church should be autonomous (something true in all non-Boston 
Churches
of Christ).  Perhaps there was also some degree of offense done here, since
Crossroads was no longer the 'example' to the rest of the Movement.  The group
now numbered about 800, while Boston was now larger (in membership).
	The Churches of Christ generally teach that baptism is a necessary
element of salvation.  At Crossroads, they taught what was called 'Lordship'
baptism:  you had to understand the commitment involved before you could be
baptized.  You had to 'count the cost'.  At Boston, they took this a step
further.  If at some time you became "unproductive", then your spirituality
was suspect.  People would begin to ask you if you REALLY understood what you
were getting into.  Anyone who said 'no' had their baptism deemed invalid:  
they
hadn't counted the cost properly.  They still had to be baptized.  Others 
called
this "rebaptism", and Crossroads didn't approve of this practice.
	When Crossroads announced that it would not follow Boston, many of its
members left Crossroads and went to Movement-related ministries, which were
now called Discipling Ministries.  You were either discipling (evangelizing) 
or
you were "dead".  They also used the nickname "Movement of God" for a while.
	By Summer of 1988, Crossroads was withdrawn from the Movement and now
stood alone.  They had few to no allies in the mainstream Churches of Christ,
and now none in the Movement.

	Boston, however, continued to chart its course in the direction that
they had been following.  They sent "reconstruction teams" to many cities, 
which
usually meant that they split the church there.  They stopped acknowledging 
other
churches of Christ as Christians and began to call themselves the "remnant".
The "remnant" of the Jews in the OT are those who are saved by God.  It was
felt that the "remnant" today represents all the Christians.  Sometimes they
would simply call their Movement "the church".
	They usually took the name of the city for their name, implying to the
other Churches of Christ that Boston did not recognize their existence.  Many
campuses have now formally forbidden Boston ministries from recruiting there
due to the number of complaints.  In some cases, it has been documented that
Boston ministries have lied to University officials in order to continue to 
have
access to the campus.  Any resistance that they experience is termed "perse-
cution", which all true Christians are expected to experience.  Are you really
a Christian if you're not being persecuted?
	The numbers at Boston peaked at c.3000 in 1989.  Since then, they have
fought to remain steady.  I have heard a tape of Kip McKean shouting at the
leaders for failing to fulfill the Great Commission (their life's purpose) as
God commanded them.  Their Christianity is highly centered on commands and
obedience.

	Crossroads once was called a cult.  Boston is now recognized by the
Cult Awareness Network and other national and international groups as a cult,
under a formal definition, because of the techniques which they employ.  The
term "cult" is usually differentiated from "sect" by the practice of those
techniques.  The techniques which they employ are recognized by many as being
techniques of destructive pursuasion, also used by other Shepherding
Discipleship groups.  [Robert Jay Lifton, Margaret Thaler Singer, and many
others have written about the topic.]  These techniques include guilt 
motivation,
emotional manipulation, loaded language, the aura of sacred science (a sort
of mystic element seen in everyday events), and others.

	I have no particular axe to grind against the Movement.  I have numer-
ous friends who are still part of the Movement.  I have never had a 'falling
out' with anyone in the Movement.  I disagree with many things which they 
teach.
I recognize the psychological damage done by being involved in such a system.
I hold no loyalty to the mainstream Churches of Christ and do not defend their
mistakes either.
	I want to point out, though, that unlike in many other systems which
are in other ways similar, the Leadership of the Boston Movement are as much
victims of the system as the members.  We do not have a leader who enjoys
manipulating his people.  The leaders believe what they teach, and they feel
accountable for the activites (and spiritual welfare) of the members.  When
members do not evangelize to their expectations, for example, the leaders feel
personally responsible as well.  The leaders are not out for money or power.
They want to evangelize the world in their lifetime.

	I have said too much, but there is much more to say.  There are many
examples I could give and quotes from other sources (including Boston 
bulletins)
that I could include.  But this is too long already.  You may post this if
you so desire.
						Frank D.



| "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." |
| "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."  |
| (proverbs 26:4&5)


[Believe it or not, questions about the Boston Church of Christ are
among the most commonly asked.  In order to avoid having s.r.c.
dealing with this on a continuous basis, I allow discussion only
periodically.  By now I've got a 150K FAQ file (which has both sides,
by the way).  This gives enough addition information on history that
it seems worth posting and adding to the FAQ.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21568
From: mussack@austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Subject: Re: If There Were No Hell

(Larry L. Overacker) writes:
> Q: If you knew beyond all doubt that hell did not exist and that
>    unbelievers simply remained dead, would you remain a Christian?
> 
> My contention is that if you answer this question with "No. I would
> not then remain a Christian" then you really are not one now.  
> ...  I follow Christ because it's a great way
> to LIVE life.  And I could care less what really happens after
> I die.  I believe that there will be a resurrection, but that
> won't have any effect on how I live THIS life.  ...

Ouch, this is a good question. To me, not existing is worse
than existing no matter what, so I will modify this question to be:
would I be a Christian if it made no eternal difference in my
reward or punishment? I hope this is in the same spirit you want.

I personally am very goal oriented. It is hard for me to do things
that do not achieve some goal. However, to relate this to sports, 
only after I learned to not care about the score did I become
a good basketball player. I had to learn to go all out no matter
the situation. Perhaps this lesson is relevent. After all,
only if I can give up my life can I keep it, only if I am
humble can I achieve glory. Only if I concentrate on living
my life now the best I can will I be afforded life eternal.
I think you have illuminated the true meaning of "saved by faith."

But what is my answer? Right now I would remain a Christian.
However, was that always my answer? That's the problem. Heaven
and hell are good motivators at certain stages of maturity.
And I admit there are certain times when perhaps I bite my
tongue and put up with something in the hope of a better day,
i.e. I mentally trade present happiness for future happiness.
I hope the cynics and skeptics do not read more into that
than appropriate, but I am trying to be honest.

(Scott A Mayo) writes:
> Of course. But it is a pointless question, because you cannot know
> beyond all doubt that hell does not exist, anymore than you can know
> it does, short of taking Jesus's word for it. "What If" questions are
> fun and entertaining, but probably fruitless. 

I think these kinds of questions are extremely fruitful. I guess it
depends on how one views knowledge and learning. By stripping
ideas to simple, straightforward, opposing concepts we can
determine levels of importance. By analyzing the theoretically 
absurd we can gain a better understanding of the actually absurd.

Chris Mussack

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21569
From: Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu (Fil Sapienza)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists? Apology

In article <May.11.02.37.42.1993.28189@athos.rutgers.edu> maxwell c muir,
muirm@argon.gas.organpipe.uug.arizona.edu writes:
>Instead, I'm still faced with the
>implication that atheism is some kind of aberration and that only
"broken"
>people are atheist.

Again, as the original poster of the article, I apologize if it
implied that atheism = brokenness.  Such was not my intent and
I apologize for any hurt feelings in the process.
--
Filipp Sapienza
Department of Technology Services
University of Michigan Hospitals - Surgery
Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21570
From: aaronc@athena.mit.edu (Aaron Bryce Cardenas)
Subject: Re: Mormon beliefs about children born out of wedlock

Bruce Webster writes:
>Indeed, LDS doctrine goes one step further and in some cases
>holds parents responsible for their children's sins if they have
>failed to bring them up properly (cf. D&C 68:25-28; note that this
>passage applies it only to members of the LDS church).

Hi Bruce.  How do you reconcile this practice with Ezekiel 18?
Ezekiel 18:20 "The soul who sins is the one who will die.  The son will not
share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the
son.  The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and
the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him."

Is Ezekiel 18 not translated correctly in your eyes perhaps?

Sincerely,

Aaron Cardenas

P.S. I too am bothered to see offensive words being posted on this
newsgroup.  Obscenity is out of place for anyone who wants to live by the
Bible (Eph 5:4).

Moderator:  I would appreciate your not letting posts with foul language
through, which has happened at least twice lately.  Thank you.

[I try to avoid foul language.  Bastard is certainly foul language
when shouted at someone as an insult.  But in this case it was being
used in its original technical sense.  Similarly, hell is an obscenity
in some contexts, but not when referring to the afterlife.  It is not
clear to me that bastard is foul language when it's being used in its
proper meaning.  One of today's postings quotes Deut 23:2.  Am I
to prohibit that?  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21571
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: Re:  Atheists and Hell

On Sunday 9 May 1993, Kenneth Engel writes (in substance):

  We are told that the penalty for sin is an eternity in Hell.
  We are told that Jesus paid the penalty, suffering in our stead.
  But Jesus did not spend an eternity in Hell.

This objection presupposes the "forensic substitution" theory of the
Atonement. Not everyone who believes in the Atonement understands it
in those terms. For an expansion of this statement, send the
messages
   GET GEN04 RUFF
   GET GEN05 RUFF
   GET GEN06 RUFF
   GET GEN07 RUFF
  to LISTSERV@ASUACAD.BITNET or to LISTSERV@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU

Note that the character after the "GEN" is a zero. If you want to
read my opun from the beginning, start with GEN01.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21572
From: easteee@wkuvx1.bitnet
Subject: Who Prays/Speaks in Tongues?

For those who pray in tongues,

      When is it appropriate for you to pray/speak in tongues
and why?  I just would like to gain more knowledge about this subject.

______ __   ___  ___           o  __   ___  |    Western  Kentucky    |
  /   /__) /__  /__  /     )  /  /__) /__   |       University        |
 /   /  \ (___ (___ (__/__/  /  /  \ (___   |  EASTEEE@WKUVX1.BITNET  |

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21573
From: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <May.11.02.39.05.1993.28328@athos.rutgers.edu> carlson@ab24.larc.nasa.gov  
(Ann Carlson) writes:
> In article <May.7.01.08.16.1993.14381@athos.rutgers.edu>, > Anyone who thinks  
being gay and Christianity are not compatible should 
> check out Dignity, Integrity, More Light Presbyterian churches, Affirmation,
> MCC churches, etc.  Meet some gay Christians, find out who they are, pray
> with them, discuss scripture with them, and only *then* form your opinion.
> -- 

I would absolutly love to have the time and energy to do so. The
problem is to be totally fair I would have to go throught this type of
search on every issue I belive in.  I don't have the time, resources,
or ability to do what you ask.  Maybe you should pray that God gives
me the opportunity instead of simply discrediting me because I have
not been able to talk to every gay christian.

In Christ's Love,
Bryan 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21574
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Subject: Re: Incarnation...Two minds of Christ..

Nabil wrote:
>5. Both families agree that He who wills and acts is always the one Hypostasis
>of the Logos Incarnate.

Marhaba Nabil,

If we posit two minds in Christ, the mind of the logos and the mind of the
human Jesus, then we must admit two wills.  A mind is not a mind without a
will.  I know this has been dealt with in past Church prnouncements, but there
is a philosophical problem here that should examined.

T. V. Morris argued that the Incarnation can be seen like this:

      _____________		
     (Mind of Logos)
     (	 _______   )
     (	(	)  )	Here, the mind of Jesus is circumsribed by God the
     (	( Human	)  )	Son.  God the Son has complete access to the human
     (  ( Mind	)  )	mind but the human mind only has access to the mind
     (	(	)  )	of God the Son when the Son allows access.  This 
     (	(_______)  )	explains why Jesus said even he did not know the 
     (_____________)	time of the kingdom.	

The human will acted in accordance with the divine will according to free
human decision.  But if the human will would have decided differently than
what was intended the divine will would have interceded, but this was never
the case.

He employs some very interesting analogies to support the one person/two mind
theory.  The ideas of a completely healthy version of split personality from
the field of psychology, and the intriguing ideas of being in a dream, seeing
yourself acting, knowing that is you, but also being omniscient.  

The one hypostasis would be the unity of the two minds.  Agreed.  But I am
still waiting for Morris and others to respond to the lingering problem of two
minds making two persons.  Christian analytic philosophers are breaking new
ground in explicating the rationality of Theism and the Incarnation. 

====================================          
Ted Kalivoda (tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu)
University of Georgia, Athens
Institute of Higher Ed. 

[Note that "person" is being used in a more abstact sense here than
the English.  We connect person with personality and other things that
are human attributes.  I'm not entirely sure whether I'd want to apply
personality to God, but if it is appropriate, then I think we'd have
to say that Christ had two personalities.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21575
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <May.11.02.39.05.1993.28328@athos.rutgers.edu> carlson@ab24.larc.nasa.gov (Ann Carlson) writes:

[bible verses ag./ used ag. homosexuality deleted]

>Anyone who thinks being gay and Christianity are not compatible should 
>check out Dignity, Integrity, More Light Presbyterian churches, Affirmation,
>MCC churches, etc.  Meet some gay Christians, find out who they are, pray
>with them, discuss scripture with them, and only *then* form your opinion.

also check out the episcopal church -- although by no means all
episcopalians are sympathetic to homosexual men and women, there
certainly is a fairly large percentage (in my experience) who are.  i
am good friends with an episcopalian minister who is ordained and
living in a monogamous homosexual relationship.  this in no way
diminishes his ability to minister -- in fact he has a very
significant ministry with the gay and lesbian association of his
community, as well as a very significant aids ministry.

my uncle is gay and when i found this out i had a good long think
about what the bible has to say about this and what i feel God thinks
about this.  obviously my conclusions may be wrong; nonetheless they
are my own and they feel right to me.  i believe that the one
important thing that those who wrote the old and new testament
passages cited above did NOT know was that there is scientific
evidence to support that homosexuality is at least partly _inherent_
rather than completely learned.  this means that to a certain extent
-- or to a great extent -- homosexuals cannot choose how to feel about
other people -- which is why reports of "curing" homosexuals always
chill me and make me feel ill.  please not that, although i can't cite
sources where you can find this information, there is homosexual
behavior recorded among monkeys and other animals, which is in itself
suggestive that it is inherent rather than learned, or at least that
the word "unnatural" shouldn't really apply....

please remember that whatever you believe, gays and lesbians shoul not
be excluded from your love and acceptance.  christ loved us all, and
we ALL sin.  and he himself never said anything against homosexuals --
rather it is paul (who also came out with such wonderful wisdom as
"women shouldn't speak in church" and "women should keep their heads
covered in church" -- not exact quotations as i don't have my bible
handy) who says these things.  i have a tendency to take some of the
things paul says with a grain of salt....

well, that's all i'll say for now.

>*************************************************      
>*Dr. Ann B. Carlson (a.b.carlson@larc.nasa.gov) *       O .
>*MS 366                                         *         o  _///_ //
>*NASA Langley Research Center                   *          <`)=  _<<
>*Hampton, VA 23681-0001                         *             \\\  \\
>*************************************************

vera noyes
-------
the lord is risen indeed.  let's party!
noye@midway,uchicago.edu				(vera noyes)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21576
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

>In article <May.9.05.40.15.1993.27475@athos.rutgers.edu>, Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com >(Geno ) writes:
>> [4) "Nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]" (Rev. 21.27). Therefore,
>> babies are born in such a state that should they die, they are cuf off
>> from God and put in hell, which is exactly the doctrine of St. Augustine
>> and St. Thomas.

...
>-jeff adams-

Regarding the first paragraph, I would say that I didn't write it. I
don't believe that unbaptized babies are put in Hell. I don't even
believe in Hell. At least, I don't believe in a fiery place where
there will be "gnashing of teeth".

geno

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21577
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

In article <May.11.02.37.42.1993.28189@athos.rutgers.edu> muirm@argon.gas.organpipe.uug.arizona.edu (maxwell c muir) writes:

[a lot of stuff deleted -- i'm focusing on just one point]
>Well, he got me there. I am a strong atheist, because I feel that lack of
>evidence, especially about something like an omnipotent being, implies
>lack of existence. However, I haven't met the strong atheist yet who said
>that nothing could ever persuade him. Call me a "seeker" if you like, I
>don't. 
>_Weak_ atheism is being ignore here, though. Some atheists simply say "I
>don't believe in any god" rather than my position: "I believe that no
>god(s) exist." For the weak atheist, the is no atheism to disbelieve,
>because they don't actively believe in atheism. (If you think this is
>confusing, try figuring out the difference between Protestants and
>Methodists from an atheist point of view :).

i'm a little confused about the difference between this "weak atheism",
as you put it, and agnosticism.  is agnosticism not believing or
necessarily disbelieving in anything, or what is it?  i used to be
agnostic (by this definition) -- but if weak atheism includes not
necessarily believing in God, then i guess i was one of those.  ???

actually what i have a hard time understanding is people who do not
ever decide what they believe.  i am constantly in a state of
self-examination, as it would appear many others are as well (including the
atheists, of course -- i'd assume that's why they're here!).  i guess
some people don't really consider it important to think about the
answers to "life, the universe and everything" -- any comment?  just
wondering....

>This is another fallacy many theists seem to have, that everyone believes in
>something (followed up by "everyone has faith in something"). Guess what?
>My atheism ends the moment I'm shown a proof of some god's existence. Is
>that really too much to ask?

tough call, as these things seem to be based on faith -- wish i could
help you, but i already tried once with someone who was a
self-professed agnostic-thinking-of-becoming-a -christian, and it
didn't work too well!  especially tough as i'm still mulling over
whether or not i believe in miracles (looks like another email to my
chaplain is coming up....).  all i can do is wish you the best of
luck, and please do post what you find.

>And I told you that I find faith to be intellectually dishonest. Note that
>I can only speak for myself. If you find faith to be honest, show me how.

hmm, how so?  i guess i really don't understand.  there are times, of
course, when i say to myself "of course i have absolutely no way of
knowing that what i believe in is true except the satisfaction and
sense of peace i get from it -- which of course could just be
psychological".  somehow i live with this anyway -- is this what you
mean?

the only "proof" i have is that i believe God spoke to me once --
which could of course be my own imagination.  the odd thing is,
though, that if you don't at some point start believing in something,
after a while it all gets sort of ridiculous.  maybe it's just a
question of where you draw the line.

>I have been unable to reconcile it so far. Maybe that's how I'm "broken"?
>I tell you that I have invisible fairies living in my garden and that
>you should just take my word for it. If you accept that, you are of a
>fundamentally different mind than I and I really would like to know how you
>think. All I ask for is proof of the assertion "God exists". Logical or
>physical proofs only, please. Then we'll discuss the nature of "God".

i'll only add one question -- have you read pascal?  what did you
think of him if you did?

also you may (or may not) be interested by cslewis/ _surprised by
joy_.  i'd be interested in knowing what you think of him, no sarcasm
at all intended.  (i just say this because one can never know how
one's written words will be interpreted.  i am not interested in
converting you, since i don't seem to have whatever it would take --
proof -- to do so.  i'm just interested in learning.)

>Muppets and garlic toast forever,

i like this.

>Max (Bob) Muir

cheers,
vera
________
i give you everything		disclaimer: of course i don't agree with
my sweet everything		trent reznor's (nin's) theology.  i think 
   - nine inch nails		it's interesting nonetheless.
noye@midway.uchicago.edu 	(vera noyes)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21578
From: djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

>Any attempts to make homosexuals
>feel unwelcome because of our discomfort with homosexuality is incompatible
>with Christianity.  Is our hatred so deep that rather than see someone
>try to become closer to Jesus, we need to keep them away.

This is too often true.  Many people try to place this as a "higher"
sin.  However...

>Does Jesus need
>us to screen out those guilty of a particular sin.  Do we really mistrust 
>Jesus when he says he can forgive any sin?

A big part of the problem is that many of the homosexuals and people
advocating acceptance of homosexuality in churches do not consider
(active) homosexuality a sin.  I don't often see the attitude of
"forgive me and I will try to change".  Instead I see "there's nothing
wrong with my life and I can be a good Christian, so it must be you who
have an illness because you don't accept me".  Christians can and will
accept homosexuals, just as they will accept *any* sinner.

Sure, it may be natural to some people to be homosexual - but it
is also perfectly natural for everyone to sin!  I was born with
a desire to sin, but I work to prevent myself from sinning.  It's
much less common now, but I *still* have urges to lash out in
anger.  There also may not be a sudden disappearance of sinful
desires (or ever!), so it is sad to see people leave the church
when they are discouraged that they are still homosexual after
several years.

-- 
Darin Johnson
djohnson@ucsd.edu
    "Particle Man, Particle Man, doing the things a particle can"

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21579
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Subject: Hyslop and _The_Two_Babylons_

Seeing as how _The_Two_Babylons_ has been brought up again, it is time for
me to respond , once again, and say that this book is junk.  It is nothing
more that an anti-Catholic tract of the sort published ever since the there
were protestants.  Its scholarship is phony and its assertions spurious.
-- 
C. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
                  +    but strife closed in the sod.
mangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
tove!mangoe       +    the marv'lous peace of God."

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21580
From: muirm@argon.gas.organpipe.uug.arizona.edu (maxwell c muir)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

In article <May.11.02.38.47.1993.28306@athos.rutgers.edu> Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu (Fil Sapienza) writes:
>In article <May.7.01.09.44.1993.14556@athos.rutgers.edu> maxwell c muir,
>muirm@argon.gas.organpipe.uug.arizona.edu writes:
>>of Faith (if you want to know, I feel that faith is intellectually
>>dishonest). 
>
>I'd appreciate some support for this statement.  I'm not sure
>it really makes sense to me.

I define faith as "belief, in the abscense(sp?) of evidence". I also
include in "evidence" past experiences. Because I have no past experience
in a god actually having an effect on my life and because I have never
seen evidence for any god beyond what can be explained without the
neccessity of a god or which is more convincing than the many fictional
works I have read (And other reasons), I do not believe in any god(s).
From what I have seen, some people reconcile this lack of evidence by
using faith.
It is faith in that sense (the only way I _currently_ understand the word
"faith") that I find intellectually dishonest.

>>The ambiguity of religious beliefs, an unwillingness to take
>>Pascal's Wager, 
>
>I've heard this frequently - what exactly is Pascal's wager?

Pascal's wager goes something like this:
Premise #1: Either there is or there isn't a God.
Premise #2: If God exists, He wants us to believe and will damn us for not
believing.
Premise #3: If God does not exist, then belief in God doesn't matter
because death is death, anyway.
Conclusion: Belief in God is superior to non-belief because
non-belief damns us to eternal punishment if we are wrong, while belief in
God only wastes a little time in life if we are wrong.

Sound pretty straightforward and is logically sound. The problem is,
Premise #1 presupposes 1:1 odds between belief and non-belief. This is
flat out wrong, because of the sheer number of religions out there and the
fact that, for the most part, the religions are mutually exclusive. I have
heard theists referred to as "99% atheists" because they believe in their
god (or gods) to be the _one_ god (or set of gods). The consequence of
this is "what if I pick the wrong god?" Suddenly, the odds don't look so
good because picking the wrong god or wrong doctrines of a god still
leaves you with the possibility of being wrong and being damned to another
god's version of hell.

>>	Do I sound "broken" to you?
>
>I don't know.  You point out that your mother's treatment upset you,
>and see inconsistencies in various religions.  I'm not sure if that
>constitutes broken-ness or not.   It certainly consititutes 
>disillusionment.

I don't see how "disillusionment" enters into it. You see, I presented my
mother's treatment of me to show the cause of my questioning my atheism, a
questioning which continues to this day. I had already been an atheist for
five years before having any contact with my mother's version of
Christianity. If anything, I had become somewhat disillusioned with
atheism (uh, oh, I thought, What if there *is* a God?). Yes, in a way, I
have also become disillusioned by many religions, simply because I had
thought at one time that they had all the answers, if I only found the
right one.
I'm still looking, but each time I look in a different place, I become a
little stronger in my attitude (belief, if you will, no faith, though,
it's based on the evidence of past experience) that I'll never find a
religion which has all the answers.
Sorta like looking for Easter eggs. The more time it takes you to find the
next one, the more convinced you become that you may already have found
all the eggs you're going to find.
Someone else mentioned that critisism isn't going to make me think any
more highly of Christians. I have a contrary position: Constructive
critisism will likely improve my attitude towards Christians. Abusive
critisism will turn me off.
No accusations to you, Mr. Sapienza. I merely slipped that into this post
because I forgot to reply to that one.

>Filipp Sapienza
>Department of Technology Services
>University of Michigan Hospitals - Surgery
>Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu

Muppets and Garlic Toast forever.

Max (Bob) Muir

PS I'm leaving for home on Thursday at 1:30, so this is likely my last
post here for the summer! In the meantime, thank you all for helping me
see a few more things I might have missed in my meanderings through the world!

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21581
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

In article <May.11.02.36.32.1993.28071@athos.rutgers.edu> mayne@nu.cs.fsu.edu writes:
>In article <May.9.05.40.51.1993.27526@athos.rutgers.edu> noye@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
[my stuff about dealing with defferences deleted]

>This is not at all comparable. Christianity is the main stream in
>western culture. You are trivializing the experiences of others.

i am sorry; i did not mean to.  i think i understand how your
experiences were much worse than the small bit of ridicule i have had
to put up with.  i guess i didn't really understand before; now i do.

>I remember what it was like being "different" as a Christian. We
>were told all the time that we were different, and in fact that
>only members of the our church were really Christians (though others
>who believed in God weren't as bad as atheists), so we were a small
>minority. That was nothing compared to being an atheist.

wow, pretty conservative church.  (please excuse me if this seems like
a ridiculous understatement to you.)

>The only thing comparable would be a young child being Christian
>being surrounded by staunch atheists, including parents, who
>actively persecute any religious tendancies - both actual punishments
>and, even worse, emotional blackmail. They would also have
>to have the whole mainstream society on their side. Maybe these
>conditions could have occured in the old Soviet Union* not in a
>country with "under God" in its pledge of allegiance.

(on a side note, that "under God" wasn't in there until recently -- i
believe my father, who is in his sixties, remembers saying the pledge
of allegiance without that in there.  i don't know the history behind
that though.)

emotional blackmail -- ouch.  thank goodness (i'll be neutral in my
thanks here :) ) i was raised in a completely tolerant household, so
that i could make my own decisions!

>* I doubt it even then, because children have to be taught to be
>Christians and hence must have support somewhere.

so atheism doesn't have to be taught, but christianity does.  i guess
i can see that, although i can see a child believing in some sort of
god without anything other than his/ her own imagination as a basis.
(sorry, i guess this is sort of minor)

[my query about parallel between lack of choice for homosexuals and
lack of choice for him as an atheist deleted]
>Yes. My atheism was "born of necessity." For an intellectually honest
>person belief is mostly a response to evidence. 

hmm, i wonder why i am a christian then?  this isn't a flame, this is
a real wonder.  does anyone else have opinions to offer on why you
believe in something that hasn't necessarily been "proven" to you?

>Will or wishes have
>nothing to do with it. I could choose to lie, or to be silent about
>my true beliefs. I could no more choose to believe in the God of
>Christianity than I could decide that the ordinary sky looks red to
>me. 

sounds like you are an atheist by nature, then.  or is it possible
that at least part of it is due to the apparently repressive nature of
the christianity of your childhood?  if this is getting too personal
perhaps you should ignore it, or we can take it to email.

>Still I should be clear that I'm not equating what I went through
>with what gays go through. However it is a mistake to assume that
>everyone who goes through painful experiences are broken by them.
>Happily some are made stronger, once we get past it.

this may have been a general remark; you do not sound broken to me,
but indeed stronger.

>>> I must say that I
>>>wasn't hurt by my experiences in church any more than some of my friends
>>>who didn't become atheists. I was just hurt differently.
>>
>>i'm not sure i understand this sentence -- could you explain?
>
>Not without going to details and violating the confidences of some of my
>childhood friends. Suffice it say to that religion does not guarantee
>that a person will be happy and strong emotionally, and a repressive
>upbringing can leave its scars even, or especially, on those who don't
>get free of it. I doubt that any sane and sincere person doubts that and
>I feel no need to defend it.

yes, i agree with that.  i've seen some of the damage repressive
religion can do, and as a result i intend to raise my own children as
much as i can to look around before accepting one religious stand
(atheism is included in this) and to _question everything_ -- this is
very important.

>By the way I am much happier and stronger being out of the closet. In
>the end it has been, as someone eloquently put it in private email, an
>experience of liberation rather than disillusion.

i can see that.

>Bill Mayne

cheers,
vera
______
je cherche une ame, qui			of course i don't agree with  
pourra m'aider				mylene farmer's religious views;
je suis					i just think they're interesting.
d'une generation desenchantee		(vera noyes)
    - mylene farmer			noye@midway.uchicago.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21582
From: swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com (Stan Friesen)
Subject: Re: Re:Major Views of the Trinity

In article <May.9.05.41.12.1993.27549@athos.rutgers.edu>, Bocher writes:
|> 
|> It seems that during the Middle Ages, it was customary for pastors to 
|> explain the Trinity to their parishoners by analogy to water.
|> Water is water, but can exist in three forms--liquid, ice and vapor.
|> Thus it is possible for one essence to exist in three forms.

This sounds to me like a sort of generic modalism (in the the three phases
of water are but different modes of behavior of the same physical stuff).
It certainly does not seem to me to describe the orthodox position.

[Of course, I suppose that the medieval view of water may have been
different, but now we know that the phases of water are just different
*behaviors* of the same physical stuff - different modes, not different
identities - but perhaps the medieval people did not know that].

|> And recently, the pastor of my church drew an analogy, which I
|> also found useful--A woman is often percieved by others in three
|> ways, depending on their relationship to her--a mother, a wife and
|> an employee in a business.

This is clearly Modalistic Monarchianism, since these three aspects depend
solely on point of view, and are do not really represent actual variety
within the person.

Do you now begin to see why 

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21583
From: djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

Ok, what's more important to gay Christians?  Sex, or Christianity?
Christianity I would hope.  Would they be willing to forgo sex
completely, in order to avoid being a stumbling block to others,
to avoid the chance that their interpretation might be wrong,
etc?  If not, why not?  Heterosexuals abstain all the time.
(It would be nice if protestant churches had celibate orders
to show the world that sex is not the important thing in life)

To tell the truth, gay churches remind me a lot of Henry the VIII
starting the Church of England in order to get a divorce (or is
this a myth).  Note that I am not denying that gay Christians are
Christian.
-- 
Darin Johnson
djohnson@ucsd.edu  --  Toy cows in Africa

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21584
From: pauley@tai.jkj.sii.co.jp (Martin Pauley)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary

In article <May.6.00.35.45.1993.15465@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
marka@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley) wrote:
>
>countries. That event is "approved" by the Pope. Currently,
>images of Mary in Japan, Korea, Yugoslavia, Philippines, Africa
>are showing tears (natural or blood).
...
>If you have the resources, go to one of the countries I mentioned.

In article <May.9.05.40.20.1993.27478@athos.rutgers.edu>,
mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker) wrote:
>
>1.  As far as current investigations, the Church recently declared the
>    crying statue and corresponding messages from Mary at Akita,
>    Japan as approved (I found this out about a month ago.)

I'm in Japan.
(Michael, could you give me more info about where Akita is: nearest city
would be good)

If I find it, I'll get pictures and post a digitised version if enough
people are interested.

--------------------------------
..Marty.!
Lost in Space! (or is it Japan?)
<pauley@tai.jkj.sii.co.jp>

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21585
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: homosexual issues in Christianity

In article <May.11.02.36.34.1993.28074@athos.rutgers.edu> mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (someone named Mark) writes:

>mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:
 
>>Homosexual Christians have indeed "checked out" these verses.  Some of
>>them are used against us only through incredibly perverse interpretations.
>>Others simply do not address the issues.

>I can see that some of the above verses do not clearly address the issues, 

There are exactly ZERO verses that "clearly" address the issues.

>however, a couple of them seem as though they do not require "incredibly 
>perverse interpretations" in order to be seen as condemning homosexuality.

The kind of interpretation I see as "incredibly perverse" is that applied
to the story of Sodom as if it were a blanket equation of homosexual
behavior and rape.  Since Christians citing the Bible in such a context
should be presumed to have at least READ the story, it amounts to slander
-- a charge that homosexuality == rape -- to use that against us.

>"... Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, 
>nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, 
>nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom  of God.  And such were 
>some of you..."  I Cor. 6:9-11.

The moderator adequately discusses the circularity of your use of _porneia_
in this.  I think we can all agree (with Paul) that there are SOME kinds of
activity that could be named by "fornication" or "theft" or "coveting" or
"reviling" or "drunkenness" which would well deserve condemnation.  We may
or may not agree to the bounds of those categories, however; and the very
fact that they are argued over suggests that not only is the matter not at
all "clear" but that Paul -- an excellent rhetorician -- had no interest
in MAKING them clear, leaving matters rather to our Spirit-led decisions,
with all the uncomfortable living-with-other-readings that has dominated
Christian discussion of ALL these areas.

Homosexual behavior is no different.  I (and the other gay Christians I
know) are adamant in condemning rape -- heterosexual or homosexual -- and
child molestation -- heterosexual or homosexual -- and even the possibly
"harmless" but obsessive kinds of sex -- heterosexual or homosexual --
that would stand condemned by Paul in the very continuation of the chapter
you cite [may I mildly suggest that what *Paul* does in his letter that
you want to use is perhaps a good guide to his meaning?]

	"'I am free to do anything,' you say.  Yes, but not everything
	is for my good.  No doubt I am free to do anything, but I for one
	will not let anything make free with me."  [1 Cor. 6:12]

Which is a restatement that we must have no other "god" before God.  A
commandment neither I nor any other gay Christian wishes to break.  Some
people are indeed involved in obsessively driven modes of sexual behavior.
It is just as wrong (though slightly less incendiary, so it's a secondary
argument from the 'phobic contingent) to equate homosexuality with such
behavior as to equate it with the rape of God's messengers.

I won't deal with the exegesis of Leviticus, except very tangentially.
Fundamentally, you are exhibiting the same circularity here as in your
assumption that you know what _porneia_ means.  There are plenty of
laws prohibiting sexual behavior to be found in Leviticus, most of
which Christians ignore completely.  They never even BOTHER to examine
them.  They just *assume* that they know which ones are "moral" and
which ones are "ritual."  Well, I have news for you.  Any anthropology
course should sensitize you to ritual and clean vs. unlcean as categories
in an awful lot of societies (we have them too, but buried pretty deep).
And I cannot see any ground for distinguishing these bits of Leviticus
from the "ritual law" which NO Christian I know feels applies to us.

I'm dead serious here.  When people start going on (as they do in this
matter) about how "repulsive" and "unnatural" our acts are -- and what
do they know about it, huh? -- it is a solid clue to the same sort of
arbitrary cultural inculcations as the American prejudice against eating
insects.  On what basis, other than assuming your conclusion, can you
say that the law against male-male intercourse in Leviticus is NOT a part
of the ritual law?

For those Christians who *do* think that *some* parts of Leviticus can
be "law" for Christians (while others are not even to be thought about)
it is incumbent on you *in every case, handled on its own merits* to
determine why you "pick" one and ignore another.  I frankly think the
whole effort misguided.  Reread Paul: "No doubt I am free to do anything."
But Christians have a criterion to use for making our judgments on this,
the Great Commandment of love for God and neighbor.  If you cannot go
through Leviticus and decide each "command" there on that basis, then
your own arbitrary selection from it is simply idiosyncracy.  In this
context, it is remarkably offensive to say:

>I notice that the verse forbidding bestiality immediately follows the
>verse prohibiting what appears to be homosexual intercourse.

Well, la-ti-da.  So what?  This is almost as slimey an argument as the
one that homosexuality == rape.  I know of no one who argues seriously
(though one can always find jokers) in "defense" of bestiality.  It is
absolutely irrelevant and incomparable to the issues gay Christians *do*
raise (which concern sexual activity within committed, consensual human
adult realtionships), so that your bringing it up is no more relevant
than the laws of kashrut.  If you cannot address the actual issues, you
are being bloody dishonest in trailing this red herring in front of the
world.  If *you* want to address bestiality, that is YOUR business, not
mine.  And attempting to torpedo a serious issue by using what is in
our culture a ridiculous joke shows that you have no interest in hearing
us as human beings.  You want to dismiss us, and use the sleaziest means
you can think of to do so.

Jesus and Paul both expound, very explictly and in considerable length,
the central linch-pin of Christian moral thought: we are required to
love one another, and ALL else depends on that.  Gay and lesbian Christ-
ians challenge you to address the issue on those terms -- and all we get
in return are cheap debate tricks attempting to side-track the issues.

Christians, no doubt very sincere ones, keep showing up here and in every
corner of USENET and the world, and ALL they ever do is spout these same
old verses (which they obviously have never thought about, maybe never
even read), in TOTAL ignorance of the issues raised, slandering us with
the vilest charges of child abuse or whatever their perfervid minds can
manage to conjure up, tossing out red herrings with (they suppose) great
emotional force to cause readers to dismiss our witness without even
taking the trouble to find out what it is.

Such behavior should shame anyone who claims to have seen Truth in Christ.
WHY, for God's precious sake, do you people quote irrelevant verses to
condemn people you don't know and won't even take the trouble to LISTEN
to BEFORE you start your condemnations?  Is that loving your neighbor?
God forbid!  Is THAT how you obey the repeated commands to NOT judge or
condemn others?  Christ and Paul spend ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more time in
insisting on this than the half-dozen obscure words in Paul that you are
SO bloody ready to take as license to do what God tells you NOT to do.

Why, for God's sake?

	"For God did not send the Son into the world
	to condemn the world,
	but that the world might be saved through him.
	Whoever believes in him is not condemned,
	but whoever does not believe has already been condemned
	for refusing to believe in the name of God's only Son.
	Now the judgment is this:
	the light has come into the world,
	but men have preferred darkness to light
	because their deeds were evil.
	For everyone who practices wickedness
	hates the light,
	and does not come near the light
	for fear his deeds will be exposed.
	But he who acts in truth
	comes into the light,
	so that it may be sh0own
	that his deeds are done in God."	John 3:17-21

For long ages, we (many of us) have been confused by evil counsel from
evil men and told that if we came to the light we would be shamed and
rejected.  Some of us despaired and took to courses that probably *do*
show a sinful shunning of God's light.  Blessed are those whose spirits
have been crushed by the self-righteous; they shall be justified.

However, we have seen the Truth, and the Truth is the light of humanity;
and we now know that it is not WE who fear the light, but our enemies who
fear the light of our witness and will do everything they can to shadow
it with the darkness of false witness against us.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		I say "You are gods, sons of the
mls@panix.com			Most High, all of you; nevertheless
    - or -			you shall die like men, and fall
mls@ulysses.att..com		like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21586
From: kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Does Anyone Remember . . .

Some years ago -- possibly as many as five -- there was a discussion on
numerology.  (That's where you assign numeric values to letters and then add
up the letters in words, in an effort to prove something or another.  I can
never make any sense of how it's supposed to work or what it's supposed to
prove.)

Somebody posted a long article about numerology in the Bible, saying
things like "this proves the intricate planning of the Scriptures, else
these patterns would not appear".

Then there was a brilliant followup, which was about numerology in all the
other numerology posts.  Stuff like "The word `numerology' adds up to 28,
and the word appears 28 times in the posting!  Such elegant planning!
Further, the word `truth' ALSO adds up to 28; the writer is using these
numerological clues to show us that we reach truth via numerology!"
(These examples are made up by me just as examples.)

I really liked that reply, because it did such an excellent job of showing
that these patterns can be found in just about anything.  However, I did
not save a copy of it.  I do not remember the author.  I'm only 90% sure
that it was posted to this newsgroup.

BUT, on the off chance that somebody remembers it and saved it, or that the
author is reading here, I wanted to know if anyone could send me a copy.  (I
think it should be made into an FAQ, if we can find it.)


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu
"I use not only all the brains I have, but all those I can borrow as well."
                                                          -- Woodrow Wilson

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21587
From: bruce@liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?

>>>>> On 11 May 93 06:38:48 GMT, Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu (Fil Sapienza) said:

> In article <May.7.01.09.44.1993.14556@athos.rutgers.edu> maxwell c muir,
> muirm@argon.gas.organpipe.uug.arizona.edu writes:

>>The ambiguity of religious beliefs, an unwillingness to take
>>Pascal's Wager, 

> I've heard this frequently - what exactly is Pascal's wager?

Either A: God exists, or B: He doesn't.  We have two choices, either
1: Believe in God, or 2: Don't believe in God.  If A is true, then 2
brings eternal damnation, whereas 1 brings eternal life.  If B is
true, then 1 has minor inconvenience compared with 2.  Thus, it is
rational to believe in God.

This has numerous flaws, covered in the FAQ for alt.atheism, amongst
other places.

>>	Do I sound "broken" to you?

> I don't know.  You point out that your mother's treatment upset you,
> and see inconsistencies in various religions.  I'm not sure if that
> constitutes broken-ness or not.   It certainly consititutes 
> disillusionment.

Disillusionment strikes me as an excellent reason for stopping
believing in something.
--
Bruce              CMSR, University of Liverpool
Religion is myth-information

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21588
From: carlson@ab24.larc.nasa.gov (Ann Carlson)
Subject: Re: FAQ essay on homosexuality

I have some articles available on the Church and gay people, from
a pro-gay viewpoint, which might interest some of the people 
participating in this thread.  Please email me if you would like
to have me send them to you (warning, about 70k worth of material.
Make sure you have mailbox and/or disk space available.)

There are no short answers to the questions we've been seeing here
("how do you explain these verses?", "How do you justify your actions?")
If you've been asking and you really want an idea of the other people's
thinking, I encourage you to do some serious reading.  
-- 



*************************************************      
*Dr. Ann B. Carlson (a.b.carlson@larc.nasa.gov) *       O .
*MS 366                                         *         o  _///_ //
*NASA Langley Research Center                   *          <`)=  _<<
*Hampton, VA 23681-0001                         *             \\\  \\
*************************************************

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21589
From: alisonjw@spider.co.uk (Alison J Wyld)
Subject: Re: Translations

In article <May.10.05.07.52.1993.3559@athos.rutgers.edu> mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:
>
>I have a strong preference for editions that do _not_ indent the beginning
>of each verse as if verses were paragraphs.  The verse numbering is a
>relatively modern addition and should not be given undue prominence.
>

Does anyone know of an English language edition that does not show the
verse (or even chapter) numbers.  I have always thought that such an
edition would be very useful - although hard to navigate around.

I have a Scots NT that doesn't show verse numbers, and it is great to
read, particularly longer narrative passages, but my Scots isn't quite
up to doing proper study from this edition - I tend to use it to get a
"feel" for a story, particularly in the gospels, and then use an
English edition to look for details.

Alison

[The original NEB put verse numbers only in the margin.  The
Jerusalem Bible does the same, though they put a dot to mark the
boundaries between verses.   --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21590
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <May.11.02.36.59.1993.28108@athos.rutgers.edu> dps@nasa.kodak.com writes:
>In article 15441@geneva.rutgers.edu, loisc@microsoft.com (Lois Christiansen) writes:

>|>he can, especially homosexuality.  Let's reach the homosexuals for Christ. 
>|>Let's not try to change them, just need to bring them to Christ.  If He
>|>doesn't want them to be gay, He can change that.  [....]

>don't hate the people.  I don't.  I don't hate my kids when they do
>wrong either.  But I tell them what is right, and if they lie or don't
>admit they are wrong, or just don't make an effort to improve or
>repent, they get punished.  I think this is quite appropriate.  

Note the difference here. One is saying, if *Christ* disagrees with 
a Christian being gay, *Christ* can change that.

The other is saying, if *I* think being gay is wrong, that a Christian
cannot be gay, *I* need to tell them to change.


As Lois said, and as before her Paul wrote to the believers in Rome,
WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE ANOTHER'S SERVANT?

-jen

-- 

#include <stdisclaimer>  //  jenk@microsoft.com  // msdos testing

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21591
From: alisonjw@spider.co.uk (Alison J Wyld)
Subject: Re: Dreams and out of body incidents

In article <May.11.02.37.40.1993.28185@athos.rutgers.edu> dt4%cs@hub.ucsb.edu (David E. Goggin) writes:
>I'd like to get your comments on a question that has been on my mind a
>lot:  What morals/ethics apply to dreams and out-of-body incidents?
>In normal dreams, you can't control anything, so obviously
>you aren't morally responsible for your actions.  But if you can contrive
>to control the action in dreams or do an OOBE, it seems like a morality applies.
>

Well I am one of those (apparently) odd people who can sometimes
control their dreams.  For example, I might decide before going to
sleep that I want to repeat a favourite dream, or dream about a
specific place.  Or if I am having an unpleasant dream, I can often
(not always) redirect events to something more pleasant.

I guess I think that the same standards apply in these "directed"
dreams as apply in waking fantasies or real life (ref Jesus teaching
about looking at a woman lustfully being the same a committing
adultary).

When my normal dreams display themes that I would not conciously chose
to dream about, I take that as a sign that all is not well with my
"inner life" - maybe I have underlying tenstions/fears that need to be
resolved, or maybe its straightforward sin.  In either case, the cause
needs to be resolved.  

In fact, either case is pretty rare.  I don't
often remember dreams that I don't chose to have.  When I do, they
almost always tell me something important.
I also almost never dream in pictures, and especially not in colour
(in fact I've had precisely one full colour picture dream that I can
remember, and it was definately spiritually important)
I tend to dream in sound, with the odd blurred image, in black and
white.

Interesting topic - I'll be fascinated to read other responses.

Alison

PS. Just to make it clear, I don't do ( and have never tried ) OOBEs.
    I tend to think they are off limits for Christians.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21592
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: ARSENOKOITAI: NT Meaning of

This week, many of you have asked about my earlier postings on OT, NT and
Intertestiment exegesis on the homosexual issue.  I have refered you to the FAQ
files, which I find out, no longer contains them.  They are too long for me to
mail to each of you, each article, but will try to get them back on the FAQ
file.  

Because of the renewed interest on this subject, I will type, with permission,
an article by James DeYoung.  I think it is one of the best articles that I've
read todate from the conservative position.  I can't post it all at once, so it
will come piece meal and not daily.  After I'm done retyping the entire
article, I will make it available for the FAQ file.  Talk to clh.

Also, for those who can't get through to me, you may try one of these:
REXLEX@FNAL.FNAL.GOV 
LEXREX@ALMOND.FNAL.GOV
Loren Senders@ADMAIL.FNAL.GOV

                              THE SOURCE AND NT MEANING
                         OF ARSENOKOITAI, WITH IMPLICATIONS
                         FOR CHRISTIAN ETHICS AND MINISTRY


                                      James B. DeYoung
                               Professor of New Testament
                         Western Conservative Baptist Seminary
                                      Portland, Oregon

     Traditional interpretation of arsenokoitai ("homosexuals") in 1 Cor 6:9
and 1 Tim 1:10 refers to sexual vice between people of the same sex,
specifically homosexualitiy.  Some restrict the term's meaning to "active male
prostititute," but stronger evidence supports a more general translation,
namely "homosexuals."  More recently the definition "homosexual" has been
opposed on clutural and linguistic grounds, the claim being that the term
"homosexuals" is anachronistic.  In addition, criticism of the traditional
rendering says the term today includes celibate homophiles, excludes
heterosexuals who engage in homosexual acts, and includes female homosexuals. 
A concern for acts instead of the modern attention to desires was the only
factor in the ancient world.  The foregoing oppositition to the translation of
arsenokoitai by "homosexuals" has a number of debilitating weaknesses. 
Finally, this study argues that Paul coined the term arsenokoitai, deriving it
from the LXX of Lev 20:12 (cf. 18:22) and using it for homosexual orientation
and behavior, the latter of which should be an occasion for church discipline
(I Cor 5-6) and legislation in society (1 Tim 1:8-11).

                      *************************************

                                   INTRODUCTION

     Coincident with the rise of the gay rights movement in recent years has
been an increasing focus on the biblical statements regarding homosexuality or
sodomy.    As part of this focus, the meaning of the term arsenokoitai, used
twice by the apostle Paul (1 Cor 6:9,  I Tim 1:10), has received vigorous
scrutiny.    This issue is particularly crucial to contemporary society since
so much of modern ethics is shaped by biblical statements.  More particularly, 
the concern over gay rights and the place of gays or homosexuals in the church
and in society require the resolution of biblical interpretation.

     This study of historical, linguistic, and literary matters will survey and
evalutate recent proposals for the meaning of arsenokoitai and present evidence
to point to a resolution.  Several writers and their positions represent the
modern debate on this word.  Three authors, Bailey, Boswell, and Scroggs, have
provoked considerable discussion and significantly encouraged the wider
acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle in society, in the church, and in the
ministry. 


Footnotes:
_______________________
 1.  For convenience sake, the term "homosexual" is used to encompass both
same-sex orientation and same-sex behavior.  The meaning of this term is one of
the main considerations of this study.
 2. These times are differnt from just over a century ago.  Then P Fairbairn
(Pastoral Epistles [Edinburg, 1874)  891) could write of arsenokoitai thit it
is a "term for which fortunately our language has no proper equivalent." 
Unknowingly he thereby touched upon the basis for the contemporary debate and
study.  THe present writer endorses the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral
Epistles on the basis of internal and external evidence (see Donald Guthrie,
New Testament Introduction, [4th ed;  1990] 621-649, for an extensive
discussion and citation of supporters of the Pauline authorship).
 3. For example, see Scroggs' influence on M. Olson, "Untangling the Web," The
Other Side (April 1984): 24-29.  For a study suggesting a further prohibition
of homosexuality in the OT, see A. Phillips, "Unconvering the Father's Skirt,"
VT 30/1 (Jan, 1980) 38-43.  For a bibliography of other sources dealing with
arsenokoitai, see the Wisondisc Religion Indexes (NY: H. Wison Co., 1987).

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21593
From: David.Bernard@central.sun.com (Dave Bernard)
Subject: Re: SJ Mercury's reference to Fundamentalist Christian parents

In article 28120@athos.rutgers.edu, dan@ingres.com (a Rose arose) writes:

>	"Raised in Oakland and San Lorenzo by strict fundamentalist
>	Christian parents, Mason was beaten as a child.  He once was
>
>Were the San Jose Mercury news to come out with an article starting with
>"Raised in Oakland by Mexican parents, Mason was beaten...", my face would
>be red with anger over the injustice done to my Mexican family members and


Although I'm neither Fundamentalist nor Evangelical, I have often noticed
this trend in the media.  In short, it is permissable to bash Fundamentalists.
No need to substitue a nationality such as "Mexican..." try simply to 
substitute a different religion "...raised by Muslim parents," or "...raised
by Jewish parents..."  The paper simply would not do this.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21594
From: pages!bwebster@uunet.uu.net (Bruce F. Webster)
Subject: Re: Mormon temples

In article <May.11.02.38.41.1993.28297@athos.rutgers.edu>  
mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server) writes:
> I don't necessarily object to the secrecy but I do question it, since I see  
no 
> Biblical reason why any aspect of Christian worship should involve secrecy.  
> But I am interested in your claim that early Christian practices "parallel" 
> Mormon temple ceremonies.  Could you give an example?  Also, why do they only 
> parallel Mormon ceremonies?  Why don't Mormon ceremonies restore the original 
> Christian practices?  Wasn't that the whole point of Joseph Smith's stated 
> mission?
> 

I'd recommend reading _Mormonism and Early Christianity_ by Hugh Nibley,  
particularly the articles on Christ's forty-day (post-resurrection) mission,  
baptism for the dead, early Christian prayer circles, and temples (2 articles).  
..bruce..

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce F. Webster             | A religion that does not require the sacrifice
CTO, Pages Software Inc      | of all things never has power sufficient to
bwebster@pages.com           | produce the faith necessary unto life and
#import <pages/disclaimer.h> | salvation.  -- Joseph Smith
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21595
From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal F Lillywhite)
Subject: Re: Mormon temples

In article <May.11.02.38.41.1993.28297@athos.rutgers.edu> mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server) writes:

>But I am interested in your claim that early Christian practices "parallel" 
>Mormon temple ceremonies.  Could you give an example?  Also, why do they only 
>parallel Mormon ceremonies?  Why don't Mormon ceremonies restore the original 
>Christian practices?  Wasn't that the whole point of Joseph Smith's stated 
>mission?

If you want parallels the best source is probably the book _Temple
and Cosmos_ by Hugh Nibley.  It is not light reading however.

As to why these early practices "only parallel" and do not exactly
duplicate the modern LDS ceremony, there are a couple of reasons:

1.  Quite likely we do not have the exact original from ancient
times.  This stuff was not commonly known but bits and pieces
undoubtedly spread.  (Much as bits and pieces of the modern ceremony
get known.)  What we have in the 40 day literature, the Egyptian
ceremonies, and certain Native American ceremonies is almost
certainly not exactly what Jesus taught.

2.  Certain aspects of the ceremony are normally modified to fit the
situation, much as the modern ceremony has been modified to fit the
audio-visual tools now available.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21596
From: cctr114@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Rea)
Subject: Re: Portland earthquake

Paul Hudson Jr (hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu) wrote:
> In article <May.7.01.09.33.1993.14542@athos.rutgers.edu> cctr114@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Rea) writes:

>>in history seems to imply some pretty serious sin. The one of the 
>>pastors in the church I attend, Christchurch City Elim, considers 
>>that a prophesy of a natural disaster as a "judgement from the Lord" 
>>is a clear sign that the "prophesy" is not from the Lord. 
>
>I would like to see his reasoning behind this.  You may have gotten 

If I get a chance I will ask them this weekend.

>"burned" by natural disaster prophecies down there, but that
>does not mean that every natural disaster/judgement prophecy is
>false.  Take a quick look at the book of Jeremiah and it is obvious
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>that judgement prophecies can be valid.  here in the US, it seems like
>we might have more of a problem with positive prophecies, though I
>am sure there may be a few people who are too into judgement.

The words I have underlined are at the heart of the problem. A "quick
look" doesn't do justice to the depth of the book of Jeremiah. Having
studied the Jeremiah/Ezekial period solidly for over a year at one
stage of my life, I have to say that there is a great deal of underlying
theological meaning in the judgement prophesies. Let me make one point.
The clash between Jeremiah and the "false prophets" was primarily in
the theological realm. The "false prophets" understood their relatioship
to God to be based on the covenant that the Lord made with David. It is
possible to trace within the pages of the Old Testament who this covenant,
which was initially conditional on the continued obedience of David's
descendants, came to be viewed as an unconditional promise on the part
of the Lord to keep a descendant of David's upon the throne and to never
allow Jerusalem to subjegated by any foreign power. Jeremiah was not a
Judahite prophet. He was from Anathoth, across the border in what had formerly
been Israelite territory. When he came to prophesy, he came from the
theological background of the covenant the Lord had made with Israel
through Moses. The northern Kingdom had rejected the Davidic covenant
after the death of Solomon. His theology clashed with the theology of the
local prophets. It was out of a very deep understanding of the Mosaic
covenant and an actute awareness of international events that Jeremiah
spoke his prophesies. The "judgement prophesies" were deeply loaded with
theological meaning.

In my opinion, both the Portland earthquake prophesy and the David Wilkerson
"New York will burn" prophesy are froth and bubble compared to the majestic
theological depths of the Jeremiah prophesies.

--
                                                                     ___
Bill Rea                                                            (o o)
-------------------------------------------------------------------w--U--w---
| Bill Rea, Computer Services Centre, | E-Mail   b.rea@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| University of Canterbury,           | or     cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| Christchurch, New Zealand           | Phone (03)-642-331 Fax (03)-642-999 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21597
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: FAQ essay on homosexuality

In article <May.11.05.06.28.1993.5458@geneva.rutgers.edu> hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu writes:

>this came from.  Here's his response: Kinsey (see below) is the source
>of the figure 10 percent.

There was an article in USA today a few months ago showing the results
of a study that actually only about 1% were homosexual.  I saw another
figure that listed 2% as the figure.  Of course, even if it were 99%
that would have little bearing on whether or not it is a sinful behavior.
How many people have commited other acts of fornication?  How many
people have lied or sinned in other ways?

>But in all fairness, the "shameless" nature of their acts is a
>reflection of the general spiritual state of the people, and not a
>specific feature of homosexuality.

Why isn't it a specific feature of homosexuality?  Paul describes
"men with men working that which is unseemly" to describe the acts.  
Sure, there spirtual nature was depraved also, and like the other
sins, the idolatry, the other sexual immoraity, and the other sins
sprang from their depraved spiritual state which was a result of 
man's not glorifying God as God and being thankful.  Still, their
acts were shameless.

>homosexuality or even considered it acceptable in some cases.  On the
>other hand, none of these passages contains explicit teachings on the
>subject.  Rom 1 is really about idolatry.  It refers to homosexuality
>in passing.

Is everything sinful specifically elaborated on in the New Testament?
Scripture does not condemn being a drug dealer.  Being ruled by the
Spirit rather than the letter not only frees from legalism, it also
protects us from sins that are against the Spirit.  The word is a
two edged sword that cuts both ways.  

I think we must be careful before we totally throw out Leviticus.  
If the Law is reflection of God's character and true holy nature, then
those who say that God endorses homosexuality run into a problem.  
If homosexuality were "natural" (whatever that means) wholesome, 
endorsed by God, and those who oppose sexual behavior are narrow-minded
biggots, as some would have us believe, why is there a condemnation of
it in Leviticus.  This condemnation is in the midst of all the other
sex sin condemnations, and there is nothing in the text to say that this
law was limited to temple prostitution, and no good reason to believe that
this was the case.  Furthermore, male homosexual sex was a death-penalty
crime!  

Is every sin elaborated on in the New Testament?  Take a look at
I Corinthians 5.  Paul said that one of the Corinthians had broken a
law not even heard of among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's
wife.  There is a prohibition against having your father's wife in 
Leviticus.  No other new Testament verse clearly condemns it (besides
this one.)  Notice that Paul did not say that the sin was in commiting
adultery, etc.- he spoke against having one's father's wife.  

Notice also that this sexual condemnation in Leviticus is not mentioned
in the specific context of paganism either.  And there was no pagan 
coustom mentioned in I corinthians either.  As a matter of fact
taking one's father's wife wasn't even done among the Gentiles.  It was
just a plain blantant sin, whether worshipping idols was involved or
not.

>One commonly made claim is that Paul had simply never faced the kinds
>of questions we are trying to deal with.  He encountered homosexuality
>only in contexts where most people would probably agree that it was
>wrong.  He had never faced the experience of Christians who try to act
>"straight" and fail, and he had never faced Christians who are trying
>to define a Christian homosexuality, which fits with general Christian
>ideals of fidelity and of seeing sexuality as a mirror of the
>relationship between God and man.  It is unfair to take Paul's
>judgement on homosexuality among idolaters and use it to make
>judgements on these questions.

One of the reasons that some of us do not accept that common argument
is because Paul probably did face this and other problems.  Sin can
be tough to over come, especially without supernatural power.  Is
homosexual sin any more difficult to overcome that heterosexual sin,
like lusting after a married woman, or sleeping around with people of
the opposite sex?  I doubt it, and even if it is, that is no excuse.
God is greater than all of it. 

Another reason we reject it is because it ignores the supernatural
power of God to intervene in this kind of situation.  How many 
people have been set free from sin by the power of God?  Sure there
may be any groups that have tried to change homosexuals and failed.
That is a reflection on the people involved in the program, and not
God's willingness and ability to change a sinner.  Any program that
uses formulas may fail.  What people need is the power of God to
change them, whether they are involved in homosexual sin, or any other
sin.

>I claim that the question of how to counsel homosexual Christians is
>not entirely a theological issue, but also a pastoral one.  Paul's
>tendency, as we can see in issues such as eating meat and celebrating
>holidays, is to be uncompromising on principle but in pastoral issues
>to look very carefully at the good of the people involved, and to
>avoid insisting on perfection when it would be personally damaging.
>For example, while Paul clearly believed that it was acceptable to eat
>meat, he wanted us to avoid pushing people into doing an action about
>which they had personal qualms. 

I don't see how you come to that conclusion.  Paul's dealings with
pastorial issues encouraged people to give up their liberties in order
to spare others- not to allow people to continue in sin because it
was just too difficult.  Take the example of eating meat offered to idols.
Paul felt that there was nothing wrong, in an abstract sense, with
eating the meat.  Yet he advised believers to sacrifice their liberty
to eat meat in order to spare others.  

But Paul never allowed people to sin because living holy was just to
tough.  Paul wrote to "make no provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts
thereof."  (Romans 13:14)  Then he goes in to a discourse on how we
should sacrifice our own liberty in order to spare the consciences of others.

Suppose it were not a sin for people to practice homosexual acts.  
Since others consider it to be a sin, then using Paul's approach
on pastorial issues, those who would otherwise be homosexuals should 
sacrifice their liberty and be celbate or monogamously married to a
member of the opposite sex.  Paul never offers a lesser sin (homosexual
"marriage") to prevent people from engaging in what may be considered 
a more damaging sin.

>For another example, Paul obviously
>would have preferred to see people (at least in some circumstances)
>remain unmarried.  Yet if they were unable to do so, he certainly
>would rather see them married than in a state where they might be
>tempted to fornication.

Yet marriage itself is not a sin.  marriage is holy in all- and something
that God ordains, and Paul recognizes this.

> Note that in the
>creation story work enters human life as a result of sin.  This
>doesn't mean that Christians can stop working when we are saved.

Actually, Adam was put in the garden to tend to it before he fell.
After he fell he would have to toil over the ground.

>The dangers of trying to cure it are that the attempt most often
>fails, and when it does, you end up with damage ranging from
>psychological damage to suicide, as well as broken marriages when
>attempts at living as a heterosexual fail.

That is why we are dependent totally on God- what a vunerable and glorious
position to be it.  We all must be transformed by the renewing of our
minds- and that is the only way homosexuals can walk in freedom, just
like anyone else.

>but I can well imagine Paul
>preferring to see people in long-term, committed Christian
>relationships than promiscuity.  As with work -- which Genesis
>suggests wasn't part of God's original ideal either -- I think such
>relationships can still be a vehicle for people sharing God's love
>with each other.

I'm sure you can see how people with the opposing view see this 
conclusion.  It's like saying, "How should I kill myself, with gun or
aresenic?  What about the person who just is overcome with a desire to
sleep with goats?  Would it be better for him to sleep with one goat,
or all of them?  What about the person who wants to sleep with his aunts?
Would it be better for him to sleep with one aunt or all of them?  

In all these cases, the more people or animals one sleeps with, the higher
the chance that they will get a disease.  But this only deals with 
physical aspects of the question.  Whichever sin is commited, it all 
leads to spiritual death.

>Cent. actions are the same.  When Christian homosexuals say that their
>relationships are different than the Greek homosexuality that Paul
>would have been familiar with, this is exactly the same kind of
>argument that is being made about judicial oaths and tax collectors.

The issue that is most often addressed in Scripture seems to be the
actual act.  Second, isn't it historical snobbery to say that
only homosexuals of this century are capable of having "loving
relationships?"  There are ancient writings glorifying homosexual "love."
(btw, I am one who believes in refraining from making oathes.  Also,
where do you get that tax collectors are sinners.  That's certainly not
explicit.  Jesus didn't tell Zachias to quit his job.)

Link Hudson.


[I'm reluctant to comment in this in detail.  Our basic concepts of
the intention of Jesus and Paul are greatly different.  As I indicated
in the article, whatever the ambiguities of various words (and I still
think they are significant), it does seem clear that Paul considered
the homosexuality he saw around him wrong.  What you do with this fact
depends upon your basic approach to the Bible.  I'm afraid that
communication between legalist and anti-legalist Christians is even
harder than between Protestants and Catholics in the 16th Cent.  Since
you disagree with my starting point, obviously you're going to
disagree with all of the intermediate discussion and conclusions.
Sometimes discussion is still useful.  I've seen some very interesting
work on Paul done by Jews.  Obviously they don't agree with him, but
they sometimes have helpful insight into what he meant.  But I don't
see much sign for hope here.  In talk.religion.misc there's an axiom
that by the time Hitler's name is invoked, all hope for sensible
discussion is gone.  On this subject, when sleeping with goats is
invoked, I don't think there's enough basis for understanding to be
worth pursuing.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21598
From: loisc@microsoft.com (Lois Christiansen)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <May.11.02.36.59.1993.28108@athos.rutgers.edu> dps@nasa.kodak.com wrote:
> In article 15441@geneva.rutgers.edu, loisc@microsoft.com (Lois Christiansen) writes:

> |>You might visit some congregations of Christians, who happen to be homosexuals,
> |>that are spirit-filled believers, not MCC'rs; before you go lumping us all
> |>together with Troy Perry.  

> Gee, I think there are some real criminals (robbers, muderers, drug
> addicts) who appear to be fun loving caring people too.  So what's
> your point?  Is it OK. just because the people are nice?

I didn't say to visit some "nice" homosexuals.  I said "visit some congregations
of Christians..spirit-filled believers.."


Praise the Lord that we are all members of the same body.  Let us agree to
disagree.

God Bless You and See you in Heaven
Loisc

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21599
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Serbian genocide Work of God?

Vera Shanti Noyes writes:

>really?  you may be right, but i'd like proof.  as far as i know (and

"We however, shall be innocent of this sin, and will pray with earnest
entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the
numbers of His elect."
    -St. Clement, Bishop of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, 59.2, (c. 90 AD)

"Ignatius also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia,
which is worthy of all felicitation, blessed as it is with greatness by
the fullness of God the Father, predestined from all eternity for a
glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen in true
suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God..."
    -St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, Letter to the Ephesians, Address,
(c 110 AD)

"We say therefore, that in substance, in concept, in orgin and in
eminece, the ancient and Catholic Church is alone, gathering as it does
into the unity of the one faith which results from the familiar
covenants .... those already chosen, those predestined by God who knew
before the foundation of the world that they would be just."
    -St. Clement, Patriarch and Archbishop of Alexandria, Miscellanies,
7.17.107.3, (c 205 AD)

Of course the doctrine was explained more fully later on by Sts.
Augustine, Aquinas, etc., but the seeds were ther from the beginning.

>this is really confusing to me, especially since i still believe that
>christ jesus died for ALL of us.  preknowledge of obstinacy seems
>like an awfully convoluted way to account for a couple of verses.  but

I think you are reading it wrong.  I say those who are not saved are not
saved on account of their own sins.  It is not because God did not give
them sufficient grace, for He does do so, in His desire that all men
might be saved.  However, as only some are saved - and those who are
saved are saved by the grace of God, "not by works, lest any man should
boast" - the others are damned because of their obstinacy in refusing to
heed the call of God.  They are damned by their own free will and
chosing, a choice forseen by God in His causing them to be not
predestined, but reprobated instead.

>so God uses grace like margarine: he only spreads it where it's needed
>and not where it isn't?  and so there are the saved and the not-saved,
>and nothing in between.  hmmmm.

Certainly God does not distribute grace evenly.  If He did, no one could
have their heart hardened (or rather, harden their heart, thus causing
God to withdraw His grace).  But, you are correct - the world is divided
into those who God knows to be saved, and those God knows to be on the
road to perdition.  THe key is that God knows it and we do not.  Thus,
no one can boast in complete assurance that they are one of the elect
and predestined.  But no one who is a Christian in good standin should
doubt their salvation either (that shows a lack of trust in God).

>be punished after we die.  you're saying what we get after we die has
>a direct bearing on how we live now?  strange....

You must admit it is possible.  Anyway, why would you want something in
the hear and know, when you can recieve 100 fold in heaven?  Better to
lay up your treasure in heaven is what Jesus said.
This is not to condemn the rich, but simply to point out that those who
are rich are frequently very evil or immoral, so God must give them
their blessing know, as they have chosen.  Remeber, Jesus promised
tribulation in this world, and hatred of others because we are
Christians.  He did not promise heaven on earth.  He promised heaven.

>so sin is either punished now or later -- and not both?  what if it's
> sort of half-punished?  are there any grey areas in this doctrine?

Not really.  Unless you do penance here on earth, you will have to do it
in Purgatory, as Paul pointed out (1 Corinthians 3.15).  Those with
poorer works, though still done with good intentions, will only be saved
through fire (the damned will of course go into fire immeadiately, for
whatever good they did was not for God but for self (dead works)).  Of
course, the Church gives indulgences, has Confession, and Annointing of
the Sick to remove sin and the the vestiges of sin, so there is really
little excuse for ending up in Purgatory - it is a last hope for the
somewhat lazy and careless as I said above in referring to Paul.

And no comments were taken as flames.  You are one of the more polite
people I have talked to over the net.

Andy Byler

ps. As for Balkan military adventures, the old saw about that area is
that it produces more history then can be consumed locally: Alexander
the Great, WWI the Ottoman Empire, the Byzantine Empire (by which I
refer to stirfe and foreign adventures of them in general), the Balkans
wars of 1913, the Latin-Greek wars of the 1200's, etc.  Not a good place
to hop into.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21600
From: sun075!Gerry.Palo@uunet.uu.net (Gerry Palo)
Subject: Re: Portland earthquake

Austin C Archer (archau@saturn.wwc.edu) wrote:
>
>I am interested in views about the non-event of May 3. Seriously, how can a 
>Christian discriminate between "messages from God" which are to be taken 
>seriously, and those which are spurious?  Is there a useful heuristic which 
>would help us avoid embracing messages which, by their non-fulfillment are 
>proven to be false, thus causing the name of Christ to be placed in 
>disrepute? Is this a problem at all?

It is possible that the individual saw a true prophetic vision, but that he
interpreted the scale of time and space according to his material con-
sciousness, translating the supersensible perceptions of a plane above
that of time and space into an immediate worldly context -- and getting it
wrong.  Not that he did it rationally, but rather that unconsciously the
perceptions became clothed in material images, instead of remaining in the
realm of the potential and not-yet-time-space-bound.  This difficulty of
translating prophetic vision into a concrete when and where has always been
difficult, even for the prophets of old.  That is why their prophecies are
so often subject to multiple interpretations.  Likewise, the Apostles seemed
to feel that the return of the Lord was to be "very soon" in the sense of
perhaps the same generation. Yet the meaning of "very soon" has proven to
be different than they could grasp.  Prophetic vision tends to telescope
time, so that things that are far off appear to be very close.

Another possibility is that the vision was one of a real event preparing to
happen, again in the realm of the potential-but-not-yet-manifest and which
was thwarted by other forces, including possibly an act of divine mercy.

There are many concrete prophecies being made these days by devout and
sincere and sober Christians (and others too).  It seems that great coming 
events are really casting their shadow before their arrival in these 
"apocalyptic" times.  The various predictions (I'm talking about those that
appear to be sincere and sober) are hard to accept, yet hard to ignore com-
pletely.  One has the feeling "something is about to start to get ready to 
begin to commence to happen".  We are living, as the Chinese saying goes,
in interesting times.

As for how to discriminate, the Bible doesn't help much.  There is an Old
Testament passage (I forget where it is) that says you will know whether
a prophet is true by whether or not his prophecy comes to pass.  That
helps eliminate the failures after the fact, but in the case of an earth-
quake it is small comfort.  It seems to me that all prophecies that give
specific times and places and events should be suspect, not in that they
are necessarily false, but in the sense stated above, that all such visions
are subject to mistranslation from the plane of prophetic vision to the
plane of earthly time and space.

For what it is worth, Rudolf Steiner once was asked whether a modern initiate 
could see into the future and predict coming events.  His answer was that 
it would be possible but then he would have to withdraw from active parti-
cipation in them, including proclaiming what he saw.  If this is in fact
a spiritual law, then the answer to your question about how to discriminate
is that the one who makes such prophecies is probably violating that law,
knowingly or unknowingly, and as such his message should be considered
a priori to be dubious.  I.e. I would expect that those capable of making
true predictions and giving accurate expression to them would not do so in 
the way that the prophet of the Oregon earthquake did.  However, I can
sympathize with the person who published the prophecy. Given the same
overwhelming experience that he apparently had,  I too might feel impelled, 
and even commissioned by God to tell my fellow human beings about what 
I had seen.

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)


[Do any of our church historian readers know whether there's any
more prophecy now than there has been in the past?  I don't get
that impression.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21601
From: seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson)
Subject: Re: What WAS the immaculate conception

In article <May.9.05.39.52.1993.27456@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes:
[referring to Mary]
>She was immaculately conceived, and so never subject to Original Sin,
>but also never committed a personal sin in her whole life.  This was
>possible because of the special degree of grace granted to her by God.

I have quite a problem with the idea that Mary never committed a sin.
Was Mary fully human?  If it is possible for God to miraculously make 
a person free of original sin, and free of committing sin their whole
life, then what is the purpose of the Incarnation of Jesus?  Why can't
God just repeat the miracle done for Mary to make all the rest of us
sinless, without the need for repentance and salvation and all that?

I don't particularly object to the idea of the assumption, or the
perpetual virginity (both of which I regard as Catholic dogma about which
I will agree to disagree with my Catholic brothers and sisters in
Christ), and I even believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, but this
concept of Mary's sinlessness seems to me to be at odds with the
rest of Christian doctrine as I understand it.

==
Seanna Watson   Bell-Northern Research,       | Pray that at the end of living,
(seanna@bnr.ca) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada       | Of philosophies and creeds,
                                              | God will find his people busy
Opinion, what opinions? Oh *these* opinions.  | Planting trees and sowing seeds.
No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.          |
I knew I'd left them somewhere.               |  --Fred Kaan

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21602
From: David.Bernard@central.sun.com (Dave Bernard)
Subject: Re: Mary's assumption

>I also don't see the _necessity_ of saying the Holy Parents were some-
>how sanctified beyond normal humanity: it sounds like our own inability
>to grasp the immensity of God's grace in being incarnated through an or-
>dinary human being.  


When Elizabeth greeted Mary, Elizabeth said something to the effect that
Mary, out of all women, was blessed.  If so, it appears that this
exactly places Mary beyond the sanctification of normal humanity.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21603
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Deuterocanonicals, esp. Sirach

Michael Siemon writes:

>Furthermore, it is inaccurate to say that the Reformers "threw out" these
>books.  Basically, they just placed them in a secondary status (as Jerome
>had already done), but with the additional warning that doctrine should
>not be based on citations from these ALONE.

Protestants love to play up Jerome for all he is worth. They should
remeber that after the Decree of Pope St. Damsus I, Jerome did not
hesitate in accpeting the deuteroncanon, and quoted them as Scripture in
his later writings.  And as I have already pointed out, in a previous
letter on this subject, the Catholic Church has accepted the
deuterocanon from the beginning.  And the Protestants in the 1500's all
of a sudden revived the old theory of some, condemned by Pope, Council,
and Church, that the deuterocanon were not inspired.

Again, why must the Church of Jesus Christ adopt the canon of the
unbelieving Jews, drawn up in Jamnia in 90 AD, in countering the
Christian use of the Septuagint.                 ^^^^^

Andy Byler

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21604
From: richw@mks.com (Rich Wales)
Subject: Re: Mormons and eternal marriage (was Re: Mormon Temples)

David Hammerslag asked:

	How do you (Mormons) reconcile the idea of eternal marriage
	with Christ's statement that in the resurrection people will
	neither marry nor be given in marriage (Luke, chapt. 20)?

Several explanations for this seeming contradiction have been proposed,
but most LDS scholars whose opinions I have studied take more or less
one of the following three positions:

(1) Jesus was talking to a group of people (Sadducees) who were trying
    to trip Him up with what they felt was a silly hypothetical situa-
    tion that ridiculed the concept of a resurrection (something they
    didn't believe in).  These people -- and those associated with them
    ("Now there were with us seven brethren", Matt. 22:25) -- would not
    be receptive to such higher blessings as eternal marriage.  Hence,
    the people in the story would likely not be married in the eterni-
    ties; but that doesn't mean other, more faithful people could not
    have this blessing.

(2) Jesus was making a distinction between the state or condition of
    =being= married, and the process of =becoming= married.  The latter
    activity (marrying and giving in marriage) will not take place in
    the eternities, because all eternal marriages will be taken care of
    before then.

(3) The account as we have it (in all three of the synoptic Gospels) is
    missing something that would make its real meaning clearer.  Note
    that we (LDS) do not believe in Biblical inerrancy, so we do not in
    general feel obliged to reconcile each and every Bible text with
    modern revelation through Joseph Smith and other latter-day proph-
    ets.  Nor are we particularly upset that the account in question
    was not significantly revised in the "Joseph Smith Translation" or
    "Inspired Version" of the Bible, since we do not believe this work
    was completed or that failure to revise a passage in the JST con-
    stitutes divine approval of that passage as it stands in the KJV.

-- 
Rich Wales <richw@mks.com>       //      Mortice Kern Systems Inc. (MKS)
35 King St. N. // Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2J 2W9 // +1 (519) 884-2251

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21605
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Deuterocanonicals, esp. Sirach

Barney Resson writes:

>On these counts, the apocrapha falls short of the glory of God.
>To quote Unger's Bible Dictionary on the Apocrapha:
>1. They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and
>anachronisms.

So do other parts of the Bible when taken literally - i.e. the Psalms
saying the Earth does not move, or the implication the Earth is flat
with four corners, etc.  The Bible was written to teach salvation, not
history or science.

>2. They teach doctrines which are false and foster practices
>which are at variance with sacred Scripture.

What ones?  Paryers for the dead or the intercession of saints? (Which
are taught in 2 Maccabees, Sirach, and Tobit)

>3. They resort to literary types and display an artificiality of
>subject matter and styling out of keeping with sacred Scripture.

By your own subjective judgement.  This falling short is your judgement,
and you are not infallible - rather the Church of Jesus Christ is (see 1
Timothy 3.15).

>4. They lack the distinctive elements which give genuine
>Scripture their divine character, such as prophetic power and
>poetic and religious feeling.

More subjective feelings.   This is not a proof of anything more than
one persons feelings.

>But the problem with this argument lies in the assumption that
>the Hebrew canon included the Apocrapha in the first place, and
>it wasn't until the sixteenth century that Luther and co. threw
>them out. The Jewish council you mentioned previously didn't
>accept them, so the reformation protestants had good historical
>precedence for their actions. Jerome only translated the
>apocrapha under protest, and it was literally 'over his dead
>body' that it was included in the catholic canon.

As I have written time and again, the Hebrew canon was fixed in Jamnia,
Palestine, in 90 AD.  60 years after the foundation of the one, holy,
catholic, and apostolic Church.  Furthermore, the opinons of Jerome do
not count.  He was neither the Church, or the Pope, or an ecumenical
council, or a council in general, or an insturment of the Magisterium of
the Church.  He was a private individual, learned admittedly, but
subject to erro of opinion.  And in exlcuding the deuterocanon, he
erred, as Pope Damsus, and the Council of Carthage, and the tradition of
the Fathers, clearly shows, as I pointed out in my previous post.

>How do you then view the words: "I warn everyone who  hears the
>words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to
>them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
>And if anyone takes away from this book the prophecy, God will
>take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the
>holy city" (Rev 22.18-9)

I suggest you take heed of the last part of the statement, if you want
to take it in the sense you are taking it, that taking away from the
book will cause you to lose heaven.

>It is also noteworthy to consider Jesus' attitude. He had no
>argument with the pharisees over any of the OT canon (John
>10.31-6), and explained to his followers on the road to Emmaus 
>that in the law, prophets and psalms which referred to him - the 
>OT division of Scripture (Luke 24.44), as well as in Luke 11.51
>taking Genesis to Chronicles (the jewish order - we would say
>Genesis to Malachi) as Scripture.

The order of the Canon is unimportant, it is the content that matters. 
None of Jesus' statments exlcude the deuterocanon, which were
interspersed throughout the canon.  And remeber, there are some
completely undisputed books, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiatses, Song
of Songs, Job, etc. that are not quoted in the New Testament, which is
not taken as prejudicial to their being inspired.

Andy Byler

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21606
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

Eugen Bigelow writes:

>It is also noteworthy to consider Jesus' attitude. He had no
>argument with the pharisees over any of the OT canon (John
>10.31-6), and explained to his followers on the road to Emmaus 
>that in the law, prophets and psalms which referred to him - the 
>OT division of Scripture (Luke 24.44), as well as in Luke 11.51
>taking Genesis to Chronicles (the jewish order - we would say
>Genesis to Malachi) as Scripture.

You should remember that in Adam's transgression, all men and women
sinned, as Paul wrote.  All of humanity cooperativley reblled against
God in Adma's sin, thus, all are subject to it, and the sin is
transmitted from generation to generation.

Andy Byler

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21607
From: tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard)
Subject: Re: Satan kicked out of heaven: Biblical?

In article <May.7.01.09.04.1993.14501@athos.rutgers.edu> easteee@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>Hello all,
>     I have a question about Satan.  I was taught a long time ago
>that Satan was really an angel of God and was kicked out of heaven
>because he challenged God's authority.  The problem is, I cannot
>find this in the Bible.  Is it in the Bible?  If not, where did it
>originate?
>Wondering,
>Eddie
 
Hi Eddie, many people believe the battle described in Rev 12:7-12
describes the casting out of Satan from heaven and his fall to the
earth.
Shalom,                             Len Howard

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21608
From: shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker)
Subject: Re: Mormon temples

In article <May.11.02.38.41.1993.28297@athos.rutgers.edu> mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server) writes:

>I don't necessarily object to the secrecy but I do question it, since I see no 
>Biblical reason why any aspect of Christian worship should involve secrecy.  

Early in Church history, the catechumens were dismissed prior to the celebration 
of the Eucharist.  It WAS secret, giving rise to the rumors that Christians
were cannibals and all sorts of perverse claims.  The actions were considered
too holy to be observed by non-Christians, as well as potentially dangerous
for the individual Christian who might be identified.

Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com)
-- 
-------
Lawrence Overacker
Shell Oil Company, Information Center    Houston, TX            (713) 245-2965
llo@shell.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21609
From: shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker)
Subject: Re: Christianity and repeated lives

In article <May.11.02.38.37.1993.28288@athos.rutgers.edu> KEVXU@cunyvm.bitnet writes:
>
>Isn't Origen usually cited as the most prestigious proponent of reincarnation
>among Christian thinkers?  What were his views, and how did he relate them
>to the Christian scriptures?

He appears to have believed that.  He had a view which was condemned by conciliar
action, which is often taken to be condemnation of the idea of reincarnation.
What was actually condemned was the doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul
before birth.  Similar, but not exactly the same thing.  

Larry Overacker (ll@shell.com)
-- 
-------
Lawrence Overacker
Shell Oil Company, Information Center    Houston, TX            (713) 245-2965
llo@shell.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21610
From: pwhite@empros.com (Peter White)
Subject: Re: Question about hell

In article <May.11.02.36.38.1993.28081@athos.rutgers.edu>, wytten@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dale Wyttenbach) writes:
|> What is the basis of the idea of hell being a place of eternal
|> suffering?  If it is Biblical, please reference.
|> 
|> Here's my train of thought: If God is using the Earth to manufacture
|> heavenly beings, then it is logical that there would be a certain
|> yield, and a certain amount of waste.  The yield goes to Heaven, and
|> the waste is burned (destroyed) in Hell.  Why is it necessary to
|> punish the waste, rather than just destroy it?
 
Luke 16 talks about the rich man and Lazarus. Matthew 25 talks about 
the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Revelations
20 and 21 reference this fire as the place where unbelievers are
thrown. Matthew 18 talks about being thrown into the eternal fire and
the fire of hell. It seems quite clear that there is this place where
a fire burns forever. From the Revelations passages it is clear that
the devil and his angels will be tormented there forever. From the
Matthew 25 passage it doesn't seem abundantly clear whether the
punishment of unbelievers is everlasting in the sense of final or
in the sense of continual. 
 
From Dale's question, I come away with the suggestion that hell,
if it were short, might be an acceptable alternative to living
forever with the Source of Life, Peace and Joy i.e. the 
unbeliever ceases to exist. Whereas, if punishment goes on
continually, then one should have a greater motivation to avoid it.
It definately seems to me that hell is something we want to avoid
regardless of its exact nature. 

There seem to be two main questions in Dale's thought:
What is God's main plan on earth?
Why is continual punishment a necessary part of hell as opposed
to simply destroying completely those who refuse God?

I believe that God's main plan is to have a genuine relationship
with people.

The nature of hell and the reasons for its nature seem a lot more
difficult to ascertain. It does seem clear that hell is something
to avoid. At a minimum, hell is the state one is in when one has
nothing to do with God.

In the Bible, I am not aware of any discussion about the specifics of
hell beyond the general of hot, unpleasant and torment. For instance,
it is not discussed how (if at all) the rich man can
continually stay in the fire and still feel discomfort or pain or
whether there is some point at which the pain sensing ability is
burned up. If you can forgive the graphicalness, if you throw a
physical body into a fire, assuming the person starts out alive,
at some fairly quick point, the nerves are destroyed and pain is
no longer sensed. It is not stated what occurs when at the judgement,
the unbelievers, (who are already physically dead) are cast into hell
i.e. they no longer have a physical body so they can't feel physical
pain. What could be sensed continually is that those in hell are
to be forever without God. 
 
The Lazarus/rich man parable is told with the idea of having the listener
think in physical terms in order to get the point that some people
won't listen to God even after he rises from the dead. The point of
the parable is to reach the hard-hearted here who are not listening
to the fact of the resurrection nor the Gospel about Jesus Christ.
It seems reasonable to also draw from the parable that hell is
not even remotely pleasant.
-- 
Peter White
disclaimer: None of what is written necessarily reflects 
     			a view of my company.
	Phil    I want to know Christ and the power of his
	3:10 	resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in
	NIV		his sufferings, becoming like him in his death	

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21611
From: dps@nasa.kodak.com (Dan Schaertel,,,)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article 28328@athos.rutgers.edu, carlson@ab24.larc.nasa.gov (Ann Carlson) writes:
>Anyone who thinks being gay and Christianity are not compatible should 
>check out Dignity, Integrity, More Light Presbyterian churches, Affirmation,
>MCC churches, etc.  Meet some gay Christians, find out who they are, pray
>with them, discuss scripture with them, and only *then* form your opinion.

If you were to start your own religion, this would be fine.  But there
is no scriptural basis for your statement, in fact it really gets to
the heart of the problem.  You think you know more than scripture.
Your faith is driven by feel goodism and not by the Word of God.  Just
because they are nice people doesn't make it right.  You can start all
the churches you want and it won't change the fact that it is wrong.
That is not to imply that gays don't deserve the same love and
forgiveness that anyone else does.  But to call their behavior right
just because they are nice people is baseless, and it offers Satan a
perfect place to work because there is no check on what he is doing.

[I suspect Ann was suggesting that you look to see whether the
Spirit is alive among them, not whether they are nice people,
though there's something to be said for being nice too... --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21612
From: creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)
Subject: Defending the Faith IV conference


   Enclosed is an advertisement for the Defending the Faith IV
conference to be held at Franciscan University of Steubenville (Ohio)
June 25-27.  I attended DTF III last year, and plan to go again this
year.  I would recommend it highly to Catholic interested in
apologetics.  There will be lots of music, well-known Catholic speakers,
fellowship, as well as Eucharistic Liturgies Friday and Sunday.

   Registration is $85 per person, but I believe financial aid is
available if you need it.  Housing in residence halls (each of which has
its own Blessed Sacrament chapel), if desired, is $30/person for double
occupancy for two nights ($30 total). Reservations can also be made for
you at the very nearby Holiday Inn.  I think it was $47 a night there
for my single room.  Meals are available at the cafeteria (Friday dinner
through Sunday lunch) for $38 or $32, with or without breakfast,
respectively.

   Franciscan University of Steubenville is located in eastern Ohio on
US Route 22, 1/2 mile west of the Ohio River and Ohio Route 7.  Greater
Pittsburgh International Airport is less than one hour (35 miles) from
campus.

   Feel free to e-mail me if you have any question I can answer.

   Here is the agenda, as typed in by a friend of mine:

Friday afternoon special:

Reflections on C.S. Lewis, a preliminary session with Walter Hooper.
Walter Hooper is one of the foremost international experts on the
writings of C.S. Lewis.  In 1963, he served as secretary to C.S. Lewis,
and he has since edited 18 of Lewis' literary works for publication.
Walter was ordained a priest in the Church of England in 1965, serving
in Oxford, England, until he entered the Catholic Church in 1988.

----------------
Friday evening, opening session:
In Search of the Truth: Finding the Fullness of Faith
Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz.

Know Your Rites
Kimberly Hahn.
-------------------
Saturday Morning
Apologetics Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry
Karl Keating

C.S. Lewis: My Signpost to the Catholic Church
Walter Hooper

Mass
Bishop Bruskewitz, celebrant
Fr. Ray Ryland, homilist

---------------------------
Saturday afternoon:

The Mystery of Femininity: Why It Excludes the Priesthood
Dr. Alice von Hildebrand

Men Make Better Fathers: Masculinity and the Male Priesthood
Dr. Peter Kreeft

----------------------------
Saturday evening:

When Do Catholics Hear the Gospel?
Dr. Thomas Howard

The Catholic Gospel: Not Just Saving Sinners
Scott Hahn

-----------------------------
Sunday morning:

There's No Place Like Rome: The Pilgrimage of Two Protestant Pastors
Panel.

Mass
Fr. Ray Ryland, celebrant
Fr. Michael Scanlan, TOR, homilist


-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

   Here is the ad that appeared in _The Catholic Answer_:

                DEFENDING THE FAITH IV CONFERENCE

                    CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHING:

              KNOW WHY YOU BELIEVE  June 25-27, 1993

   Times have changed.  Major Catholic doctrines are misunderstood and
attacked.  Like never before, believers need to know the reasons behind
the Catholic Church's teaching.  As our first pope urged: "Always be
ready to give a defense for the hope that is within you" (I Peter 3:15).

   Grab your notebooks and get ready for an unforgettable spiritual and
intellectual weekend.  This year's conference will candidly confront the
hardest questions and objections about the Catholic faith.  Deepen your
understanding of Church teaching with _Scott_ and _Kimberly Hahn, Dr.
Thomas Howard, Karl Keating, Dr. Alice von Hildebrand, Dr. Peter
Kreeft,_ and _Fr. Ray Ryland_.

   Cut throught the confusion and doubt, and be better equipped to give
a defense for the hope that is within you.

   Join us at _Defending the Faith IV_, the fourth in a series of annual
conferences designed to strengthen the life of Catholics and others
interested in the Catholic faith.  It can help _you_ know why you
believe.


Call toll free today:				Franciscan University
800/437-TENT					   of Steubenville
or 614/283-6314				   Steubenville, Ohio 43952-6701

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21613
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse

I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome
all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you. 
Luke 10:19

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21614
From: rlhunt@amoco.com (Randy L. Hunt)
Subject: LOVE in the morning: by Malcolm Smith Ministries

----- Begin Included Message -----

The following teaching is brought to you on behalf of Malcolm Smith
Ministries, a ministry dedicated to leading believers everywhere into a
knowledge of the love of God.  If you would like more info on the ministry,
and/or would like to comment on whether you found this teaching beneficial,
e-mail to Randy Hunt at rlhunt@hou.amoco.com.


LOVE IN THE MORNING  (Psalm 90:14)

by Malcolm Smith

Moses wrote this prayer at a weary time in the history of Israel. A generation
before the time of its writing, the people of Israel had stood at Kadesh,
gateway to Canaan, and made the fateful choice to go their own way rather
than God's way. They refused an adventure of faith in God which would
have given them Canaan, the homeland of promise. God honored their
decision, and said they would wander in the desert only a few miles from the
land of promise until they were all buried in the sand. The young decision-
makers of that fateful day were between twenty and thirty years old, and
destined to be dead within forty years... bleached bones in the desert by the
time they were seventy-- eighty, at the most. The lives of these wanderers
had been unending sadness. Moses described it as ending each year with a
sigh (v. 9). The fact that they knew, give or take a few months, when they
were going to die, underscored the meaninglessness of their existence.
Whatever heights of success they reached, they would be a heap of bleached
bones within forty years.  The only ones to live outside of that depression of
hopeless disbelief were Joshua and Caleb, who had stood against the nation
at Kadesh and had God' s promise of one day entering the land. The
forty-year period was finally drawing to an end. The new generation, those
who were children at Kadesh, were now grown and eager to take the
inheritance their parents had refused to enjoy. In the light of this, Moses
prays...it is time for a new day to begin and the days of misery to be over.
All these years, as Moses had walked with these moaning and complaining
people through the wilderness of their exile, he had carried a double burden.
His was not only the sadness of living in less than what could have been; but
he also knew why they had chosen as they had at Kadesh.  The problem was
that they were ignorant of the character of their God. If asked. "Who is your
God?" they would have described Him as the God who is Power. When
Aaron had created their concept of God in an idol. he chose a calf. or young
bull--a symbol of power, of virility. In their minds, God was the young bull
who had impaled Pharaoh on his horns and gored Egypt's gods as He led
Israel to Sinai.  But when man worships a God of power, His miracles grow
thin and even boring. After miracle food on the desert floor and water
gushing miraculously from the solid rock through the desert wasteland, the
God of Almightiness becomes "ho-hum --What' s next on the miracle menu?"
And a God of power can be as unpredictable as a young bull calf. He might
be all they need, but then...who knows? If He has all power, He has a right
to do whatever He wants, whenever He wants. The only person these people
had known who had absolute power was Pharaoh, and men's lives had hung
on the whim of his moods, which could change with the wind. They believed
God could work His wonders on their behalf, but they did not know HIM
and, so, could not trust Him. Israel had a God based on what He DID, His
acts; Moses knew the heart of God, the motivation behind the acts. From the
day of his encounter at the burning bush, Moses had been fascinated by God.
At Sinai, he asked to be shown His glory...to know who He really was. He
had seen what God had done; he wanted to know who God was. This
request was granted, and Moses was given a glimpse of God's glorious
Person. He had come to know the heart of God as compassion and
lovingkindness (Exodus 34:6,7). The word "lovingkindness" is not to be
understood as a human kind of love. It speaks of the kind of relationship
arising out of the making of a covenant. It can only be understood as the
love that says, "I will never leave you nor forsake you." Lovingkindness is as
tenacious as a British bulldog; when the world walks out, this love digs in its
heels and refuses to leave.And it is not human romantic love, based on
feelings and rooted in emotions. It is a love of covenant commitment and,
therefore, operates quite apart from feelings. God's love is not an emotion
that wavers day by day; it is the total commitment of His Being to seek our
highest and best, and to bring us to our fullest potential as humans. God
does not see something good and beautiful in us which arouses His feelings
of love toward us...we do not woo Him and cause Him to fall in love with
us! If that were the case, the first ugly, sinful thing we did would cause Him
to reject us.  He is Love, and He loves us because of who He is-- not
because of who we are. He does not love what we do, but He is committed
to us, pursuing us down every blind alley and bypath of foolishness. He will
not let us go. His is a love that is not looking for what it can get out of us--
but a committed love that searches for opportunities to give to us. It is
saying to the recipient, "For as long as we shall live, I am for you."  The God
who has revealed Himself to man through Scripture and, finally, in Jesus--in
His coming, and in His death and resurrection--is the God who is
lovingkindness. Thus He loves us and gives Himself to us...He will never
leave us nor forsake us.  Tragically, many believers have never seen Him as
love; they see Him as power. No one will come to faith by just seeing
miracles. Miracles point to who He is, and that is when faith springs in the
heart.  Israel did not see God as lovingkindness; they saw His acts of power.
Moses knew His ways, the kind of God He was, and the love that He had for
these people. Because of their total lack of understanding of His love, they
could not trust Him to be their strength in taking the land. Faith is born out
of knowing the love He has for us; it is the resting response to the One who
gives Himself to us. He is not the force, and to call Him the Almighty is to
miss His heart. He is Love who is the Almighty and the Infinite Force.  If
man is to make force or raw power work for him, he must depend on
knowing the forrnula and have faith in it. But the power that issues from
love demands faith in the Person of love Himself. The forty years of
meaningless wandering was a monument to a people who had never come to
know the God of love.  At this point, with the new generation and the
possibility of enjoying all that God promised, Moses prays verse 14. The
language Moses uses is reminiscent of a baby having slept secure in its
mother's love, now waking to look up into the delight of her eyes. It is
waking to the consciousness of being loved... watched over, cared for,
protected, fed, and cleaned, day and night, by the mother. Suppose we were
to ask, "What has the baby done to deserve this?" or, "Have arrangements
been made for the child to repay the parents for this inconvenience?" Our
questions would be considered unnatural, even immoral. The child was
conceived in love, anticipated and prepared for with love's excitement, a love
that has been to the gates of death to bring it into being. The parents' love is
unconditional, spontaneous...it has nothing to do with the looks of the child
or its performance. So God is love. He loves us unconditionally,
spontaneously. We were conceived in His imagination and fashioned after
His image, to be brought to where we are at this moment by the blood of the
Lord Jesus. It is slanderous, and immoral, to even ask what we must do to
earn and deserve that love. The child discovers its personhood and identity
through the eyes and touch, through the cuddles, of its parents' love. It is a
scientific fact that a baby who is not touched and held will probably die or, if
it survives, will have severe emotional problems. And a person who has been
held and loved will still never know the true meaning of life without the
embrace and knowledge of love from God. Moses prays that the new
generation will learn to wake every morning, resting with total confidence in
the love of God. and will receive all His promises and blessings with joy and
gladness. Significantly, Moses prays that they will be SATISFIED with His
love. "Satisfied." in the Hebrew language. is a rich picture word describing
being filled with an abundance of gourmet food. It is also used to describe
the earth after the rain has soaked it and all the vegetation has received
enough water. Moses prays that they will awaken every morning to be
drenched in the life-giving love of God. That sense of satisfaction is the
lifelong quest of every man and woman. When we are satisfied in our
deepest selves, many of our emotional--and even our physical--problems
disappear. Man seeks that sense of satisfaction which comes from feeling
that he is fulfilled as a human being...his hours have meaning, which make
sense out of the ordinary and mundane. Apart from God, man seeks this
satisfaction through intellectual pursuit, through the exciting of the
emotions, and through the feeding of his body...he will even seek it in
religious exercise. But man will always be dissatisfied until he is responding
to the love of the living God. Only in knowing God's love will the rest of life
make sense. As the forty years drew to a close and the land of promise again
became the inheritance to be taken, Moses prayed this psalm. I find it
fascinating that he  should pray and ask God for a daily revelation of His
love. Considering the awe with which the people held Moses. one would
think he could have lectured them on the subject of lovingkindness and, by
the knowledge they gained, they would live in it. But Moses knew
better. God is the only one who can make known to us His love. We won't
find it in a religious lecture or a formula which we can learn and use to
manipulate Him. Nor is it in a beautiful poem to titillate our emotions and
give us God feelings. It is God, himself, the Lover, who must open our eyes
and satisfy us with His love. This prayer is man, in helplessness, asking God
to make the love He is real in our hearts. Moses' prayer was partially
answered in the next generation and seen in the exploits of faith which
worked by love in The Book of Judges. But it would not be answered in its
fullest dimensions until the coming of the Holy Spirit, who pours out the
love of God in our hearts (Romans 5:5). In the history of the early Church,
we read of the Holy Spirit "falling upon" the believers. This is an ancient
expression that, in modern English, means to give a bear hug. It is used in
Luke 15 to describe the father running to the prodigal and "falling on his
neck and kissing him." The Holy Spirit is God hugging you in your deepest
self and smothering you with divine kisses at the deepest level of your
being. This is not a one-time experience to be filed in our spiritual resumes.
Moses prayed that morning by morning we would awaken to the realization
that we are loved. The world, and much of our religious training, has taught
us to perform in order to be accepted. We have spent far too long living in a
state of doing in order to find satisfaction for ourselves...to find acceptance
and love from others, and from God. We now come humbled to receive love
we cannot earn...to be still and let Him tell us we are loved: to let the Holy
Spirit descend into us, pouring out the love of God. We come in stillness to
think on and repeat His words of love to our minds. which have been jaded
with the doctrine of "perform to be accepted." We begin to realize that He
loves us as we are, and gives meaning and purpose to all of life. I challenge
everyone reading this to begin each day, from the moment you open your
eyes, by celebrating the God of love and praying this prayer. You may not
feel anything, but SOMETHING ALWAYS HAPPENS. I was X-rayed the
other day. I did not see or feel anything, but I noted that the technicians kept
behind protective walls. They know you cannot be exposed to those rays
without being affected. So it is as we consciously begin our day knowing
that we are loved. Such experiential knowledge will produce, according to
Moses, "joy and gladness all our days." Joy is the result of a life that is
functioning as God intended us to function when He made us. You might say
that joy is the hum of an engine that is at peak performance. Man' s highest
performance is to rest in the love God has for him... the hum will be joy, and
the result will be endless creativity arising from the sense of meaning he now
has in life. Stop wandering in the wilderness. Be satisfied with His love and,
in joy, day by day, receive all His promised blessings.


----- End Included Message -----

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21615
From: swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com (Stan Friesen)
Subject: Re: SJ Mercury's reference to Fundamentalist Christian parents

In article <May.11.02.37.07.1993.28120@athos.rutgers.edu>, dan@ingres.com (a Rose arose) writes:
|> In the Monday, May 10 morning edition of the San Jose Mercury News an
|> article by Sandra Gonzales at the top of page 12A explained convicted
|> killer David Edwin Mason's troubled childhood saying,
|> 
|> 	"Raised in Oakland and San Lorenzo by strict fundamentalist
|> 	Christian parents, Mason was beaten as a child.  ...
|> 	[other instances of child abuse deleted]
|> 
|> Were the San Jose Mercury news to come out with an article starting with
|> "Raised in Oakland by Mexican parents, Mason was beaten...", my face would
|> be red with anger over the injustice done to my Mexican family members and
|> the Mexican community as a whole.  ...
|> 
|> Why is it that open biggotry like this is practiced and encouraged by the
|> San Jose Mercury News when it is pointed at the christian community?

Perhaps because there is a connection here that is not there in the Mexican
variant you bring up.

That is, many (not all) extreme fundamentalist Christians use the excuse of
teaching their children Biblical morality to justify this sort of mistreatment.
I do not see many Mexicans using their Mexican heritage as an excuse for abuse.

It is indeed this judgemental, controlling legalism of many fundamentalist
Christians that has led me to reject that branch of our faith as not true
to the Gospel of Christ, the gospel of love.

I have seen this sort of thing too often, even amoung my own relatives, to
believe there is no relationship.  Judgementalism often leads to overly
strict, and thus abusive, discipline of children.
[This is not restricted to just Christian fundamentalism, it is found in
many extreme sects of other legalistic religions].

|> Can a good christian continue to purchase newspapers and buy advertising in
|> this kind of a newspaper?  This is really bad journalism.
|> 
I, too, am a Christian.  But I do not condone the use of the Bible to justify
this sort of abuse.  I believe that it is only by exposing the horrors of
the misapplication of the Biblical concept of discipline that such abuses
can be stopped.

Just because someone is also a Christian does not mean we must identify
eith them. This sort of sin needs to be made public.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21616
From: swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com (Stan Friesen)
Subject: Re: MAJOR VIEWS OF THE TRINITY

In article <May.11.02.37.09.1993.28123@athos.rutgers.edu>, you write:
|> 
|> [I fear orthodox theologians have been overly in love with paradox, to
|> the extent that well-meaning people think they've just flat-out
|> confused.  There's no problem with things being both 3 and 1, e.g.  if
|> the 3 are different parts of the 1.  ...
|> But they're in some way
|> different aspects, modes, or whatever, of one God.  If you accept
|> economic trinitarianism, it's possible that you don't have any
|> substantive difference with the standard view.  Is it possible that
|> you just don't find the neo-Platonic explanation illuminating?
|> --clh]

I would put it stronger than that.  I consider it nonsense.

Simply put, I do not see any way that a "Platonic essence" could have
any *real* existance.  "Essence" in the Platonic sense does not have
any referent as far as I can tell - it is just an imaginary concept
invented to provide an explanation for things better explained in
other ways.

So, to attribute an 'essence' to God is to attribute to him something that
does not exist!!  Thus the orthodox Platonic formulation seems to leave
the unity of God in limbo, since it is based on a non-existant 'essence',
thus failing to avoid the very problem it was supposed to address.

Thus, to me, the unity of God must be primary, and the triality must be
secondary, must be modal or aspectual (relating to roles, or to modes
of interaction), since otherwise there is no meaning to saying God is one.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com

[I think one can read Augustine as saying something consistent with
your comments.  His "De Trinitate" -- which has been very influential
in the West -- defines the distinction among the persons relationally.
You're probably at one extreme of orthodox views, but I'm not sure
your views are necessary incompatible with the Trinity.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21617
From: poram@ihlpb.att.com
Subject: Re: Dreams and out of body incidents

In article <May.11.02.37.40.1993.28185@athos.rutgers.edu> dt4%cs@hub.ucsb.edu (David E. Goggin) writes:
>
>I'd like to get your comments on a question that has been on my mind a
>lot:  What morals/ethics apply to dreams and out-of-body incidents?

Dave - you might like to read a book by Florence Bulle "God
Wants You Rich & Other Enticing Doctrines", which discusses
OOBEs in one of her chapters.

In the Bible we have examples of men caught up in the Spirit (eg
Ezekiel, Paul). I believe that also this experience is
counterfeited by Satan - so that for example yoga and other
eastern medatitive techniques can be used to induce the soul to
leave the body and float off. Someone tried to sell me a book in
Los Angeles airport entitled "Easy Journeys to Other Planets"
which uses such techniques.

The occultic trance of a medium sometimes involves such body
departure - the book "The Challanging Counterfeit", about a
former medium who gets saved, tells how the author, on his last
trance, was attacked by evil spirits who tried to kill him
while returning to his body at the end of the seance
because of his interest in Christianity and how he was supernaturally
protected by the Lord.

There may be some similarities in mind-altering drugs and the
phenomena of 'tripping'.

As regards the connection between body and soul, there is an
interesting verse in Ecclesiastes. In a passage talking about
old age, the preacher writes "Then man goes to his eternal home
and mourners go about the streets. Remember Him--before the
silver cord is severed." (12.5-6) My understanding of this
silver cord is that it is something that attaches body and soul
in a manner somewhat similar to an umbilical cord or an
astronaut's air-line to his spaceship.
When a person goes out of body this silver cord still attaches
the soul whereever it goes - and is vulnerable to being broken:
astral projection can be dangerous! Bulle, I think, reports a
case of a yogi off on an OOBE who was found dead in his
apartment, with no apparent external cause.

Barney Resson
"Many shall run to and fro, & knowledge shall increase" (Daniel)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21618
From: klrklr@iastate.edu (Kevin L Rens)
Subject: Re:Christian Reformed

Does anyone belong to or know any facts about the
              Christian Reformed Church?

[It's one of two major heirs to the Dutch Reformed tradition in the
U.S. The other is the Reformed Church in America.  The CRC is
more or less a spinoff from the RCA.  It was unclear to me from
my reference exactly the differences between them are.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21619
From: wagner@grace.math.uh.edu (David Wagner)
Subject: Re: Baptism requires Faith

"Aaron" == Aaron Bryce Cardenas <aaronc@athena.mit.edu> writes:

Aaron> Colossians 2:11-12 "In him you were also circumcised, in the
Aaron> putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done
Aaron> by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised
Aaron> with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him
Aaron> from the dead."

Aaron> In baptism, we are raised to a new life in Christ (Romans 6:4)
Aaron> through a personal faith in the power of God.  Our parent's
Aaron> faith cannot do this.  Do infants have faith?  Let's look at
Aaron> what the Bible has to say about it.

Yes, let do.  Try: 

"And if anyone causes one of these little ones *who believes in me*
to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea
with a large millstone tied around his neck."  Mark 9:42

"Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them,
for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.  I tell you
the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God
like a little child will never enter it."

The Colossians passage does not make faith a requirement
for baptism.  It merely says that in baptism we are born again,
regenerated, and resurrected through faith.  In the case
of an infant I would say that baptism works faith in the
heart of the infant--through the power of the word.

The Colossians passage does make baptism a spiritual circumcision.
Circumcision was the means by which a male infant was made
a part of God's covenant with Israel.  It was commanded to be
performed on the eighth day.  The early church understood this,
and even debated whether baptism had to be performed on the
eighth day, or if it could in fact be done earlier.

Aaron> Romans 10:16-17 "But not all the Israelites accepted the good
Aaron> news.  For Isaiah says, 'Lord, who has believed our message?'
Aaron> Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the
Aaron> message is heard through the word of Christ."

Aaron> So then we receive God's gift of faith to us as we hear the
Aaron> message of the gospel.  

And the gospel is surely preached at any infant's (or adult's)
baptism.  Indeed, in a very real sense, the sacraments are
the Gospel made tangible.

Aaron> Faith is a possible response to hearing
Aaron> God's word preached.  Kids are not yet spiritually,
Aaron> intellectually, or emotionally mature enough to respond to
Aaron> God's word.  

How do you know they are not yet mature enough to have faith?
Do you know this on the basis of God's Word, or from your own
reason?

Faith is also described as a gift from God, Ephesians 2:8,9. 
He gives faith to infants just as he gives it to adults, through
the power of the gospel, Romans 1:6.

Aaron> If you read all of Ezekiel 18, you will see that God doesn't
Aaron> hold us guilty for anyone else's sins.  So we can have no
Aaron> original guilt from Adam.

Here you show that you just don't understand original sin--
you are arguing against a straw man.
Maybe you've been talking to Catholics too much.  I don't
know.  But original sin does not consist of God's imputation
of Adam's guilt to us.  It consists of our inheritance of
Adam's sinful nature.  It is actual sin.  See for example,
the Augsburg Confession, Article II, and the Apology of the
Augsburg Confession, Article II, and, for extra credit,
John Knox's `The Scots confession', Article III.

Aaron> Now then that we have a little more background as to why
Aaron> original sin is not Biblical, let's look at some of the
Aaron> scriptures used to support it.

Aaron> Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through
Aaron> one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to
Aaron> all men, because all sinned--"


Ask yourself this question.  "Do infants ever die?"  Then ask
yourself, "If infant baptism is not valid, then where was the
Christian Church during all the centuries when almost all 
of the baptisms were performed on infants?  Were Luther, Melancthon,
Calvin, Zwingli, Hus, Knox, Andrae, and Chemnitz Christians?


Aaron> Psalm 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time
Aaron> my mother conceived me."

Aaron> This whole Psalm is a wonderful example of how we should humble
Aaron> ourselves before God in repentance for sinning.  David himself
Aaron> was a man after God's own heart and wrote the Psalm after
Aaron> committing adultry with Bathsheba and murdering her husband.
Aaron> All that David is saying here is that he can't remember a time
Aaron> when he wasn't sinful.  He is humbling himself before God by
Aaron> confessing his sinfulness.  His saying that he was sinful at
Aaron> birth is a hyperbole.  The Bible, being inspired by God, isn't
Aaron> limited to a literal interpetation, but also uses figures of
Aaron> speech as did Jesus (John 16:25).  For another example of
Aaron> hyperbole, see Luke 14:26.

Who are you to say what is literal and what is not?  Is a literal
interpretation manifestly absurd in Psalm 51 by reason of direct
contradiction with a clear passage from the Word of God?

You might also compare Genesis 8:21, "The LORD smelled the
pleasing aroma and said in his heart, `Never again will I curse
the ground because of man, even though every inclination of
his heart is evil from childhood...."

Aaron> We see
Aaron> that he did grow and become wiser in Luke 2:40 and 2:52.  The
Aaron> implication is that Jesus did wrong things as a child before he
Aaron> knew to choose right over wrong.

You are a long way from proving this (rather monstrous) assertion.
All you can say is that Jesus grew in wisdom and in stature.  A
conclusion that he did wrong as a child is based on an extrapolation
of reason, not on a direct revelation in Scripture.

David H. Wagner			"But mad reason rushes forth and,
a confessional Lutheran		because Baptism is not dazzling like
				the works which we do,
				regards it as worthless."
				--Martin Luther, Large Catechism,
				--Fourth Part, Baptism.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21620
From: revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille)
Subject: Re: SOC.RELIGION.CHRISTIAN

Anni Dozier (dozier@utkux1.utk.edu) wrote:
: After reading the posts on this newsgroup for the pasts 4 months, it 
: has become apparent to me that this group is primarily active with 
: Liberals, Catholics, New Agers', and Athiests.  Someone might think 
: to change the name to:  soc.religion.any   - or -  perhaps even
: soc.religion.new.  It might seem to be more appropriate.
: Heck, don't flame me, I'm Catholic, gay, and I voted 
: for Bill Clinton.  I'm on your side!                      

Since when did conservative, protestant, old-time religion believers get
an exclusive francise to christianity?  Christianity is, and always has
been, a diverse and contentious tradition, and this group reflects that
diversity.  I, fo one, am not ready to concede to _any_ group- be they
"liberal" or "conservative", catholic, protestant, or orthodox, charismatic
or not- the right to claim that they have _the truth_, and everyone else
is not "christian."

revdak@netcom.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21621
From: jeubank@mail.sas.upenn.edu (Judith Eubank)
Subject: Re: a few questions

Arthur Clarke may have quoted the comment about knowing you're to be
hanged in the morning concentrating a man's mind wonderfully, but the
source of the comment is Samuel Johnson.

(Pardon me if you already knew that.)

-----je

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21622
From: sfp@lemur.cit.cornell.edu (Sheila Patterson)
Subject: Re: SOC.RELIGION.CHRISTIAN

In article <May.12.04.26.55.1993.9901@athos.rutgers.edu>, dozier@utkux1.utk.edu (Anni Dozier) writes:
|> After reading the posts on this newsgroup for the pasts 4 months, it 
|> has become apparent to me that this group is primarily active with 
|> Liberals, Catholics, New Agers', and Athiests.  Someone might think 
|> to change the name to:  soc.religion.any   - or -  perhaps even
|> soc.religion.new.  It might seem to be more appropriate.
|> Heck, don't flame me, I'm Catholic, gay, and I voted 
|> for Bill Clinton.  I'm on your side!                      

My sentiments exactly... which is why I'm unsubbing from this group.
This is the 3rd 'christian' discussion list I have ever belonged to
and once again I'm being chased away by the strife, anger, discontent,
lies, et al .

As Paul (Saul) said, 'I come to preach Christ, and Him crucified'
Don't let the simple beauty of faith in God get overshadowed by heady
theological discussions or thousands of lines of post-incarnation
trappings of some church.


As for the atheists/agnostics who read this list: if you aren't
christian and if you have no intention of ever becoming one why on
earth do you waste your time and mine by participating on a christian
discussion list ?

I will continue to search for christian discussion (prayerful, spirit-filled,
kind, humble, patient, etc.) in other circles.  

-- 
  Sheila Patterson, CIT CR-Technical Support Group
  315 CCC - Cornell University
  Ithaca, NY  14853
  (607) 255-5388


[I'm afraid that any discussion group containing people with different
views tends to turn into arguments about the largest differences
present.  So talk.religion.misc spends a lot of time on
Christian/atheist arguments, soc.religion.christian spends a lot of
time on arguments among different christian groups, and the bitnet
Catholic group spends a lot of time on arguments between conservative
and liberal Catholics.  Personally I would prefer to have a set of
somewhat more specialized groups, at least as an alternative.  Liberal
and conservative Protestant and Catholic would handle most of the
traffic, though there are certainly significant groups (e.g.
Orthodox).  Of course it may be that most of our readers like the
arguments.  I certainly find it painful moderating them.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21623
From: aidler@sol.uvic.ca (E Alan  Idler)
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

muddmj@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:

>> But, haven't "all sinned, and come short of the glory
>> of God" (Romans 3:23)?
>> Those that cite this scripture to claim that even
>> babes require baptism neglect that "sin is not imputed
>> when there is no law" (Romans 5:13).
>>
>> Therefore, until someone is capable of comprehending
>> God's laws they are not accountable for living them.
>> They are in the book of life and are not removed until
>> they can make a conscious decision to disobey God.
>>
>> A IDLER

>If babies are not supposed to be baptised then why doesn't the Bible
>ever say so.  It never comes right and says "Only people that know
>right from wrong or who are taught can be baptised."
>        What Christ did say was :

>        "I solemly assure you, NO ONE can enter God's kingdom without
>         being born of water and Spirit ... Do not be surprised that I
>         tell you you must ALL be begotten from above."

>Could this be because everyone is born with original sin?

(I presume you are quoting John 3:3-7.)

1.  My King James Bible says "Except a man be born of water 
and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" 
(John 3:5).  (Here "man" == "adult").
(However, this could be a quibble between translations.)

2.  We can also analyze to whom the Lord is addressing:
"Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again"
(John 3:7).  Here Jesus is clearly directing his remarks
to Nicodemus -- a ruler of the Jews (not a child).

3.  We can ask ourselves why the Lord would even 
introduce the concept of spiritual re-birth through
baptism if newborn babies weren't free from sin?

A IDLER

[Yup, in John 3:5 "man" is not in the original.  A better translation
is "no one can enter...", as in NRSV.  Of course in 3:7, Jesus is
addressing the person who came to him.  There are other places in the
NT where he deals with children.  They've been mentioned in other
postings.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21624
From: sun075!Gerry.Palo@uunet.uu.net (Gerry Palo)
Subject: Re: Christianity and repeated lives

In article <May.11.02.38.37.1993.28288@athos.rutgers.edu> KEVXU@cunyvm.bitnet wr
ites:
>While this is essentially a discussion of reincarnation in the context of
>Christianity Gerry Palo has made some comparisons to Asian religious
>beliefs on this topic which have simplified the Asian idea of karma
>to the point of misrepresentation.
>
I realized that my generalizations would probably have problems
under scrutiny from various  Asian points of view.  They need to be 
discussed in detail, indeed. But for the purposes of this newsgroup 
and thread  thus far and in this newsgroup, I risked oversimpli-
fication.  My main purpose was to emphasize that I was not coming
from a Buddhist or Hindu point of view.  As you observed, the
main context is that of Christianity.  But by all means, add comments
and corrections as you find them.

I wrote a longer reply addressing some of your points, but decided
to not post it. Perhaps it would be more appropriate for soc.religion.
eastern. Instead I just add the following couple of items about karma 
and reincarnation as I see the matter from an anthroposophical and 
a Christian point of view.

1. Karma is not simple reward and punishment dealt out by a "judging
   deity".

2. Reincarnation is not the same as being born again.

3. Reincarnation is not the same as the resurrection of the body.

4. Reincarnation and karma do not contradict the fundamental teachings
   of Christianity about God, the fall, the being. incarnation, death,
   and resurrection of Christ, his coming again, sin, grace, forgiveness, 
   salvation, and the last judgement.

>Isn't Origen usually cited as the most prestigious proponent of reincarnation
>among Christian thinkers?  What were his views, and how did he relate them
>to the Christian scriptures?
>
>Jack Carroll

Origen's work was mostly lost. He was not anathematized, to my knowledge, 
but his writing comes down largely in fragments and quotations from enemies.
Perhaps someone else can comment on Origen.  I don't know if there
is a specific statement about reincarnation from him, but from what I do
know about him he probably did hold to the teaching in one form or another.

I don't know too much about the history of the idea of reincarnation in
the Church. However, I heard an interesting story about Pope John Paul II
from an astronomer who teaches at the University of Cracow.  The Pope likes
to go to Poland for a scientific conference every couple of years so he
can relax and talk Polish to friends and fellow countrymen.  My acquaintance,
an anthroposophist, related the fact that Woitila knew about Steiner and
Anthroposophy from his early days.  Before he became a priest he was an
actor in a dramatic company in Cracow whose leader was a pupil of Steiner
and based his acting and directing methods on Steiner's indications.  Part
of the work was the study of the basic works of anthroposophy.  Well,
going to this conference with him a few years ago, the astronomer and another
Polish anthroposophist thought they would ask the Pope what he thought about
Anthroposophy.  They chickened out at the last minute, but one of them did ask
him what he thought about reincarnation.  The Pope smiled and said, 
"Actually there have been quite a few good Catholics who believed in 
reincarnation," and he proceeded to name several from the earliest times
to modern times.  Then he changed the subject. My Polish friend did not
say whether Origen was among those he mentioned.

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com) 

[As far as I know Origen himself was not anathematized.  He was
controversial, but avoided outright condemnation during his lifetime.
However some of his views were condemned at a Council in Alexandria in
400 and two councils in Constantinople in 543 and 553.  I am fairly
sure the preexistence of souls is one of the doctrines condemned.
--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21625
From: dike@scic.intel.com (Charles Dike)
Subject: Re: Mormon Temples


	From: dhammers@pacific.? (David Hammerslag)

	How do you (Mormons) reconcile the idea of eternal marriage with 
	Christ's statement that in the resurrection people will neither 
	marry nor be given in marriage (Luke, chapt. 20)?

Footnotes in some bibles reference this verse to the Book of Tobit.
Tobit is in the Septuagint. Goodspeed published it in a book called 
"The Apocrypha". Most any bookstore will have this. At any rate, the Jews 
of Christ's day had this book. It is a story mostly centered around the
son of Tobit who was named Tobias. There was a young lady, Sarah, who had 
entered the bridal chamber with seven brothers in succession. The brothers 
all died in the chamber before consumating the marriage.

Tobias was entitled to have Sarah for his wife (3:17) because Tobias was
her only relative and "...she was destined for [Tobias] from the beginning"
(6:17).

Tobias took her to wife and was able to consumate the marriage. The 
seven husbands would not have her as a partner in heaven. That does not 
eliminate Tobias, her eighth husband. Tobit is a fun and interesting 
story to read. It's kind of a mythical romance. It's a little shorter 
than Esther.

The LDS also have scriptures that parallel and amplify Luke 20. Most 
notably Doctrines and Covenants 132:15-16.

	"Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry 
	her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as
	he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage
	are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of 
	the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they 
	are out of the world.

	"Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor 
	are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which
	angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are 
	worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of 
	glory."

 
Cordially,
Charles Dike

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21626
From: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes)
Subject: Kingdom theology

Until recently I always understood the term "kingdom theology" to mean the 
theology of the kingdom of God, but now I have discovered that there is a 
new and more specialized meaning. I gather that it is also called "Dominion 
theology", and that it has to do with a belief that Christians must create a 
theocratic form of government on earth before Christ will come again.

I have not come across anyone who believes or advocates this, but I am told 
that it is a very widespread belief in the USA.

Can anyone give me any more information about it?

Here are some of my questions:

1. Is it the teaching of any particular denomination? If so, which?
2. Where and when does it start?
3. Are there any particular publications that propagate it?
4. Are there any organizations that propagate it?

============================================================
Steve Hayes, Department of Missiology & Editorial Department
Univ. of South Africa, P.O. Box 392, Pretoria, 0001 South Africa
Internet: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za         Fidonet: 5:7101/20
          steve.hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
FAQ: Missiology is the study of Christian mission and is part of
     the Faculty of Theology at Unisa

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21627
From: aidler@sol.uvic.ca (E Alan  Idler)
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

In article <May.10.05.07.56.1993.3582@athos.rutgers.edu>, 
muddmj@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
> > Therefore, until someone is capable of comprehending 
> > God's laws they are not accountable for living them. 
> > They are in the book of life and are not removed until 
> > they can make a conscious decision to disobey God. 
> > 
> > A IDLER 
> 
> If babies are not supposed to be baptised then why doesn't the Bible 
>> ever say so.  It never comes right and says "Only people that know 
> right from wrong or who are taught can be baptised." 
>         What Christ did say was : 
> 
>         "I solemly assure you, NO ONE can enter God's kingdom without 
>          being born of water and Spirit ... Do not be surprised that I 
>          tell you you must ALL be begotten from above." 
> 
> Could this be because everyone is born with original sin? 

In some earlier discussions on this thread I may have
given the impression that even though children didn't 
require baptism it wouldn't hurt if they were.
To the contrary, when you baptize children before
they are capable of comprehending it you deny them 
their opportunity to demonstrate their desire to
serve God.

Have any of you considered that children are not
accountable for sin because they are not capable of 
repentance?
Peter said to a group of "men and brethren," "Repent
and be baptized every one of you" (Acts 2:38).
Notice that he specified that if they *repent* then 
they may be *baptized*.

In following Peter's instructions people must first
demonstrate repentance (a forsaking of their sins and 
a desire to obey God's commands) *before* they are 
eligible to be baptized.

Since young children are not capable of repenting,
they are not eligible for baptism.
And since God is both just and merciful "sin is not 
imputed when there is no law" (Romans 5:13), young 
children are not accountable for what they can't 
comprehend.

A IDLER

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21628
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock)
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

In article <May.12.04.29.14.1993.9997@athos.rutgers.edu> mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker) writes:

>	My feeling on baptism is this:  parents baptize their baby so that the
>	baby has the sanctifying grace of baptism (and thus removal of original
>	sin) on its soul in the event of an unexpected death.

You are right, Michael.

In John 3:5, Jesus says, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the
kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit."  That's really what
He said, and He meant it.  That verse is the definition of baptism.  I don't
have the law book in front of me, but there is a canon law that urges
parents to baptize their children within one week of birth for the very
reason that you state.


-- 
Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock 
Catechist
gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21629
From: wjhovi01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu (Bill Hovingh, LPTS Student)
Subject: Re: hate the sin...

scott@prism.gatech.edu (Scott Holt) writes:
> "Hate the sin but love the sinner"...I've heard that quite a bit recently, 
> often in the context of discussions about Christianity and homosexuality...
> but the context really isn't that important. My question is whether that
> statement is consistent with Christianity. I would think not.

I'm very grateful for scott's reflections on this oft-quoted phrase.  Could
someone please remind me of the Scriptural source for it?  (Rom. 12.9 doesn't
count, kids.)  The manner in which this little piece of conventional wisdom is
applied has, in my experience, been uniformly hateful and destructive.

billh

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21630
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: Re: Public/Private Revelation (formerly Re: Question about Virgin Mary

(Marty Helgesen) writes:

   When an alleged private revelation attracts sufficient attention,
   the Church may investigate it.  If the investigation indicates a
   likelihood that the alleged private revelation is in fact from God,
   it will be approved.  That means that it can be preached in the
   Church.  However, it is still true that no one is required to
   believe that it came from God.  A Catholic is free to deny the
   authenticity of even the most well attested and strongly approved
   private revelations, such as those at Fatima and Lourdes.  (I
   suspect that few if any Catholics do reject Fatima and Lourdes, but
   if any do their rejection of them does not mean they are not
   orthodox Catholics in good standing.)

It may be a bit much to say that a Catholic is free to deny what
happened at Fatima.  That's a bit strong, it is sort of like saying
that a Catholic is free to deny that Hong Kong exists.  What a
Catholic *is* free to do is to deny the truth of Fatima, without being
called a heretic.  You can be labeled other things for such an
offense, but not a heretic.

Theologians make a basic distinction as far as the degree of assent
one must give to events like Fatima and Lourdes.  Things revealed by
God through Jesus Christ or His Apostles must be given the assent due
to a revelation of God: total and unswerving.  Fatima and Lourdes
demand our assent as much as any other well-attested event in human
history.  Perhaps a bit more, given the approval of the Church.

"Approval" of an apparition by the Church principally means that
whatever happened was in harmony with the Catholic Faith.

I personally think of private revelations as our Lord's way of telling
us what to do at particular periods in history.  He gave us all the
doctrines, etc., 2000 years ago, but we can always use some help in
knowing how exactly to apply what He gave us.

Catholic devotion to the Sacred Heart was a result of a series of
apparitions to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, for example.  The problem
at the time was extreme moral rigorism that was turning our Lord into
someone without a heart.

The Fatima apparitions were a warning of an impending crisis in the
Church (we are living it), and what to do to save the most souls
possible in such a situation.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21631
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: Re: The Bible on the Immaculate COnception

In article <May.12.04.29.48.1993.10041@athos.rutgers.edu> JEK@cu.nih.gov writes:

	+  I will put enmity between you [the Serpent] and the woman, and
	+ between your seed and her seed, she [can also be read he] shall
	+ crush your head and you shall bruise her [or his] heel.
	+ -Genesis 3.15

   In the Hebrew of Genesis 3:15, the gender is clearly masculine.

	+ HE shall crush your head, and you shall bruise HIS heel.

   The Latin has feminine forms, only by an accident of grammar.

I have yet to see an adequate explanation of St. Jerome's translation
of Genesis 3:15.  His Latin clearly uses the feminine, but I don't
know why, since the Hebrew is clearly masculine.  If anyone knows of a
scholarly treatment of this puzzle, I would appreciate hearing from
you.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21632
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: Re: Baptism requires Faith

(Aaron Bryce Cardenas) writes:

   Romans 10:16-17 "But not all the Israelites accepted the good news.  For
   Isaiah says, 'Lord, who has believed our message?'  Consequently, faith
   comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word
   of Christ."

   So then we receive God's gift of faith to us as we hear the message of the
   gospel.  Faith is a possible response to hearing God's word preached.  Kids
   are not yet spiritually, intellectually, or emotionally mature enough to
   respond to God's word.  Hence they cannot have faith and therefore cannot
   be raised in baptism to a new life.

Catholics view the effects of Baptism slightly differently, and that's
one primary reason why they baptize babies.  They believe that Baptism
produces a change in the soul of the baby, quite independently of any
volitional act on the part of the baby.  This change in the baby's
soul gives the infant certain capabilities that he would not have
without Baptism.  Since the infant does not have the use of his
intellect and will yet, these new faculties are dormant.  But as the
child gets older, the gifts of Baptism come more and more into play.

   Ezekiel 18:20 "The soul who sins will die.  The son will not share the
   guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.  The
   righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the
   wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him."

   If you read all of Ezekiel 18, you will see that God doesn't hold us guilty
   for anyone else's sins.  So we can have no original guilt from Adam.

Adam was given a number of gifts by God.  The chief among them was
what Catholics call "sanctifying grace".  (In the New Testament, the
word used for this is "charity".)  By his sin, Adam lost this grace.
He didn't lose it just for himself, however, he lost it for the whole
human race.  Because once he lost it, he couldn't pass it on to his
descendents.

That's why Catholics baptize babies.  Through his Original Sin, Adam
lost sanctifying grace for all his descendents.  Christ instituted
Baptism to give it back to everyone.

Babies are not being punished for anything they personally did; they
are simply lacking in something they need, in order to enter Heaven.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21633
From: sdittman@liberty.uc.wlu.edu (Scott Dittman)
Subject: Definition of Christianity?

Although simplistic I have always liked the fact that "a Christian is one
who not only believes in God, but believes God."  After all the name was
first given externally to identify those who "preached Christ and Him
crucified" to pay the price of their rebeliion and shortcomings before
God.  God said this was His son -- I belive Him.
-- 
Scott Dittman                    email: sdittman@wlu.edu
University Registrar             talk: (703)463-8455   fax: (703)463-8024
Washington and Lee University    snail mail:  Lexington Virginia 24450

[It's certainly a good things for Christians to follow.  But as
a definition it may be a bit hard to apply.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21634
From: kolassa@genesee.bst.rochester.edu (John Kolassa)
Subject: Re: Definition of Christianity?

In article <May.12.04.28.31.1993.9972@athos.rutgers.edu> clh writes:
>
>[Often we get into discussions about who is Christian.  Unfortunately
>there are a number of possible definitions.  Starting from the 
>broadest, commonly used definitions are:

>3) The next level is an attempt to give a broad doctrinal definition,
>which includes all of the major strands of Christianity, but excludes
>groups that are felt to be outside "historic Christianity."  This is
>of course a slippery enterprise, since Catholics could argue that
>Protestants are outside historic Christianity, etc.  But I think the
>most commonly accepted definition would be based on something like the
>Nicene Creed and the Formula of Chalcedon.

Are you sure you want to include Chalcedon here?  I presume that you 
mean the description of Jesus as fully human and fully devine.  Almost 
everyone would consider the majority of Copts and Armenians, and the 
Jacobites, as Christians, yet for 15 centuries it has been maintained 
that they disagree with the Formula of Chalcedon.  Those that wouldn't 
consider them Christians are most likely to object that these communities 
don't require a personal commitment to Jesus, which is only tangentially 
related to the Formula of Chalcedon.  
-- 
Thanks, John Kolassa, kolassa@bio1.bst.rochester.edu

[As I understand the recent discussion here, the Copts for all
practical purposes accept Chalcedon.  They talk about one nature
rather than two, but the issue seems to be one of terminology rather
than substance.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21635
From: seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."

In article <Apr.29.01.29.24.1993.8394@geneva.rutgers.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
>In article 4220@geneva.rutgers.edu, seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson) writes:
>[deletia- Recovery programs, etc]
>
>I do need you to show me that there is such a thing as
>a "spiritual need"; to do that it may be necessary to show
>me that *spirits* (souls, whatnot) exist; God is not
>important to that as far as I can tell.
>
I get the feeling that we are debating at cross-purposes--that we
do not see the same fundamental assumptions, and this perhaps makes
my answers orthogonal to your questions.  I will try again.

Perhaps you believe that nothing exists aside from objectively
observable and provable things.  In that case, I cannot show you
that there is such thing as a spirit or a spiritual need--these 
things do not exist in the realm of the objective, but in the
realm of the subjective.

>OTOH, if you wish you can simply (but explicitly, please)
>*assume* spirits exist, and then show me that they would
>have needs, and that a.a. handles these needs in some way.
>You can assume God exists too if that will help. I'll play along.
>
(By a.a., I assume you mean Alcoholics Anonymous, and not alt.atheism ;)
I would not say that AA "handles" spiritual needs.  Rather I would say
that AA (and other 12-step programs) help people come to terms with their
needs--ie that AA is facilitating the recovery, and that as part of the
recovery, they recognize their spiritual needs, and begin to rely on a "higher
power" (12-step's term) to fill them instead of whatever substance abuse
they had been accustomed to.  (Sorry, there is no objective proof here
either--no way to take 2 identical alcoholics and try to have one recover
by fulfilling spiritual needs, and one without and externally compare the
difference--we are talking about the virtually infinite complexity of
*people* here.)

>But I should say, if God is a necessary component
>of your "spiritual needs" then I truely do not understand at
>all. It sounds to me like *spirits* have needs that should be
>fulfilled by God, but can be "masked" in other ways (drugs etc).
>If this is the case, then you can leave out God: just describe
>the problem, not the solution.
>
Spiritual needs could be defined as things that people need in addition to
physical requirements like air, food, sleep, etc.  These are things like
the need for love and acceptance, and the need for meaning in life.  If 
one denies the existence of spiritual things, one would presumably call 
these "emotional needs". The reason Christians call them spiritual needs 
is that they have aspects that are not fulfillable except by spiritual 
means--ie a person could be loved and accepted by many people, and do 
many meaningful things, but still have a need for love, which can only be
satisfied by the love of God.  Now the problem is that there are people who
accept the existence of these needs, and people who reject them.  Since I
believe in absolute truth, some of these people are right, and the others
are wrong.  So here are the 2 possibilities:

1) If Christians are right, then we all have spiritual needs--ie
we all need God.  Those who do not realize that they need God are 
deluded--they just haven't recognized it yet.

2) If Christians are wrong, spiritual needs are an artefact of our brain
chemicals.  Well-adjusted and properly-integrated personalities do not
have such things.  Christians are simply using the concept of God and 
spiritual needs to mask their own inadequacies.

I hate to belabour the point, but the existence of spirits and spiritual
needs cannot be objectively demonstrated or proven, just like the existence
of God cannot.  And yes, this means that there is a risk that all my subjective
evidence is manufactured by my brain chemicals.  But on the other hand, I 
could venture into solipsism and say that there is a risk that everything that
I appear to objectively know is really manufactured by my brain chemicals.

I suspect this is an unsatisfactory answer to a request for evidence and
demonstration of the existence of spirits and spiritual needs, but my assertion
is that such things are not objectively demonstrable.  As I have said before, 
I myself am on the Christian side of agnosticism, having been pushed off the 
fence by subjective evidence.  (And no, I was not raised a Christian, so it 
is not a case of simply accepting what I was indoctrinated with.)

==
Seanna Watson   Bell-Northern Research,       | Pray that at the end of living,
(seanna@bnr.ca) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada       | Of philosophies and creeds,
                                              | God will find his people busy
Opinion, what opinions? Oh *these* opinions.  | Planting trees and sowing seeds.
No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.          |
I knew I'd left them somewhere.               |  --Fred Kaan

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21636
From: nichael@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Subject: Re: Deuterocanonicals, esp. Sirach

poram@ihlpb.att.com writes:
   On these counts, the apocrapha falls short of the glory of God.
   To quote Unger's Bible Dictionary on the Apocrapha:
   1. They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and
   anachronisms.
   2. They teach doctrines which are false and foster practices
   which are at variance with sacred Scripture.
   3. They resort to literary types and display an artificiality of
   subject matter and styling out of keeping with sacred Scripture.
   4. They lack the distinctive elements which give genuine
   Scripture their divine character, such as prophetic power and
   poetic and religious feeling.

First, to point out the obvious: While #4 would clearly be a highly
subjective issue, one would be hard pressed to point to another book
of the OT (or for that matter the NT) that doesn't, on some issues, in
some way, fail one or more of the first three of these tests.

Second, one factor the Deuterocanonicals share is the lateness of
their composition.  I don't recall the exact dating of all of the
books, but most --if not all-- were written after the latest of the
canonical books (i.e. Daniel).

Furthermore, while the Deuterocanonical may or may not have been
originally written in Greek, they are clearly deeply _Hellenistic_ in
nature.  Both of these features probably figured heavily in the
rejection of these books from the various canons.

These may not be strict and uniformly applicable criteria by which to
judge the canonicity of these books, but, as these discussions have
shown, I think the one thing we can see is that there _are_ no purely
objective standards for determining canonicity.

Nichael
;(and (funcall (get 'smurfy-smile-icon 'like-predicate) 'lisp) (sys::honk))

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21637
From: nichael@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Subject: The Long Text of Acts [was: Variants in the NT Text]

[To the moderator: I posted this about a week ago but it never showed
                   up (locally) on the net.  If this has already
                   actually been posted, please fill free to flush
                   this copy.  --N]

From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
>Does anyone now where an English translation of the long recension of
>the Acts of the Apostles can be found?

1] A english translation of this can be found in:
   "The Acts of the Apostles, translated from the Codex Bezae, with an
   introduction on its Lucan Origin and Importance", J. M. Wilson
   (London, 1923).

2] Another work that might be useful is:
   "The Acts of the Apostles, a Critical Edition with Introduction and
   Notes on Selected Passages", Albert C. Clark (Oxford, 1933;
   reprinted 1970).

(This is an edition of text of Acts that makes the assumption that the
text in Codex Bezae is the more authentic.  I don't know if it
actually contains an english translation or not.)

3] Another useful that discusses many of the variants in detail is:
   "The Theological Tendency of the Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in
   Acts", Eldon J Epp (Cambridge, 1966).

4] The most recent reference I found was an edition in French from the
early '80s.  (I can supply the reference if anyone's interested.)

5] Now, many of the works are going to be difficult to find.  So if
you're interested in examining the differences in the long recension
an excellent (and easily obtainable) discussion can be found in:
   "A Textual Commentary on the Greek NT", Bruce Metzger (United Bible
   Society, 1971).

Metzger's book serves as a companion volume to the UBS 3rd edition of
the Greek NT.  It contains a discussion on the reasoning that went
behind the decisions on each of the 1440 variant readings included in
the UBS3.  Furthermore, notes on an addition 600 readings are
included in aTCotGNT (the majority of these occur in Acts).

In particular in the introduction to the section on Acts Metzger writes:
   "[An attempt was made] to set before the reader a more or less full
   report (with an English translation) of the several additions and
   other modifications that are attested by Western witnesses ...
   Since many of these have no corresponding apparatus in the
   text-volume, care was taken to supply an adequate conspectus of the
   evidence that supports the divergent readings." (p 272).

>I understand that one of the early codexes, Vaticanus and Siniaticus has
>this version of Acts.  It would be interesting to know what the
>differences are between the long and the short forms.

6] Most of the copies of the text of Acts that we have (including the
ones in Vaticanus and Siniaticus) adher pretty closely to the shorter
(or Alexandrian) version.  The longer version to which you refer is
usually called the "Western" version and its main witness is the Codex
Bezae (althought there are a few other rather fragmentary sources).

7] As far as size, the difference is that in Clark's edition
(mentioned above) the book of Acts contains 19,983 words whereas the
text edited by Westcott and Hort (a typical Alexandrian text) contains
18,401 words; i.e. a difference of about 8-1/2%.

8] To answer the obvious questions, no, there are no major revelations
in the longer text nor major omissions in the shorter text.  The main
difference seems to "expansion" of detail in the Western text (or, if
you prefer "contractions" in the Alexandrian).  The Western text seems
to be given to more detail.  There are some interesting specific
cases, but this probably not the place to go into it in detail.

9] The discussion over the years as to which of these versions is the
more authentic has been hot and heavy.  If there is anything
approaching a modern consensus it is (i) that neither text represents
purely the "authentic" version, (ii) each variant reading has to be
examined on its own merits however, (iii) the variant in the
Alexandrian text is the "better" more often than not.

N

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21638
From: aaronc@athena.mit.edu (Aaron Bryce Cardenas)
Subject: Re: Jacob and Esau

JEK@cu.nih.gov writes:
>I wrote that the Apostle Paul, in Romans 9, speaks of God as
>choosing Jacob over Esau, and adds that this is not as a result of
>anything that either child had done, since they had not been born
>yet.

It's my understanding that Romans 9:13 "As it is written, Jacob have I
loved, but Esau have I hated." refers not to the two individuals, but
rather to their offspring, the tribe of Jacob and the tribe of Esau

See Obadiah, for example.  In fact, if you scan through the OT, you
will find similar references to the two tribes.

- Aaron Cardenas
aaronc@athena.mit.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21639
From: Mail.Server@mozart.cc.iup.edu (mserv)
Subject: Ten Commandments or Ten Discourses?

In the course of discussing the Sabbath with some folks, 
I came across something that was completely new to me, 
and I thought I'd offer it for comment.

To keep this as brief as possible, let me state my 
observation as a declarative statement, and then whoever 
wants to can comment on it.  Basically, what I think 
I've observed is that the phrase "the Ten Commandments", 
as used by Moses, is not a reference to Ex. 20:1-17, but 
rather a reference to ten distinct discourses from Ex. 
20:1 through Ex. 31:18.  That is, the phrase "the Ten 
Commandments" should more accurately be translated "the 
Ten Discourses", of which the passage we call the "Ten 
Commandments" is really only the first.

I'm not completely convinced that the above is true, but 
for purposes of discussion, let me argue it as though I 
was sure.

Arguments supporting the above idea:

1)  There aren't really ten commandments in Ex. 20:1-17.  
In order to get 10 commandments, you have to get two of 
them out of verses 3-6, and the verses themselves do not 
support such a division because they are all about not 
worshipping other gods.  That is, verse 3 commands to 
have no other gods, and verse 5 commands to not worship 
the idols mentioned in verse 4.  You can't violate 
verses 5-6 without violating verse 3, indicating that 
the whole passage is one command, and leaving us with 
only Nine "Commandments".  I could go on at length about 
this, but for now I'll just stop with this summary.

2)  There ARE ten speeches between Ex 20:1 (the beginning
of the traditional "Ten Commandments") and Ex 31:18 
(where God actually gives Moses the two tablets with the 
Ten Commandments/Discourses written on them).  I break 
these ten down as follows: 20:1-17; 20:22-26; 21:1-23:33; 
25:1-30:10; 30:11-16; 30:17-21; 30:22-33; 30:34-38; 
31:1-11; and 31:12-18.  In most cases, each of these 
passages begins with some variation of the phrase, "And 
the LORD spoke to Moses, saying..."  The exception is 
Ex. 21:1, which begins "Now these are the ordinances 
which you are to set before them..."

3)  The word translated "commandments" in the phrase 
"the Ten Commandments" isn't really the word for 
"commandment", its the word for a speech, or an 
utterance.  It's a word often used for longer discourses 
rather than individual statements; for instance, when 
combined with the word 'yom' (day), this word is 
translated "Chronicles" in such phrases as "now the rest 
of the acts of so-and-so, are they not written in the 
Chronicles of x?..."  The word for "commandment" is 
freely used throughout the books of Moses, and perhaps 
it is significant that when Moses spoke of the Ten X's, 
he appears to have avoided the word for commandment and 
chosen instead a word associated with discourses longer 
than just a single command.

4)  God tells Moses that He is going to give him the 
stone tablets "with the law and the commandments" (Ex 
24:12), yet He does not give Moses the tablets until He 
has finished all ten discourses on Mount Sinai.  If the 
Ten Commandments were only Ex. 20:1-17, it is not 
immediately clear why God would wait several days and 
nine more discourses before giving these tablets to 
Moses.  On the other hand, if we have the Ten Discourses 
written on the tablets, then it makes perfect sense that 
God would not give Moses the tablets until He had 
finished delivering all Ten Discourses.

5)  When Moses did get the tablets, he found that both 
tablets were written on both sides (Ex. 32:15).  If 
these Ten "Commandments" were only the first 17 verses 
of Ex. 20, God would have had to have written in LARGE 
letters!  Not that He couldn't have, of course, but it 
does seem more likely to me that this is a reference to 
two tablets containing ten discourses written in normal-
sized letters.

6)  In II Cor. 3, Paul seems to specifically single out 
the "commandments written on stone" as being the 
"ministry of death", "that which is fading away," and 
"the ministry of condemnation."  With the possible 
exception of the commandment about the Sabbath, it is 
difficult to see why Paul would refer to the commands in 
Ex. 20:1-17 as being temporary, "fading away"-type 
commandments.  This is less of a problem if the stone 
tablets should happen to have included all of the 
commandments from Ex 20 through Ex 31.

Arguments against this idea:

The main argument against this idea, aside from the fact 
that it contradicts a long-standing tradition, is that 
in Dt 5:22, Moses says, after quoting the commands in 
Ex. 20:1-17, "These words the LORD spoke...and He added 
no more.  And He wrote them on two tablets of stone and 
gave them to me."  This appears to identify the words 
just quoted as being the only contents of the two stone 
tablets.

That was my first impression, anyway.  However, after 
some thought, I noted that a great deal hinges on how 
you understand the phrase "These words."  If Moses meant 
"These words *which I have just related to you* were 
spoken by God" etc., then that would mean that only the 
traditional "Ten Commandments" were on the stone 
tablets.  If, however, Moses was making a parenthetical 
comment--"These words *which I AM NOW telling you* were 
spoken by God" etc.--then that's quite different.

I did note that in the Dt 5 account, Moses tells of 
being given the stone tablets BEFORE telling of the 
people asking Moses to represent them before God, 
whereas in the Exodus account, the people asked this of 
Moses between the first and second discourses, several 
days BEFORE God gave Moses the stone tablets.  This 
reinforces the idea that Moses' remarks in Dt 5:22ff 
were intended as a parenthetical remark, rather than a 
strictly chronological account of when God wrote what, 
and at what point He stopped adding to what was on the 
tablets.

Summary:  all things considered, I find it somewhat more 
likely that the nine commands in Ex 20 are really only 
the first of what Moses regarded as the Ten Discourses 
of God.  I don't know if anybody has ever espoused this 
idea before; it's brand-new to me.  So, while I lean 
towards accepting it, I would be very interested in 
hearing any comments and criticisms anyone may care to 
offer.

- Mark

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21640
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse

And do not set your heart on what you will eat or drink; do not worry about it.

Luke 12:29

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21641
From: brh54@cas.org (Brooks Haderlie)
Subject: Re: Mormon Temples

In article 28334@athos.rutgers.edu, dhammers@pacific.? (David Hammerslag) writes:

> This paragraph brought to mind a question.  How do you (Mormons) reconcile
> the idea of eternal marriage with Christ's statement that in the ressurection
> people will neither marry nor be given in marriage (Luke, chapt. 20)?

That's the whole point, David.  As spirits separated from their bodies
and living in the spirit world, they cannot undergo the ordinance of
marriage, just as they cannot be baptized, since there is no physical
body to be baptized.  We perform these ordinances as proxies for them,
in their behalf.  Thanks for asking.  Brooks

***************************************************************************
* Brooks Haderlie (brh54@cas.org) * " O be wise; what can I say more?"
* * Columbus, OH by way of Ucon, ID * - Jacob 6:12 * *
---------------------------------------------------------------------
* * These opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.  *
 *************************************************************************

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21642
From: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell)
Subject: homosexuals

Several replies to my post have said that I should get to know  
Christian homosexuals before judging them.  I maintain that I was not  
judging them by saying that homosexuality is wrong.   I would like to  
look at the responces to my post and make a general sterotypical  
evaluation of the people who responded to the side of Christianity  
and homosexuality being compatible (admitedly not all are homosexuals  
but I know that many are from their e-mail responces).  I don't  
normally make sterotypical assumptions about groups of people, but  
since I have been asked to by many of the opposing veiw point I will.

So far people have made wild assumptions, put me down because I don't  
have the resources of others, and even reverted to name calling.  If  
you don't think this is an acurate representation then those of you  
who are homosexual Christians show me the diffrence.

In Christ's Love,
Bryan

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21643
From: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell)
Subject: Homosexuality

Recently an e-mail to me mentioned:

(Technically, the messengers aren't even human so
it *can't* be a case of "homosexuality" -- even of rape.) [...]

The Jude reference to Sodom is also meaningful only in the context of
the Sodomites' "lust" for the "other flesh" of angels.  Again,
application to homosexual behavior in general, or to the position of
gay Christians is largeely specious.
***
Are angels "flesh"? No. I feel that this is saying that it was because
of their lust after other men, who are flesh( or of this world).

what are other opinons on this? I haven't heard much about this verse  
at all.

In Christ's Love,
Bryan
--

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21644
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: Hell

On 20 April, Stephen McIntyre writes:

 > I would rather spend an eternity in Hell than be beside God in
 > Heaven knowing that even one man would spend his "eternal life"
 > being scorched for his wrongdoings....

Stephen, I suspect that when you and I use the word "Hell," we have
different concepts in mind. When you encounter references to Heaven
in terms of crowns and harps and golden streets, I trust that you do
not suppose (or suspect Christians of supposing) that the golden
streets are to be taken literally, still less that they are what the
concept of Heaven is all about. Why then should you suppose that
about the "fires" of Hell?
     Have you read the novel ATLAS SHRUGGED? Do you remember the
last description of James Taggart, sitting on the floor beside the
Ferris Persuader? This comes close to a description of what is meant
by Hell in my circles. If the image of fire is often used in this
connection, there are two reasons that occur to me.
     The first reason is that it conveys the idea of Hell as
something that any rational being would earnestly wish to avoid (as
any rational being would wish to avoid the fate of James Taggart --
but the latter image is meaningful only to those who have read ATLAS
SHRUGGED, a smaller audience than those who have played with
matches).
     The second reason is the history of the Hebrew word "Gehenna,"
one of the words translated "Hell" in the New Testament. It refers
to the valley of Hinnon, outside Jerusalem. In early days, it was a
place where the Canaanites offered human sacrifices (burned alive)
to Molech. Later, it was made a garbage or refuse dump, where fires
burned continually, consuming the trash of the city of Jerusalem.
"To be cast into Gehenna" or "to burn in Gehenna" thus became a
metaphor for "to be rejected or discarded as worthless."

Lest you think that identifying Hell with the fate of James Taggart
is my own private fancy, I commend to you the book THE GREAT
DIVORCE, by C S Lewis. It discusses Heaven (no harps) and Hell (no
flames). It is shorter than ATLAS SHRUGGED, and available at most
bookstores and libraries.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21645
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: hate the sin...

Interesting point.  The Bible doesn't say "hate the sin".
It tells to avoid sin, resist sin, even, when necessary, denounce sin.
But not hate.


-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

[The following passages all talk about God or people God approves of
hating sin or some other action.  Ps 119:113 also talks about hating
the sinner.  I believe there are other passages that would talk about
hating someone who is evil, but I didn't turn them up in this search
(which was on the word "hate" in the KJV, though I've crosschecked
each passage in the NRSV).

Ps 97:10, 101:3, 105:25, 119:104, 113, 128, 163, , 139:21-22
Prov 6:16, 8:13
Isa 61:8
Amos 5:15
Zec 8:17
Rev 2:6

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21646
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Subject: Re: Satan kicked out of heaven: Biblical?

[This is a response to a request for a Biblical reference about Satan
being a fallen angel.  --clh]

Isaiah 14:12

[A common reading of this passage is that it's referring to
the King of Babylon, using mythological language ironically,
because of his claims.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21647
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Subject: ****CHRISTIANITY IN CRISIS**** by Hank Hanegraaff


                       "CHRISTIANITY IN CRISIS"
                                    by: Hank Hanegraaff



         "Controversy for the sake of controversy is a sin.
            Controversy for the sake of truth is a divine command."
                                       -Dr. Walter Martin


Dr. Walter Martin personally selected Hank Hanegraaff to succeed him
as President of the Christian Research Institute -- the largest 
evangelical counter-cult organization in the world. In this skillful, 
careful treatment of an explosive subject, Hanegraaff documents and 
examines how the beliefs of the Word of Faith movement clearly 
compromises and confuse the essentials of the historic Christian 
faith. For the first time ever, this large and influential movement
is legitimately labeled as cultic.

In this book, Hanegraaff discusses such leaders of the Word of Faith 
movement as E.W. Kenyon and the Twelve Apostles of "another gospel" 
(Gal 1:6-9) (Kenneth E. Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, Frederick
K.C. Price, John Avanzini, Robert Tilton, Marilyn Hickey, Paul (David) 
Yonggi Cho, Charles Capps, Jerry Savelle, Morris Cerullo, and Paul and 
Jan Crouch).

The book is now available through Harvest House Publishers and should
be in most Christian Book Stores soon. You can order a hard-back copy 
through CRI for $14.99 by calling 1-800-443-9797 and avoid retail 
mark-ups.

The Christian Research Journal, which is a quarterly publication by CRI 
has an article in it's most recent issue just released called, "What's 
Wrong With The Word Faith Movement?" This is a good article that will 
inform you of each of the teachers above, and tide you over until your 
book arrives. If you are interested in receiving the Journal yourself, 
you can order it from CRI at the number above for $14 a year. It is the 
best source of the most-accurate and well-researched info in Christiandom 
today.


[If we're going to have a discussion of book here (and this is the
third posting so far), I'd like people to say enough about its
contents for people to decide whether it's worth reading.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21648
From: pduggan@world.std.com (Paul C Duggan)
Subject: Re: Baptism requires Faith

In article <May.12.04.26.21.1993.9879@athos.rutgers.edu> aaronc@athena.mit.edu (Aaron Bryce Cardenas) writes:
>Colossians 2:11-12 "In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of
>the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by Christ, having been
>buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the
>power of God, who raised him from the dead."
>
>In baptism, we are raised to a new life in Christ (Romans 6:4) through a
>personal faith in the power of God.  Our parent's faith cannot do this.  Do
>infants have faith?  Let's look at what the Bible has to say about it.

I don't think the issue of whether infants have faith is relevant or not.
Certainly they *can*, as the example of John in utero proves. I find the
translation of Col 2 above odd in terms of the circumcision of christ,
which the KJV and RSV put in terms of Christ's cricumcision which we, in
union with him *participate* in putting off the body of sins of the flesh.

Also, perhaps cor 2:12 is dividing the act of burial with him in baptism,
which can be independant of faith, from the experience of rising with
Christ by faith. Who says both are by faith? This interpretation has the
advantage of explaining those who are faithlessly baptized, for whom their
baptisim is not benefit, but serves to put them into the kingdom nonetheless.

Like the israelites (all of them, children included) who were baptized in
the cloud and in the sea, it was of no advantage because they did not add
to their baptism faith and obedience.

Baptism does not impart faith, nor is it done strictly speaking on the
basis of the faith of the parent, but because of the covcenant promise of
God. It imparts grace, the grace of the kingdom, which can be a
punishement in disguise if there is later apostacy.


>
>Romans 10:16-17 "But not all the Israelites accepted the good news.  For
>Isaiah says, 'Lord, who has believed our message?'  Consequently, faith
>comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word
>of Christ."
>
>So then we receive God's gift of faith to us as we hear the message of the
>gospel.  Faith is a possible response to hearing God's word preached.  Kids
>are not yet spiritually, intellectually, or emotionally mature enough to
>respond to God's word.  Hence they cannot have faith and therefore cannot
>be raised in baptism to a new life.

Do you teach a child to pray the Lord's prayer? Do you expect them to not
steal? They *can* have faith appropriate to their condition. And in the
new covenant, we shall no longer say: know the lord, for they shall all
know him from the least unto the greatest Heb 8:11.

>If you read all of Ezekiel 18, you will see that God doesn't hold us guilty
>for anyone else's sins.  So we can have no original guilt from Adam.

But also according to Ezekiel 18, God will not hold innocent anyone on the
basis of anyone elses innocense. Thus Jesus could not be our federal head
any more than adam, *IF* that's what ezekiel is talking about. Shall you
make ezekiel 18 contradict the second commandemnt as well?


  >
>Ezekiel 18:31-32 "Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committted,
>and get a new heart and a new spirit.  Why will you die, O house of Israel?
>For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord.
>Repent and live!"
>
>The way to please God is to repent and get a new heart and spirit.  Kids
>cannot do this.  Acts 2:38-39 says that when we repent and are baptized, we
>will then receive a new spirit, the Holy Spirit.  Then we shall live.

Ezekiel 36:25-26 indicates that this new heart will be given by God,
in the context of the sprinkling of water in baptism. It is the action of
God puting them into his new order, and not a question of"personal"
faith as such.


>Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and
>death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all
>sinned--"
>
>Sin and death entered the world when the first man sinned.  Death came to
>each man because each man sinned.  Note that it's good to read through all
>of Romans 5:12-21.  Some of the verses are easier to misunderstand than
>others, but if we read them in context we will see that they are all
>saying basically the same thing.  Let's look at one such.
>
But the death that came to all because of sin is not just their personal
death, but the dead state (originbal sin). We are in a covenant of death,
because adam, our federal head gave over his dominion to the devil and death.


>Psalm 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother
>conceived me."
>
>This whole Psalm is a wonderful example of how we should humble ourselves
>before God in repentance for sinning.  David himself was a man after God's
>own heart and wrote the Psalm after committing adultry with Bathsheba and
>murdering her husband.  All that David is saying here is that he can't
>remember a time when he wasn't sinful.  He is humbling himself before God
>by confessing his sinfulness.  His saying that he was sinful at birth is
>a hyperbole.  The Bible, being inspired by God, isn't limited to a literal
>interpetation, but also uses figures of speech as did Jesus (John 16:25).
>For another example of hyperbole, see Luke 14:26.

While this psalm is figurative in it's language, it is not hyperbolic, and
the one does not necessarily imply the other. There is not other
hyperbolic language in this psalm. What v 5 is likely refering to is 
what is symbolized by the OT cleanliness laws (which make intercourse and
childbrith both acts which caus uncleannes and seperation from God). The
whole psalm is in the language of OT ritual (hyssop, cleansing, burnt
offering, etc) David's sin with bathsheba included this element, as he
did not ritually cleanse himself when he should have. 

But what was symbolized by the OT ritual was the truth that sin was 
passed generationally. That's why the organ of generation had to be
cut. That's why brith was unclean. Uncleanness was death, and all babies
were born dead, and needed to be washed to newness of life, which we have in
baptism today.

paul duggan

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21649
From: pduggan@world.std.com (Paul C Duggan)
Subject: Re: hate the sin...

In article <May.12.04.27.07.1993.9920@athos.rutgers.edu> scott@prism.gatech.edu (Scott Holt) writes:
>Hate begets more hate, never love. Consider some sin. I'll leave it unnamed
>since I don't want this to digress into an argument as to whether or not 
>something is a sin. Now lets apply our "hate the sin..." philosophy and see
>what happens. If we truly hate the sin, then the more we see it, the 
>stronger our hatred of it will become. Eventually this hate becomes so 
>strong that we become disgusted with the sinner and eventually come to hate
>the sinner.

Though you can certaily assert all this, I don't see why it necessarily
has to be the case. Why can't hate just stay as it is, and not beget more?
Who says we have to get disgusted and start hating the sinner. I admit
this happens, but I donlt think you can say it is always necessaily
so.

Why can we not hate with a perfect hatred?

>In the summary of the law, Christ commands us to love God and to love our 
>neighbors. He doesn't say anything about hate. In fact, if anything, he 
>commands us to save our criticisms for ourselves. So, how are Christians
>supposed to deal with the sin of others? I suppose that there is only one
>way to deal with sin (either in others or ourselves)...through prayer. We

Certainly we should love even our enemies. Amos 5:15 says to hate the evil
and love the good. This can't contradict Christ's teaching. I think we tie
up both hate and love with an emotional attitude, when it really should be
considered more objectively. Surely I don't fly into a rage at every sin
I see, but why can I not "hate" it?

paul duggan

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21650
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: The crowd before Pilate

In a post of 29 April (?), considering disasters as instances of the
judgements of God in history, Andy Byler spoke of

 > the desire of the Jerusalem mob who crucified the Lord that
 > "His blood be upon us."

Vera Noyes replied (02 May),

 > I will not comment here for fear of being heavily flamed.

I invite them both (and other interested parties as well) to read my
comments on this verse of Scripture. To obtain them, send the
message GET CHOOSING BARABBAS to LISTSERV@ASUACAD.BITNET or to
LISTSERV@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU. Putting it briefly, I think that the
significance of the demands of the Jerusalem crowd has usually been
greatly misunderstood, both by Christian and by anti-Christian
readers.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

[You should send email to that address, with the contents of the
message being a single line containing the GET command.  The
subject line is apparently ignored, at least by ASUVM.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21651
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: Trinity

James Green writes:

 > Can't someone describe someone's trinity in simple declarative
 > sentences that have common meaning?

I offer him four attempts.

First is an essay by me (largely indebted to Attempts Two and
Three), obtainable by sending the message GET TRINITY ANALOGY to
LISTSERV@ASUACAD.BITNET or to LISTSERV@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU

Second is a couple of books by Dorothy L Sayers: a play called THE
ZEAL OF THY HOUSE, and a non-fiction book called THE MIND OF THE
MAKER.  The play can be found in the book FOUR SACRED PLAYS, and
also in various other collections, including one called RELIGIOUS
DRAMA (Meridian Books) and one called BEST PLAYS OF 1937.

Third is the book MERE CHRISTIANITY by C S Lewis, particularly the
last section, called "Beyond Personality".

Fourth is a book called THEOLOGY FOR BEGINNERS, by the Roman
Catholic writer Frank Sheed. I will say that I do not find Sheed's
approach altogether satisfying, but I know some persons whose minds
I respect who do.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21652
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Subject: Re: _Christianity In Crisis_ by Hank Hanegraaff

In article <May.12.04.27.23.1993.9926@athos.rutgers.edu> af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.) writes:
>Has anyone read this important book?  If so, what are your feelings about it?
>
>Frank
>-- 
>"If one wished to contend with Him, he could not answer Him one time out
> of a thousand."  JOB 9:3


Hi Frank:

I've read it a couple of times and I think that it is excellent.
Christiandom has needed this book for some time now. I suggest that
*every* Christian read it.

According to Hank, they printed 15 times more than Harvest House
usually prints for the first printing, and it still sold out in
the first week. It is in it's second printing, and most Christian
book stores have waiting lists. You can order it directly from CRI
at 1-800-443-9797.

-tony

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21653
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: hate the sin...

In article <May.12.04.27.07.1993.9920@athos.rutgers.edu>, scott@prism.gatech.edu (Scott Holt) writes:
>"Hate the sin but love the sinner"...I've heard that quite a bit recently, 
>often in the context of discussions about Christianity and homosexuality...
>but the context really isn't that important. My question is whether that
>statement is consistent with Christianity. I would think not.
>
>Hate begets more hate, never love. Consider some sin. I'll leave it unnamed
>since I don't want this to digress into an argument as to whether or not 
>something is a sin. Now lets apply our "hate the sin..." philosophy and see
>what happens. If we truly hate the sin, then the more we see it, the 
>stronger our hatred of it will become. Eventually this hate becomes so 
>strong that we become disgusted with the sinner and eventually come to hate
>the sinner. In addition, our hatred of the sin often causes us to say and 
>do things which are taken personally by the sinner (who often does not even 
>believe what they are doing is a sin). After enough of this, the sinner begins
>to hate us (they certainly don't love us for our constant criticism of their
>behavior). Hate builds up and drives people away from God...this certainly
>cannot be a good way to build love.

I don't agree, but I can only speak for myself.  I have a good friend
whose lifestyle is very sinful.  Do I hate the things she does to herself
and others?  Yes.  Do I hate her?  Absolutely not.  In fact, she tells me
repeatedly that I am the best friend she has in the world.  I care about
her very much despite the fact that I hate how she lives her life.

It's very easy to fall into the progression you describe above.  I've
felt it with my friend more than once.  There is a very important 
part of Christianity that you've overlooked above and makes it possible
to "love the sin but hate the sinner."  Before I look at someone
else's life and sin, I look to myself and am as disgusted by what I see
in *me* as I see in others, probably more.  Self-righteousness is
contradictory to Christianity and is what makes the progression you
describe happen.  If a Christian can truthfully quote Paul and say, "Wretched
man that I am!" [Romans 7:24 (NASB)], that Christian will be able
to love the sinner and hate the sin.  If we have the attitude of the Pharisee 
who said, "I thank Thee that I am not like other men..." [Luke 18:11 (NASB)],
we will hate both.

  -- Scott at Brandeis

	"But God demonstrates His     "The Lord bless you, and keep you;
	 own love for us, in that      the Lord make His face shine on you,
	 while we were yet sinners,    and be gracious to you;
	 Christ died for us."	       the Lord lift up His countenance on you,
				       and give you peace."
		-- Romans 5:8 [NASB]		-- Numbers 6:24-26 [NASB]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21654
From: mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker)
Subject: Re: New thought on Deuterocanonicals

>	2.  It is more likely than not that when St. John (or whomever) wrote
>		the book of Revelation WHAT WAS THEN CONSIDERED SCRIPTURE was
>		** NOT ** the same thing you and I are holding in our hands!

>		Revelation was almost certainly written durin the reign of 
>	Domition (sp?), A.D. 80-96.  Thus it could be argues that we are all
>	in sin if we accept 2 Peter as scripture, since it was "added" to the
>	book after the composition of Revelation, when we are told to add 
>	nothing more.

	Okay, I went back and looked:  sure enough, my hunch was right.
	
		2 Peter was most likely written between 100-120 A.D.
		
		Revelation was almost certainly written between 80-96 A.D.
		
		Odds are the gospel of John was written around 90 A.D.
		
		Best dates for Luke and Acts are around 80 A.D., maybe later.
		
	Again, this is from footnoted information in the New American Bible,
	the best translation I've come across in regards to giving complete
	historical information about each book.
						- Mike
						)

[Of course the folks who you're arguing with almost certainly do
not accept 2 Peter as being pseudonymous.  In that case they'd
have to date it far earlier than this.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21655
From: aidler@sol.uvic.ca (E Alan  Idler)
Subject: Re: New thought on Deuterocanonicals

mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker) writes:

>	Often times (most recently on this list in the last few days) I've
>heard the passage from revelation:

>	"...whoever adds to the sacred words of this book...whoever removes
>	 words from this book..."    

>	 I feel this is ridiculous for two reasons:

[ 2 good reasons deleted.  AI]

>	If one takes the translation of "this book" in REV 18:22 (or somewhere
>	around there) to mean "all of scripture", then all of us are likely
>	holding something that is in violation of this command.

It's even worse than that --

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I 
command you, neither shall ye diminish 
from it" (Deut. 4:2).
Shall we rip out every page from our 
Bibles beginning from Joshua through
Revelation?

A IDLER

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21656
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: Goedel and the ontological argument

Fred Gilham asks whether it is true that Goedel wrote a version of
the ontological argument for the existence of God.

Yes, it is true. Someone has published a rebuttal pointing out
certain flaws in the argument, and recently Professor C Anthony
Anderson, of the Philosophy Department of the University of
Minnesota, has written a revised version of the argument, perhaps
free of flaws, and at any rate free of the flaws complained of in
the original version. He has sent me a copy, which I still have (I
saw it last week when I was looking for something else), and when it
surfaces again I can supply particulars. My guess is that it is
being published (or already has been) in the Journal of Symbolic
Logic.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21657
From: mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Subject: Re: Definition of Christianity?

In article <May.12.04.28.31.1993.9972@athos.rutgers.edu> autry@magellan.stlouis.sgi.com (Larry Autry) writes:
>I have enrolled in "The History of Christianity" at a college here in
>St. Louis. The teacher of the class is what I consider to be
>closed-minded and bigotted on the subject of what the definition of
>Christianity is.  His definition is tied directly to that of the
>Trinity and the Catholic church's definition of it and belief in
>Jesus Christ is not sufficient to call one's self a Christian.
>
What you call "the Trinity and the Catholic church's definition
of it" is precisely the result of the first Christians getting
together and trying to find an acceptable answer to your
question "what is a Christian?". I can't see what you are
objecting to: someone is saying what historians of all beliefs
would agree on, and you are calling him a closed-minded bigot?

You really ought to say what you mean by "belief in Jesus
Christ". It is not a wording that is sufficient to describe a
Christian. Muslims believe in Jesus Christ although they
believe he was a prophet and not the incarnated Son of God. But
followers of Eastern religions might be quite happy to say that
Jesus was the incarnation of God - along with large numbers of
other historical and mythical figures.

So perhaps you ought to rephrase your question and say
precisely what it is in the traditional definitions of what it
is to be a Christian, as handed down by the Universal Church,
you object to but regard as unnecessary for being a Christian.

Matthew Huntbach

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21658
From: tony@scotty.dccs.upenn.edu (Anthony Olejnik)
Subject: How to dispose of old blessed palms?

What is the proper way to dispose of old blessed palms?
I`ve have a bunch that I`ve been holding onto.  In addition,
my mom has been giving me her's.  I used to give them to my
uncle who would burn them (and leave the ashes to seep into the
ground).  Should I do the same?  Could I just bury them?  Could
I add them to my compost bin?

Thanks in advance.

--tony

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21659
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: ARSENOKOITAI 2 -Bailey/Boswell

[continuing with Dr. DeYoung's article-]
 
               SURVEY OF NEW INTERPRETATIONS OF ARSENOKOITAI

D.S. Bailey

     D.S. Bailey was perhaps the trailblazer of new assessments of the meaning
of arsenokoitai.  He takes the term in I Cor 6:9 as denoting males who actively
engage in homosexual acts, in contrast to malakoi ("effeminate"), those who
engage passively in such acts.*4   However, he insists that Paul knew nothing
of "inversion as an inherited trait, or an inherent condition due to
psychological or glandular causes, and consequently regards all homosexual
practice as evidence of perversion" (38).  Hence Bailey limits the term's
reference in Paul's works to acts alone and laments modern translations of the
term as "homosexuals."  Bailey wants to distinguish between "the homosexual
*condition* (which is morally neutral) and homosexual *practices*" [italics in
source].  Paul is precise in his terminology and Moffatt's translation
"sodomites" best represents Paul's meaning in Bailey's judgment (39).  Bailey
clearly denies that the homosexual condition was known by biblical writers.

J. Boswell

     The most influential study of arsenokoitai among contemporary authors is
that of John Boswell.*5    Whereas the usual translation*6  of this term gives
it either explicitly or implicitly an active sense, Boswell gives it a passive
sense.

      In an extended discussion of the term (341-53), he cites "linguistic
evidence and common sense" to support his conclusion that the word means "male
sexual agents, i.e. active male prostitutes."  His argument is that the arseno-
part of the word is adjectival, not the object of the koitai which refers to
base sexual activity.  Hence the term, according to Boswell, designates a male
sexual person or male prostitute.  He acknowledges, however, that most
interpret the composite term as active, meaning "those who sleep with, make
their bed with, men."  Boswell bases his interpretation on linguistics and the
historical setting.  He argues that in some compounds, such as paidomathes
("child learner"), the paido- is the subject of manthano, and in others, such
as paidoporos ("through which a child passes"), the paido- is neither subject
nor object but simply a modifier without verbal significance.  His point is
that each compound must be individually analyzed for its meaning.  More
directly, he maintains that compounds with the Attic form arreno- employ it
objectively while those with the Hellenistic arseno- use it as an adjective
(343).  Yet he admits exceptions to this distinction regarding arreno-.

     Boswell next appeals to the Latin of the time, namely drauci or exoleti. 
These were male prostitutes having men or women as their objects.  The Greek
arsenokoitai is the equivalent of the Latin drauci;  the corresponding passive
would be parakoitai ("one who lies beside"), Boswell affirms.  He claims that
arsenokoitai was the "most explicit word available to Paul for a male
prostitute," since by Paul's time the Attic words pornos ("fornicator") and
porneuon ("one committing fornication"), found also in the LXX, had been
adopted "to refer to men who resorted to female prostitutes or simply committed
fornication."*7

     In the absence of the term from pagan writers such as Herodotus, Plato,
Aristotle, and Plutarch, and from the Jewish writers Philo and Josephus,
Boswell finds even more convincing evidence for his affirmation that
arsenokoitai "did not connote 'homosexual' or even 'sodomite' in the time of
Paul" (346).*8   He also demonstrates its absence in Pseudo-Lucian, Sextus
Empiricus, and Libanius.  He subsequently finds it lacking in "all discussions
of homosexual relation" (346)*9  among Christian sources in Greek, including
the Didache, Tatian, Justin Martyr, Eusebius,*10    Clement of Alexandria,
Gregory of Nyssa, and John Chrysostom.  Chrysostom is singled out for his
omission as "final proof" that the word could not mean homosexuality.*11 

     Boswell next appeals to the omission of the texts of I Cor and I Tim from
discussions of homosexuality among Latin church fathers (348).*12   Cited are
Tertullian, Arnobius, Lactantius, and Augustine.  The last named uses
"circumlocutions."  Other Latin writers include Ausonius, Cyprian, and Minucius
Felix.  The term is also lacking in state and in church legislation.  By the
sixth century the term became confused and was applied to a variety of sexual
activities from child molesting to anal intercourse between a husband and wife
(353).

     Having surveyed the sources, Boswell concludes, 

   There is no reason to believe that either arsenokoitai or malakoi connoted
   homosexuality in the time of Paul or for centuries thereafter, and every
reason
   to suppose that, whatever they came to mean, they were not determinative of
   Christian opinion on the morality of homosexual acts (353).

It is clear throughout that Boswell defines arsenokoitai to refer to male
prostitutes.  He even goes so far as to conclude that Paul would probably not
disapprove of "gay inclination,"  "gay relationships,"  "enduring love between
persons of the same gender," or "same-sex eroticism"  (112, 166-17).


________________________________________________________
4.  D.S. Bailey,  Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. (London:
1975) 38.
5.  J.  Boswell, Christianity,  Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (Chicago:
1980).
6.  Several tranlation of I Tim 1:10 are:  KJV, "them that defile themselves
with mankind";  ASV,  "Abusers of themselves with men";  NASB,  "homosexuals";
RSV, NKJV, NRSV, "sodomites";  NEB, NIV, "perverts"; GNB, "sexual perverts"; In
I COr 6:9 these occur:  KJV, "abusers of themselves with mankind"; ASV,
"Abusers of themselves with men";  NASB, RSV, "homosexuals"; NKJV, "sodomites";
 NEB, "homosexual persversion."  The RSV and NEB derive their translation from
two Greek words, malakoi and arsenokoitai which GBN has as "homosexual
perverts."  NRSV has the two words as "male prostitutes" in the text, and
"sodomites" in the footnote.  The active idea predominates among the
commentators as well;  it is the primary assumption.
7.  Boswell, Christianity 344.  Yet this was no a word "available to Paul for a
male prostitute," for it does not occur at all in any literature prior to Paul
(as a serach in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae using IBYCUC confirms).  If Paul
coined the term, it would have no prior history, and all such discussion about
its lack of usage in contemporary non-Christian and Christian literature is
meaningless.
8.  Again this would be expected if Paul coined the word.
9.  The key phrase here apparently is "discussoin," for Boswell admits later
(350 n.42) that it occurs in quotes of Paul but there is no discussion in the
context.  Hence the implication is that we cannot tell what these writer
(Polycarp "To the Philippian 5:3"; Theophilus "Ad Autolycum 1.2, 2.14";Nilus
"Epistularum libri quattuor 2.282";  Cyril of Alexandria "Homiliae diversae
14"; "Sybilline Oravle 2.13") meant.  Yet Polycarp, who was a disiple of Hohn
the Apostle and died about A.D. 155, argues in the context that young men
should be pure.  He uses only the three terms pornoi, malakoi, and arsenokoitai
from Paul's list.  This at least makes Boswell's use of "all" subjective. 
Apparently Clement of Alexandria "Paedogogus 3.11"; Sromata 3.18"; also belong
here.

10..  Yet Eusebius uses it in "Demonstraionis evangelicae 1."
11.  Either Boswell is misrepresenting the facts about Chrysostom's use of
arsenokoitai and its form (about 20) in the vice lists of I Cor 6 or I Tim 1,
or he is begging the question by denying that the word can mean homosexual when
Chrysostom uses it.  Yet the meaning of arsenokoitai is the goal of his and our
study, whether in the lists or other discussions.  Boswell later admits (351)
that Chrysostom uses the almost identicl form arsenokoitos in his commentary on
I Cor.  Although Boswell suggests that the passage is strange, it may be that
Paul is seeking to make a refinement in arsenokoitai.  
12.  Apparently Jerome is a significant omission here, since he renders
arsenokoitai as "masculorum concubitores," corresponding "almost exactly to the
Greek" (348 n.36).

footnotes:
_______________________
 5.  D.S. Bailey,  Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. (London:
1975) 38.
 6.  J.  Boswell, Christianity,  Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (Chicago:
1980).
   Several tranlation of I Tim 1:10 are:  KJV, "them that defile themselves
with mankind";  ASV,  "Abusers of themselves with men";  NASB,  "homosexuals";
RSV, NKJV, NRSV, "sodomites";  NEB, NIV, "perverts"; GNB, "sexual perverts"; In
I COr 6:9 these occur:  KJV, "abusers of themselves with mankind"; ASV,
"Abusers of themselves with men";  NASB, RSV, "homosexuals"; NKJV, "sodomites";
 NEB, "homosexual persversion."  The RSV and NEB derive their translation from
two Greek words, malakoi and arsenokoitai which GBN has as "homosexual
perverts."  NRSV has the two words as "male prostitutes" in the text, and
"sodomites" in the footnote.  The active idea predominates among the
commentators as well;  it is the primary assumption.
 7.  Boswell, Christianity 344.  Yet this was no a word "available to Paul for
a male prostitute," for it does not occur at all in any literature prior to
Paul (as a serach in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae using IBYCUC confirms).  If
Paul coined the term, it would have no prior history, and all such discussion
about its lack of usage in contemporary non-Christian and Christian literature
is meaningless.
 8.  Again this would be expected if Paul coined the word.
 9.  The key phrase here apparently is "discussoin," for Boswell admits later
(350 n.42) that it occurs in quotes of Paul but there is no discussion in the
context.  Hence the implication is that we cannot tell what these writer
(Polycarp "To the Philippian 5:3"; Theophilus "Ad Autolycum 1.2, 2.14";Nilus
"Epistularum libri quattuor 2.282";  Cyril of Alexandria "Homiliae diversae
14"; "Sybilline Oravle 2.13") meant.  Yet Polycarp, who was a disiple of Hohn
the Apostle and died about A.D. 155, argues in the context that young men
should be pure.  He uses only the three terms pornoi, malakoi, and arsenokoitai
from Paul's list.  This at least makes Boswell's use of "all" subjective. 
Apparently Clement of Alexandria "Paedogogus 3.11"; Sromata 3.18"; also belong
here.

 10.  Yet Eusebius uses it in "Demonstraionis evangelicae 1."
 11.  Either Boswell is misrepresenting the facts about Chrysostom's use of
arsenokoitai and its form (about 20) in the vice lists of I Cor 6 or I Tim 1,
or he is begging the question by denying that the word can mean homosexual when
Chrysostom uses it.  Yet the meaning of arsenokoitai is the goal of his and our
study, whether in the lists or other discussions.  Boswell later admits (351)
that Chrysostom uses the almost identicl form arsenokoitos in his commentary on
I Cor.  Although Boswell suggests that the passage is strange, it may be that
Paul is seeking to make a refinement in arsenokoitai.  
 12.  Apparently Jerome is a significant omission here, since he renders
arsenokoitai as "masculorum concubitores," corresponding "almost exactly to the
Greek" (348 n.36).
Next:
R. Scroggs

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21660
From: maridai@comm.mot.com (Marida Ignacio)
Subject: Re: Bernadette dates


    |JEK@cu.nih.gov writes:                                            
    |Joe Moore writes:                                                 
    |                                                                  
    | > Mary at that time appeared to a girl named Bernadette at       
    | > Lourdes.  She referred to herself as the Immaculate Conception.
    | > Since a nine year old would have no way of knowing about the   
    | > doctrine, the apparition was deemed to be true and it sealed   
    | > the case for the doctrine.                                     
    |Bernadette was 14 years old when she had her visions, in 1858,    
    |four years after the dogma had been officially proclaimed by the  
    |Pope.                                                             
    |                                                                  
    | Yours,                                                           
    | James Kiefer

I forgot exactly what her age was but I remember clearly
that she was born in a family of poverty and she did not
have any education, whatsoever, at the age of the apparitions.
She suffered from asthma at that age and she and her family were
living in a prison cell of some sort.

She had to ask the 'Lady' several times in her apparitions about 
what her name was since her confessor priest asked her to do so.  
For several instances, the priest did not get an answer since 
Bernadette did not receive any.  One time, after several apparitions
passed, The Lady finally said, "I am the Immaculate Conception".
So, Bernadette, was so happy and repeated these words over and
over in her mind so as not to forget it before she told the
priest who was asking.  So, when she told the priest, the
priest was shocked and asked Bernadette, "Do you know what
you are talking about?".  Bernadette did not know what exactly
it meant but she was just too happy to have the answer for
the priest.  The priest continued with, "How did you remember
this if you do not know?".  Bernadette answered honestly that
she had to repeat it over and over in her mind while on her
way to the priest...

The priest knew about the dogma being four years old then.
But Bernadette did not know and yet she had the answer which
the priest finally observed and took as proof of an authentic
personal revelation of Our Lady to Bernadette.

(Note: This Lady of Lourdes shrine has a spring of water which
our lady requested Bernadette to dig up herself with her
bare hands in front of pilgrims.  At the start little
water flowed but after several years there is more water 
flowing.)

-Marida
 "...spreading God's words through actions..."
 -Mother Teresa

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21661
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse--King James. Compare this with previous version from NIV.

But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet
from fear of evil.

Proverbs 1:33

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21662
From: af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.)
Subject: Re: _Christianity In Crisis_

From Bit.listserv.christia

Zane writes...
 
From: FACN34B@SAUPM00.BITNET (zane of dhahan)
>Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Christianity in Crisis
Date: Wed May 12 14:43:19 1993
 
"Frank, first of all, thanks for all of the great Scripture verses.  It
was a pleasure to read them."
 
MY REPLY...
You are welcome, Zane.
 
Zane...
"I am sure nothing that I will say will change your mind about it... but I
would like to ask you if the book in question really does anything for you.
I mean, were you all caught up in the word/faith thing, but now that you
have read the book you've been rescued from all of the error and pain that
will result in your Christian life?"
 
MY REPLY...
(1) When I first became a Christian, I entered into the Word/Faith
    movement.  It was easy.  I wasn't grounded in the Word of God and sound
    doctrine.  When I visited Christian book stores, the cheapest books I
    could find to buy were the .50 and $1.00 books by Hagin and others.
    Consequently, I began receiving Hagin's monthly magazine (and they
    still send it to me), and also Copeland's (also, still sent to me).
    It wasn't until I read a booklet by Jimmy Swaggart called _Hyper Faith:
    The New Gnosticism_ that I began to realize the teachings I were
    partaking of were error.  I started reading the Bible more and studying
    more.  Sure enough, Jimmy was right in many points.  As part of my
    experience, I am alerting Christians, particularly new Christians, that
    these teachings are heretical and they need to do as the Bereans did in
    Acts 17:11 - check these teachings out with Scripture!
 
(2) My brother in law was involved in a Word/Faith "cult" in my area - it's
    leader is real good friends with Benny Hinn.  Rather then going into
    much detail about this, suffice it to say he was deceived, mistreated, and
    has now fallen into atheism.  I'm still praying for him (Phil. 1:6).
 
(3) The assistant pastor at the church I teach adult Sunday School in has been
    a `follower' of Copeland for 15 years.  He has thousands of tapes by the
    Faith teachers.  In the class recently, I quoted several of the teachers'
    heretical statements to his surprise.  Since then, I've been able to talk
    to him at length about these issues.
 
(4) The leader of the Women's Group at my church is a Benny Hinn `fan'.
    Recently, I found that she has been lending _Good Morning, Holy Spirit_ to
    women in the church.  That prompted my quotes in Sunday School, as well as
    my lending CIC to people in the church.
 
I'm well aware of the abuses and heresies perpetrated in this movement and
have an urgency in my heart and life to warn people about the heresies.
What heresies?
    A. Jesus became sin - took on the very nature of the devil, and became
        one with him.
    B. Jesus' death on the cross wasn't enough to atone.
    C. Jesus was dragged to hell after His death, was beat and abused by
        Satan and demons, thus finishing our atonement.  Satan was ruling
        over Him there.
    D. Jesus was `born-again' in hell.
    E. Jesus died spiritually, lost His divinity, and reassumed it after
        the resurrection.
    F. We are gods.
 
These are heresies.  Documentation will be provided re: these teachings
upon request.
 
Zane...
"Or what does it do for you?  Is it preventing you from going out and
joining up with the word/faith movement which you'd been contemplating
joining for so long, but now that you've read the book, you've been saved
from all of that?"
 
MY REPLY...
It wasn't _Christianity In Crisis_ that helped me; it was a booklet by
Swaggart that I mentioned above.  But CIC is MUCH, MUCH better - tremendous
documentation and insights.
 
Zane...
"I don't have a nice Scriptural answer for why I believe it is at best un-
profitable for Christians to engage in this type of activity - heresy hunting."
 
MY REPLY...
Why do you call it "heresy hunting"?  "Hunting" implies it isn't readily
accessible or available.  This movement is the fastest growing movement in
Christendom.  Hagin has sold over 40 million books and booklets.  Hinn has sold
more books in the last couple of years than Swindoll and Dobson combined.  Fred
Price has the largest church in terms of seating capacity in the USA.  Doesn't
sound like much "hunting" is needed.
 
It is Scriptural to expose doctrinal error.  I gave some verses to you before.
More can be given.  Most of the epistles were written due to error (doctrinal,
practical) in the churches.  The early church had numerous councils to expose
error and heresy.  It's not a new thing.  Remember Luther?
 
Zane...
"I would like to point out though, that historically those who hunt heretics
often end up causing a bigger mess than the heretics... but this is my un-
documented opinion."
 
MY REPLY...
(1) If you can provide documentation, it would be appreciated.
(2) Read Ephesians 4:11-16, esp. vss. 13 and 14 and tell me what causes
    disunity and immaturity in the body.
 
EPH 4:13-14 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of
the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness
of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried
about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning
craftiness of deceitful plotting....
 
Disunity, contrary to popular opinion, isn't caused by exposing error; it's
caused by error.
 
Zane...
"There are many who probably give no place for seeing the Scriptures as
documenting a Spiritual development or growth in its writers - but I would
suggest that the fiery Paul of the letter to the Galatians mellows and
matures into the one who loses all for the sake of Love in the End."
 
MY REPLY...
Most scholars believe Paul wrote 2 Timothy last.  Let's examine his admonitions
to Tim to ascertain how mellow he had become...
 
2TI 1:13-15 Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me,
in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was
committed to you, keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us. This you know, that
all those in Asia have turned away from me, among whom are Phygellus and
Hermogenes.
 
2TI 2:15-18 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does
not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane
and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. And their
message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who
have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already
past; and they overthrow the faith of some.
 
2TI 2:24-26 And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all,
able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if
God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and
that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having
been taken captive by him to do his will.
 
2TI 3:6-9 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make
captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts,
always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as
Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of
corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith; but they will progress no
further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was.
 
2TI 3:12-17 Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer
persecution. But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving
and being deceived. But you must continue in the things which you have learned
and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from
childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise
for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by
inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be
complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
 
2TI 4:2-5 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince,
rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come
when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires,
because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and
they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.
But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an
evangelist, fulfill your ministry.
 
2TI 4:14-15 Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm. May the Lord repay him
according to his works. You also must beware of him, for he has greatly
resisted our words.
 
Zane...
"The picture I have of Paul is not of one who goes out of his way to destroy
the ministry of wolves... but of one who teaches the sheep, with many tears,
the necessity of absolutely not allowing themselves to be transformed into
wolves to protect themselves."
 
MY REPLY...
ACT 20:26-31 "Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the
blood of all men. "For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel
of God. "Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which
the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He
purchased with His own blood. "For I know this, that after my departure savage
wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. "Also from among
yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the
disciples after themselves. "Therefore watch, and remember that for three years
I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.
 
Zane...
"For all the warning Paul does, it is of note that he never once drops a name
of a wolf....  - but I will admit he cries in his beard at the end over those
who have abandoned him - everyone in Asia wasn't it ?"
 
MY REPLY...
Paul mentioned names...
 
1TI 1:18-20 This charge I commit to you, son Timothy, according to the
prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may wage the good
warfare, having faith and a good conscience, which some having rejected,
concerning the faith have suffered shipwreck, of whom are Hymenaeus and
Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.
 
2TI 1:15 This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me, among
whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
 
2TI 2:16-18 But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more
ungodliness. And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus
are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the
resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some.
 
2TI 4:10 for Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world, and has
departed for Thessalonica--Crescens for Galatia, Titus for Dalmatia.
 
2TI 4:14-15 Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm. May the Lord repay him
according to his works. You also must beware of him, for he has greatly
resisted our words.
 
So did John...
 
3JO 1:9-10 I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the
preeminence among them, does not receive us. Therefore, if I come, I will call
to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And
not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids
those who wish to, putting them out of the church.
 
Jesus also singled out teachings and doctrines...
 
REV 2:14-16 "But I have a few things against you, because you have there those
who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block
before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit
sexual immorality. "Thus you also have those who hold the doctrine of the
Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. 'Repent, or else I will come to you quickly
and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth.
 
REV 2:20-23 "Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow
that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My
servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. "And I
gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent.
"Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her
into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. "I will kill her
children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches
the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your
works.
 
Zane...
"I question too, the purposes of those who write books and build ministries
on the faults - deliberate or otherwise - of others.  Maybe if they would
wander around in the desert eating locust and honey, or barely cakes...with
no worldly goods at stake, money to be made, or no reputations to maintain...
I would question their motives - conscious or otherwise - less."
 
MY REPLY...
I won't comment on this because it deals with the intangible motives of others.
But even if they had bad motives, remember what Paul said...
 
PHI 1:15-18 Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also
from good will: The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely,
supposing to add affliction to my chains; but the latter out of love, knowing
that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. What then? Only that in
every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I
rejoice, yes, and will rejoice.
 
Zane...
"If we want to be true to the admonitions of Scripture - many of which you
list - about protecting ourselves and the flock from wolves and winds of
doctrines, I suggest we start by allowing the wolf-program in our own noetic
pasture to be nailed to the Cross."
 
MY REPLY...
Please explain.
 
Zane...
"Secondly, I suggest any heresy hunting be restricted to our own fellowships -
which in the strict Scriptural sense is the local city-church."
 
MY REPLY...
If heresy was not being propagated over the mass media, then it may not be
needed to go mass media with the exposure.  Unfortunately, heresy is being
taught not just in Copeland's church or Hagin's or Hinn's or Price's, but all
over the radio, in print, etc.  No pastor or church leader knows what materials
the sheep are feeding on outside the church.  It's imperative that leadership
be made aware of this, and CIC does just that.
 
Also, let's examine a passage of Scripture...
* EPH 4:11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some
evangelists, and some pastors and teachers,
* EPH 4:12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the
edifying of the body of Christ,
 
These ministry gifts that the Lord installs in the church are not just for one
individual church, but for "the body of Christ".
Paul was an apostle - he traveled all over distilling his message.  He was also
a teacher -
1CO 4:17 For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and
faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach
everywhere in every church.
1CO 7:17 But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each
one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches.
 
Also -
1CO 12:28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second
prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps,
administrations, varieties of tongues.
 
* EPH 4:13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of
the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness
of Christ;
 
Notice that the "Five-Fold" ministries are going to be around "till" the church
is in "unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God to a perfect
man".  This, I believe will not occur fully until the Lord Jesus returns (see
1Cor. 13:9-12).  But God wants the body to continue on maturing.  What hinders
maturity and unity of the body?
 
* EPH 4:14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried
about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning
craftiness of deceitful plotting,
 
It's clear that false doctrine, integrated into the church "by the trickery of
men" causes (1) disunity [the thing we are striving for] and (2) spiritual
immaturity - the church continues in spiritual childhood when Christians are
"tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine".
 
The "Five -Fold" ministry, of which there does not appear to be clear
Scriptural denominational boundaries ("pastors" appear responsible for their
individual flock), is to deal with these doctrines (when necessary) in their
struggle to equip the body.
 
All believers are called to do this to a degree...
JUD 1:3-4 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our
common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend
earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. For
certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this
condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny
the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.
 
Zane...
"If you'll notice, in Scripture the heresy hunters that went from Church to
Church and area to area, were the "bad guys" and they went after the "good guy"
namely Paul - who they considered to be the arch heretic."
 
MY REPLY...
They were themselves heretics trying to discredit Paul who was preaching
contrary to what they taught!
 
Zane...
"Let's face it, the wolves are here for a reason.  And we are here for the
Reason.  And let's hope the wolves become sheep, and the sheep, lambs."
 
MY REPLY...
Yes!
2TI 2:24-26 And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all,
                                                           ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  ~~
God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having
been taken captive by him to do his will.
 
AMEN!


Frank
-- 
"If one wished to contend with Him, he could not answer Him one time out
 of a thousand."  JOB 9:3

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21663
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius A. Lecointe)
Subject: Christianity and holy things

Ezek 22:26 God seems to be upset with the priests who have made no
difference between the holy and the profane.  This brought to my mind a
sermon I heard recently in which the speaker said "God's second name does
not begin with a D" referring, I believe, to use of God's holy name and
titles as swear words.  I was also reminded of the experience of Moses at
the burning bush when God told him "Take off your sandals, for the place
where you are standing is holy ground."

These and other texts seem to imply that God's people must treat holy
things differently from other "common" things, or "make a difference"
between holy and common things.

The obvious questions are 

What makes something holy? and How are Christians (primarily) supposed to
make this difference between holy and common things?  (e.g. God's name,
the Holy Spirit, the Holy Bible, etc.)

Darius

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21664
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse

but whoever listens to me will live in safety and be at ease, without fear of
harm." 
Proverbs 1:33

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21665
From: mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker)
Subject: Re: On Capital Punishment

gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock) writes:

>Regarding the new draft of the Universal Catechism:

>	In procuring the common good of society the need could arise
>	that the aggressor be placed in the position where he cannot
>	cause harm.  By virtue of this, the right and obligation of 
>	public authorities to punish with proportionate penalties,
>	including the death penalty, is acknowledged.  ...
>	...  To the degree that means other than the death
>	penalty and military operations are sufficient to keep the
>	peace, then these non-violent provisions are to be preferred
>	because they are more in proportion and in keeping with the
>	final goal of protection of peace and human dignity.  

		EXACTLY!!  Read that one sentence in there..."to the degree
	that means other than the death penalty and military operations are
	sufficient to keep the peace, then these non-violent provisions are to
	be preferred..."

	I don't believe that it is necessary for us to murder criminals to keep
	the peace; the Church in the United States feels the same way, thus the
	reason that the Catholic Church has opposed every execution in this
	country in recent memory.

>As is clearly shown by this excerpt, the Church's teaching on capital
>punishment remains today as it has always been in the past - in total
>accord with my sentiment that I do not disagree with the use of deadly
>force in those cases for which this option is justifiable.  

	So what is justifiable?  As you stated very explicitly from the new
	Catechism, the only justifiable case is when it is necessary to keep
	the peace.  Since that does not apply *at all* to this country, the
	logical conclusion (based on your own premises) is that one must be
	opposed to *any* form of capital punishment in America.


		Just my opinions.
				Mike Walker
				Univ. of Illinois

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21666
From: faith@world.std.com (Seth W McMan)
Subject: Re: homosexual issues in Christianity

In article <May.11.02.36.34.1993.28074@athos.rutgers.edu> mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server) writes:

>I can see that some of the above verses do not clearly address the issues, 
>however, a couple of them seem as though they do not require "incredibly 
>perverse interpretations" in order to be seen as condemning homosexuality.
...
>Would someone care to comment on the fact that the above seems to say
>fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of God?  How does this apply
>to homosexuals?  I understand "fornication" to be sex outside of
>marriage.  Is this an accurate definition?  Is there any such thing as
>same-sex marriage in the Bible?  My understanding has always been that
>the New Testament blesses sexual intercourse only between a husband
>and his wife.  I am, however, willing to listen to Scriptural evidence
>to the contrary.

If we take things this literally then we must also forbid women from
speaking in church. Paul while led by the holy spirit was human and could
err. I find it interesting that CHRIST never discussed the issue of
homosexuality, certainly it existed back then and if it was a serious
transgression CHRIST would have condemned it. 
I find it disturbing that the modern church spends its energy trying
to stamp out something that CHRIST didn't consider worth a single word
of condemnation. CHRIST repeatedly warns us against judgement. 
Don't we risk "judgement in equal measure" when we condemn people who 
GOD himself did not judge when he walked on the earth?

-- 
   |         The love of CHRIST is contagious!       
 --+--                                          
   |                                                

[I should not that many of our readers do in fact advocate forbiding
women from speaking in church.  This is an issue we have discussed
in the past, and I'm not interested in redoing.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21667
From: cox@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (Sherman Cox)
Subject: Re: hate the sin...

scott@prism.gatech.edu (Scott Holt) writes:

>"Hate the sin but love the sinner"...I've heard that quite a bit recently, 
>often in the context of discussions about Christianity and homosexuality...
>but the context really isn't that important. My question is whether that
>statement is consistent with Christianity. I would think not.

>Hate begets more hate, never love. Consider some sin. I'll leave it unnamed
>since I don't want this to digress into an argument as to whether or not 
>something is a sin. Now lets apply our "hate the sin..." philosophy and see
>what happens. If we truly hate the sin, then the more we see it, the 
>stronger our hatred of it will become. Eventually this hate becomes so 
>strong that we become disgusted with the sinner and eventually come to hate
>the sinner. In addition, our hatred of the sin often causes us to say and 

That is an assumption on your part.  Where is your proof that one always will
degenerate into hating the sinner, because he hates the sin.

I am reminded of the Civil Rights movement in America.  It is true that many
individuals hated the proponents of racism.  It is also true that many 
individuals hated segregation and discrimination with their whole heart and
never degenerated into hating the individuals who practiced it.  Dr. King's
message was this.  Love the individual, the loving of the individual would
transform him into a friend.  However, this did not take away his hatred for
segregation.  His hatred for injustice.  


>In the summary of the law, Christ commands us to love God and to love our 
>neighbors. He doesn't say anything about hate. In fact, if anything, he 
>commands us to save our criticisms for ourselves. So, how are Christians
>supposed to deal with the sin of others? I suppose that there is only one
>way to deal with sin (either in others or ourselves)...through prayer. We
>need to ask God to help us with our own sin, and to help those we love 
>with theirs. Only love can conquer sin...hatred has no place. The best way to
>love someone is to pray for them. 

I would ask, "Did John the Baptist practice love when he criticized the Jewish
Leaders of his day?"  Did Jesus Practice love when he threw the moneychangers
out of the temple?

We must have at least a distase for sin.  We must in order to fight it in 
ourselves.  Also we must be ready for the call from God to call sin by its
right name.  Jesus loved everyone, but he called sin by its right name.

It is true that love for others is to guide every step of our walk, but it is
also true that sometimes the love for God calls us to stand up for truth.

--
"Competition is the law of the jungle.
 Cooperation is the law of civilization."  --  Eldridge Cleaver

Sherman Cox, II		scox@uahcs2.cs.uah.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21668
From: ossm1jl@rex.re.uokhsc.edu (Justin Lee)
Subject: Re: Satan kicked out of heaven: Biblical?

[Someone asked about Biblical support for the image of Satan as
a fallen angel.  Rev 12:7-9 and Enoch have been cited.  --clh]

There is also a verse in Luke(?) that says He[Jesus] saw Satan fall
from Heaven.  It's something like that.  I don't have my Bible in
front of me or I would quote it directly, but it's a pretty obvious
reference to Satan's expulsion.

Justin

[I believe the reference is to Luke 10:18.  The context of the passage
makes it possible that Jesus is referring to Satan being defeated by
Jesus' mission, rather than a previous fall from heaven.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21669
From: maureen@scicom.alphacdc.com (Maureen Brucker)
Subject: Is this ethical?

The following was published in the May 15th Rocky Mountain News.  I
guess I have some REAL ethical problems with the practices at this
church.  I understand that Baptism is an overriding factor.  I also
understand that this is not an honest way to proceed.  Unfortunately,
this is becoming more typical of congregations as the Second Coming is
perceived to approach.

There is a real element of disparation in this 'make it happen at any
cost' style of theology.  I wonder where TRUST IN THE LORD fits into
this equation?

Baptisms draw parents' ire -- Children at church carnival in Springs
told they'd be killed by bee stings if they didn't submit to religious
rite.

By Dick Foster -- Rocky Mountain News Southern Bureau

Colorado Springs -- Outraged parents say their children were lured to
a church carnival and then baptixed without their permission by a
Baptist minister.

Doxens of children, some as young as 8 years old and unaccompanied by
their parents, thought they were going to a carnival at the
Cornerstone Baptist Church, where there would be a big water fight,
free balloons, squirt guns and candy.

Before that May 1 carnival was over, however, children were whisked
into a room for religious instruction and told they should be
baptized.  In many cases they consented, although they or their
families are not of the Baptist faith.

The baptisms by the church have angered many parents, including
Paulette Lamontagne, a Methodist and mother of twin 8-year-old girls
who were baptized without her knowledge or consent.

'My understnading was they were going to a carnival.  I feel that's a
false pretense,' said Lamontagne.  Her daughters said the minister
told them they would be killed by bee stings if they were not
baptized.

Cornerstone church officials defended their actions.

'We take our instructions from the word of God and God has commanded
us to baptize converts.  No one can show me one passage in the Bible
where it says that parental permission is required before a child is
baptized,' said Dan Irwin, associate pastor of the Cornerstone Baptist
Church.

Church officials did not tell parents their children would be baptized
because 'they didn't ask,' Irwin said.

Many other parents also felt they were simply sending their children
to a carnival at the invitation of their children's friends who were
members of the Cornerstone Church.

Police said chhurch officials had broken on laws in baptizing the
children, but indicated the parents could pursue civil action.

-------------------------------------------
Aren't these the same behaviors we condemn
in the Hari Krishnas and other cults?

[I think the issues are more complex than the newspaper account
mentions.  First, I'm not entirely sure that parental consent is
absolutely required.  This would be extremely difficult, because of
the clear commandment to obey parents.  But if an older child insisted
on being baptized without their parents' consent, I might be willing
to do it.  However this would be a serious step, and would warrant
much careful discussion.  The problem I find here is not so much
parental consent as that there was nobody's consent.  Whether you
believe in infant baptism or not, baptism is supposed to be the sign
of entry into a Christian community.  If there isn't a commitment from
*somebody*, whether parent or child, and no intent to become part of
the Church, the baptism appears to be a lie.  Furthermore, it is
likely to raise serious practical problems.  What if the child is from
a baptist tradition?  Normally when he reaches the age of decision, he
would be expected to make a decision and be baptized.  But he already
has been, by a church claiming to be a Baptist church.  So does he get
rebaptized?  Neither answer is really very good.  If not, he's being
robbed of an experience that should be very significant to his faith.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21670
From: balsamo@stargl.enet.dec.com (Antonio L. Balsamo (Save the wails))
Subject: Re: hate the sin...


   >From: scott@prism.gatech.edu (Scott Holt)
   >Subject: hate the sin...
   >Date: 12 May 93 08:27:08 GMT

   >"Hate the sin but love the sinner"...I've heard that quite a bit recently,
   >My question is whether that statement is consistent with Christianity. I
   >would think not.  Hate begets more hate, never love.

       If you are questioning whether or not "hating sin" is consistent with
   Christianity; I ask you to consider the following Scripture:

       Romans 12:9 "Let Love be without hypocrisy.  Hate what is evil, cling
                    to what is good."

       What is it that Paul, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is
   calling us to hate?  Would God call us to do something that would
   eventually lead to hating our fellow man; especially when he commands us to
   do the opposite, to love your fellow man?

   >Consider some sin. Now lets apply our "hate the sin..." philosophy and see
   >what happens. If we truly hate the sin, then the more we see it, the
   >stronger our hatred of it will become. Eventually this hate becomes so
   >strong that we become disgusted with the sinner and eventually come to
   >hate the sinner.

       That has not been my experience.  I've not found myself hating anybody
   as a result of hating the sin that may be in their life.  As a sinner
   myself, I find myself having more compassion for the person.  Jesus too,
   since the Bible teaches that he was tempted in every way that we are, is
   able to have compassion on us when we our tempted and fall.  Jesus is our
   very example of HOW to hate the sin but love the sinner.  In the account of
   the woman caught in adultery (John 8), Jesus had compassion on the woman;
   BUT he also called her to leave her life of sin.  This is what it means to
   love sinners but hate their sin; it means loving them unconditionally,
   while at the same time calling them to leave their sin.

   >In addition, our hatred of the sin often causes us to say and do things
   >which are taken personally by the sinner (who often does not even believe
   >what they are doing is a sin).

       The blame for this can not always be laid at the feet of the
   Christian.  I have seen and been guilty of taking offense by someone merely
   pointing out my sin and calling me to repent of it.  It was not unloving
   for the Christian to call me out of sin; in fact, I believe it was the most
   loving thing that that person could have done.  He loved me enough to want
   to spare me the consequence of remaining in my sin.

   >After enough of this, the sinner begins to hate us (they certainly don't
   >love us for our constant criticism of their behavior). Hate builds up and
   >drives people away from God...this certainly cannot be a good way to build
   >love.

       Again, I don't think that you can lay the blame for this at the feet of
   the Christian.  If we have loved them as Jesus loved sinners (exemplified
   in John 8) and the sinner hates us for it, then we have done the best we
   can.  We will have extended to them the most perfect expression of love and
   they will have rejected it.

       Now it we hate the sin but forget to love the sinner, then indeed, we
   will, ourselves, be in sin.

   >In the summary of the law, Christ commands us to love God and to love our
   >neighbors. He doesn't say anything about hate.

       I would like to encourage you to do a word study on HATE in the New
   Testament.  I really think that you will be surprised.

   >In fact, if anything, he commands us to save our criticisms for ourselves.

       Criticism is very different from calling a sinner to repent.

   Hope this helps,
   In Christ,
   Tony Balsamo
--

            +--------------------------------------------------+
            |   Name: Antonio L. Balsamo             /_/\/\    |
            |Company: Digital Equipment Corp.        \_\  /    |
            |         Shrewsbury, Mass.              /_/  \    |
            | Work #: (508) 841-2039                 \_\/\ \   |
            | E-mail: balsamo@stargl.enet.dec.com       \_\/   |
            +--------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21671
From: swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com (Stan Friesen)
Subject: Re: Definition of Christianity?

In article <May.12.04.28.31.1993.9972@athos.rutgers.edu>, autry@magellan.stlouis.sgi.com (Larry Autry) writes:
|> ... the subject of what the definition of
|> Christianity is.  His definition is tied directly to that of the
|> Trinity and the Catholic church's definition of it and belief in
|> Jesus Christ is not sufficient to call one's self a Christian.
|> ...
|> So, is there common definition of what Christianity is?

The basic definition that I use is:
	The belief that Jesus was God incarnate.
	The belief that Jesus was crucified and raised from the dead
	for our salvation.
	The acceptance of Jesus as personal Lord and Savior.

This would include most Christian denominations, but exclude the Unitarians.
	
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21672
From: swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com (Stan Friesen)
Subject: Re: What WAS the immaculate conception

[Someone quoted the following.  I've removed the name because it's not
clear which name goes with which level of quote.  --clh]

>     ... And to Holy Mary, Virgin is invariably added, for that Holy Woman
>     remains undefiled.
>                 -- St. Epiphanus of Salamis, "Panacea against all heresies",
>                    between A.D. 374-377.

>     ... For the Lord Jesus would not have chosen
>     to be born of a virgin if He had judged that she would be so incontinent
>     as to taint the birthplace of the Body of the Lord, home of the Eternal
>     King, with the seed of human intercourse.  ...
>                 -- Pope St. Siricius, Letter to Anysius, Bishop of 
>                    Thessalonica, A.D. 392

On the basis of these examples I would say that Joe Moore was only wrong
in claiming Augustine as a prime mover of the sin=sex view.  These quotes
clearly equate sexuality with defilement and incontinance, even within
the marriage relationship (else they would not apply to Mary after her marriage
to Joseph).

So Joe's assignment of the reasoning behind the concept of the perpetual
virginity of Mary does seem to be supported by these quotes.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21673
From: duncans@phoenix.princeton.edu (Duncan Eric Smith)
Subject: Verse divisions

I'm wondering if anyone knows the answer to a rather trivial question which
I've been thinking about: What was the process used to divide the Bible into
verses. I believe Jerome divided the New Testament, but I've never seen any
discussion of *how* he did this. It seems rather arbitrary, as opposed to, for
example, making each sentence a verse.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21674
From: vek@allegra.att.com (Van Kelly)
Subject: Re: hate the sin...

scott@prism.gatech.edu (Scott Holt) writes:

   "Hate the sin but love the sinner"...I've heard that quite a bit recently, 
   ....  My question is whether that statement is consistent with Christianity.
   I would think not.

   Hate begets more hate, never love. ....

   In the summary of the law, Christ commands us to love God and to love our 
   neighbors. He doesn't say anything about hate. In fact, if anything, he 
   commands us to save our criticisms for ourselves. ....

   - Scott

I too dislike the phrase "Hate the sin, love the sinner".  Maybe the
definite article is also part of the problem, since it seems to give
us license to fixate on our brother's peculiar pecadillo which we have
managed to escape by a common grace of heredity, economic situation, or
culture.  Our outrage at evil is too often just a cheap shot.

That said, I don't think Scott has adequately explored the flip side
of this coin, namely the love of righteousness.  In the Beatitudes,
Jesus blessed those who hungered and thirsted for righteousness.  In
the New Testament, it is never enough just to behave well, one should
always actively desire and work for the cause of good.  In that sense,
it should be impossible to remain dispassionate about evil and its
victims, even when these are its accomplices as well.

Maybe "mourn sin, love sinners" catches the idea slightly better than
"hate", but only slightly, since grief usually implies a passive
powerless position.  A balanced Christian response needs grief, love,
and carefully measured, constructive anger.  Jesus has all three.  The
European pietists during WWII whose response to Nazi atrocities was
devoid of anger do not fare well as role models, however much love or
grief they exemplified.

My sister is an actress in New York and a Christian.  A few years
back, Jack, her long-time professional friend and benefactor, died of
AIDS, impoverished by medical bills, estranged from his family, and
abandoned by most of his surviving friends.  Only my sister and
brother-in-law were there with him at the very end.  In her grief over
Jack's death, my sister found quite a few targets for anger: callous
bureaucracies, the rigid self-protective moralism of Jack's family,
the inertia in Christians' response to AIDS, and, yes, even Jack's own
lapse in morality that eventually cost him his life.  Jack himself
shared that last anger.  Brought up with strong Christian values, he
was contrite over his brief dalliance with promiscuous sex long before
his AIDS appeared.  (I imply no moral judgement here about Jack's
innate sexual orientation, n.b.)

Maybe the hardest job is making our anger constructive.

Van Kelly
vek@research.att.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21675
From: idqm400@indyvax.iupui.edu
Subject: Knights of Columbus


	The initiations ceremony for Knights ous is almost
as secretive as that for the Mafia.

What are the phases of initation and why the secretiveness?


Dale   idqm400@indyvax.iupui.edu
                                                                

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21676
From: faith@world.std.com (Seth W McMan)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <May.13.02.31.16.1993.1569@geneva.rutgers.edu> djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson) writes:
>Ok, what's more important to gay Christians?  Sex, or Christianity?
>Christianity I would hope.  Would they be willing to forgo sex
>completely, in order to avoid being a stumbling block to others,
>to avoid the chance that their interpretation might be wrong,
>etc?  If not, why not?  Heterosexuals abstain all the time.
>(It would be nice if protestant churches had celibate orders
>to show the world that sex is not the important thing in life)

The biblical arguments against homosexuality are weak at best, yet
Christ is quite clear about our obligations to the poor. How as 
Christians can we demand celibacy from homosexuals when we walk
by homeless people and ignore the pleas for help? 
Christ is quite clear on our obligations to the poor.

Thought for the day:

MAT 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but
considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to
thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam
is in thine own eye?  
-- 
  |     The Love of Christ is contagious.
--+--  MAT 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are 
  |    like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, 
  |    but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21677
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <May.13.02.30.39.1993.1545@geneva.rutgers.edu> noye@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>[...]  i believe that the one
>important thing that those who wrote the old and new testament
>passages cited above did NOT know was that there is scientific
>evidence to support that homosexuality is at least partly _inherent_
>rather than completely learned.  this means that to a certain extent
>-- or to a great extent -- homosexuals cannot choose how to feel [...]

But one of the most basic concepts of Christian morality is that we
all have defective appetites due to original sin.  Not just
homosexuals, but everybody.  Thus we are not entitled to indulge in
whatever behavior our bodies want us to.

I think we need to keep clear the distinction between homosexual
_behavior_ (which is wrong) and homosexual _orientation_ (which is not
a sin, merely a misfortune).

[Please: NO EMAIL REPLIES.  Respond in this public forum.]
-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21678
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: eros in LXX: concluding lexicographic note

This might be better directed to s.r.c.bible-study, which I have begun
reading, but since my earlier notes were posted to this forum, I will
conclude here as well.  A week ago, I managed to find time to consult
a Septuagint Concordance and a LXX text with apparatus at the library,
and I can now usefully conclude my look at the Greek words for love as
used in the Christian background of the Septuagintal translation of the
Jewish scriptures.

The principal result is that there is a cluster of uses of the verbal
noun from _erao:_, _eraste:s_ meaning "lover."  This cluster occurs just
where one might most expect it, in the propethic image (and accusation)
of Israel as faithless spouse to YHWH.  The verses in question are Hosea
2:5,7 & 10; Jeremiah 4:30, 22:20 & 22; Lamentations 1:19; and Ezekiel
16:33, 36 &37 and 23:5, 9 & 22.

	[ Hosea seems to have originated this usage, which Jeremiah and
	  Ezekiel picked up;  Lamentations is dependent on, though not
	  likely written by, Jeremiah. ]

The "erotic" meaning (in its allegorical use, not at all literally) is
evident.  So too in English, unless you complement it with a phrase like
"of the arts" the word "lover" is going to have an overtone of sexual
relationship.  There is no surprise here, but it is worthwhile to see
that standard Greek usage *does* show up in the translations from the
Hebrew! :-)

More interestingly, and some confirmation of my guess that later Koine
usage avoided the verb _erao:_ because of its homonymy to _ero:_ (say),
_eromai_ (ask), there is an error in Codex Vaticanus (normally, a very
valuable witness) where a form of _erao:_ is used in a completely absurd
context -- 2 Samuel 20:18, where the  meaning *must* be "say."

In addition to the above (and the uses I have already mentioned in Proverbs),
Esther 2:17 uses the verb in its most natural application, 

	kai e:rasthe" ho basileus Esthe:r  --  and the King loved Esther

and, rather more interestingly, 1 Samuel 19:2 supplies a modest degree of
support to the gay appraisal of the relationship of David and Jonathan:

	kai Io:nathan huios Saoul e:[i]reito ton Dauid sphodra
	-- and Jonathan, Saul's son, loved David intensely

	[ I'm using the bracketed [i] for io:ta subscript, which I
	  don't yet have a reasonable ASCII convention for. ]

(The relevance of this to the gay issue is not anything implicit about
the "historical" facts, but just that a quasi-official translation of
the Hebrew text in the Hellenistic period makes no bones about using the
"erotic" verb in this context.  Given the quite general usage of _agapao:_
for erotic senses, this need not mean anything "more" than _agapao:_ alone
would mean, but it DOES disambiguate the relationship, as far as this
translator goes!)
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		I say "You are gods, sons of the
mls@panix.com			Most High, all of you; nevertheless
    - or -			you shall die like men, and fall
mls@ulysses.att..com		like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21679
From: max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb)
Subject: Re: earthquake prediction

In article <May.11.02.37.28.1993.28163@athos.rutgers.edu> dan@ingres.com (a Rose arose) writes:
>: >     I believe with everything in my heart that on May 3, 1993, the city of
>: >Portland, Oregon in the country of the United States of America will be hit
>: >with a catastrophic and disastrous earthquake...
>: By now, we know that this did not come to pass....

Surprise, surprise. I sure didn't lose any sleep over it, and I live there.

>Mistakes in this area are costly and dangerous.  For me, my greatest fears
>in this area would be the following:[..]
>4--were God to call me to be a prophet and I were to misrepresent God's Word,
>   my calling would be lost forever.  God's Word would command the people
>   never to listen to or fear my words as I would be a false prophet.  My
>   bridges would be burnt forever.  Perhaps I could repent and be saved, but
>   I could never again be a prophet of God.

Suppose someone said that he was sure that he would return from death,
in glory and power, flying in the clouds with the host of heaven,soon, within
the lifetimes of those then standing with him - and 2000 years went by without
any such event. [He also asserted, so they say, himself to be God.]

2 questions:

	1) Is that one of those "false prophecies" you were talking about?
	2) Does that make the speaker a false prophet?

>Speak directly.  If the Lord has given you something to say, say it.
>But, before I declare "thus sayeth the Lord", I'd better know for certain
>without a shadow of a doubt that I am in the correct spiritual condition
>and relationship with the Lord to receive such a prophecy and be absolutely
>certain, again, without the tiniest shadow of a doubt that there is no
>possibility of my being misled by my own imaginations or by my hope of gaining
>recognition or of being misled by the wiles of the devil and his followers.

Uhh,  Has it occurred to you that there is no way to know any of these
things, for certain, "without the tiniest shadow of a doubt"? That people
who thought they did have also been deluded?

Those of us who believe in actually being able to _CHECK_ our opinions
have an out - we can check against some external reality. Those who
assert that beliefs entertained without evidence, or even despite evidence
have a special virtue (ie. "faith") are out of luck -- and this is the
result.

>It's time that we christians give an example of honesty that stands out in
>contrast against this backdrop of falsehood.  When we say, "thus sayeth the
>Lord", it happens.  When we pray, prayer is answered because we prayed right.
>When we say we're christians, we really mean it.
>
>           Dan

You want to demonstrate Christian honesty? Great.
Start with the prophecy above - what can we conclude about the speaker?

	Max

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21680
From: revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

Darin Johnson (djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu) wrote:
: Ok, what's more important to gay Christians?  Sex, or Christianity?
: Christianity I would hope.  Would they be willing to forgo sex
: completely, in order to avoid being a stumbling block to others,
: to avoid the chance that their interpretation might be wrong,
: etc?  If not, why not?  Heterosexuals abstain all the time.
: (It would be nice if protestant churches had celibate orders
: to show the world that sex is not the important thing in life)

The difference is that straight members are given the choice of
abstaining or not, and celibacy is recognized as a gift, given only
to some.  Gays are told that, as a condition of acceptance, they
_must_ be celibate.  I don't believe that God gives me a forced choice
between having a relationship with God and expressing my heterosexuality
(within the context of a faithful relationship).  Nor do I believe
that God gives that forced choice to gays.  Sex or Christianity is a
false dichotomy.

: To tell the truth, gay churches remind me a lot of Henry the VIII
: starting the Church of England in order to get a divorce (or is
: this a myth).  Note that I am not denying that gay Christians are
: Christian.

For my part, gay churches remind me of blacks starting their own churches
either because they were not allowed at all in the white churches, or, at
best, only with special restrictions that did not apply to white members.

revdak@netcom.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21681
From: st2c9@jane.uh.edu (Pou Lee: The MUG@UH Fellow)
Subject: More ODB Catchy Sayings

Quotes from Our Daily Bread

Our Daily Bread is a devotional help for spiritual growth. One can spend some
ten to fifteen minutes at most reading the daily portion of scriptures and a
related short article that brings the scriptures alive in applying in today's
society. It ends with a saying at the bottom. This article is a collection
of these sayings.

Our Daily Bread is one of the many ministries/services provided by Resources for
Biblical Communication. It is FREE. To receive the literature, just write and
ask for it. The contact addresses are listed below. Write to Radio Bible Class.

Copyright 1989 Radio Bible Class, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49555-0001

Canada: Box 1622, Windsor, Ontario N9A 6Z7
Australia: Box 365, Ryde, 2112 NSW
Europe: Box 1, Carnforth, Lancs., England LA5 9ES
Africa: Box 1652, Manzini, Swaziland
Africa: PMB 2010, Jos, Nigeria
Philippines: Box 288, Greenhills, 1502 Metro Manila

Sayings with related scriptures in December/January/February 89-90 issue of Our Daily Bread

When God saves us, all our sins are forgiven, forgotten, forever!
Romans 5:1-11

Life with Christ is difficult; without Him it's hopeless.
Ecclesiastes 4:1-6

It's the sin we cover up that eventually brings us down.
Psalm 19:7-14

You're not ready to live until you're ready to die.
Acts 21:1-14

Trusting in God's power prevents panic.
Isaiah 40:6-17

The Bible is a record of man's compete ruin in sin and God's compte remedy in Christ. - Barnhouse
2 Timothy 3:10-17

Jesus can change the foulest sinners into the finest saints.
Ephesians 2:1-10

They witness best who witness with their lives.
Acts 4:23-33

God came to dwell with man that man might dwell with God.
Philippians 2:5-11

A hurting person needs a helping hand, not an accusing finger.
Psalm 109:1,2, 14-31

What you decide about Jesus determines your destiny.
John 20:24-29

We must go to sinners if we expect sinners to come to the Savior.
Romans 1:8-15

Knowing that God sees us brings both conviction and cofidence.
Job 34:21-28

God's chastening is not cruel but corrective.
Hebrews 12:4-17

When you think of all that's good, give thanks to God.
Psalm 44:1-8

Man's greatest goal: give glory to God.
1 Peter 5:5-7

God loves every one of us as if there were but one of us to love.
Romans 8:31-39

Only the bread of life can satisfy man's spiritual hunger.
John 6:28-41

Conscience can be our compass if the word of God is our chart.
1 Timothy 4:1-5

Salvation is free, but you must receive it.
Isaiah 55:1-5

If we're not as spiritual as we could be, we're not as spiritual as we should be.
2 Timonty 1:1-7

Circumstances do not make a man, they reveal what he's made of.
Matthew 1:18-25

Make room for Jesus in your heart, and he will make room for you in heaven.
Matthew 2:1-18

Heaven's choir came down to sing when heaven's king came down to save.
Luke 2:1-20

God's highest gift awakens man's deepest gratitude.
Luke 2:21-38

Serving the Lord is an investment that pays eternal dividends.
1 Peter 4:12-19

Time misspent is not lived but lost.
Psalm 39:4-13

The measure of our love is the measure of our sacrifice.
1 Peter 4:7-11

God requires faithfulness; God rewards with fruitfulness.
Luke 19:11-27

How you spend time determines how you spend eternity.
Psalm 90:1-12

If you aim for nothing, you're sure to hit it.
Daniel 1:1-8

The Christian's future is as bright as the promises of God.
Psalm 23

Christ as Savior brings us peace with God; Christ as Lord brings the peace of God.
Colossians 1:13-20

They who only sample the word of God never acquire much of a tast for it.
Psalm 119:97-104

Unless one drinks now of the "water of life", he will thirst forever!
Revelation 22:12-17

A hyprocrite is a person who is not himself on Sunday.
Daniel 6:1-10

Be life long or short, its completeness depends on what it is lived for.
Ecclesiates 9:1-12

God loves you and me - let's love each other.
2 Corinthians 13

It's always too soon to quit.
Genesis 37:12-28

The character we build in this world we carry into the next.
Matthew 7:24-29

God sends trials not to impair us but to improves us.
2 Corinthians 4:8-18

Marriage is either a holy wedlock or an unholy deadlock.
2 Corinthians 5:11-18

We are adopted through God's grace to be adapted to God's use.
Galatians 6:1-10

Our children are watching: what we are speak louder than what we say.
Proverbs 31:10-31

Union with Christ is the basis for unity among believers.
Psalm 133

Keep out of your life all that would crowd Christ out of your heart.
Romans 6:1-14

Don't try to bear tomorrow's burdens with today's grace.
Matthew 6:25-34

Pray as if everything depends on God; work as if everything depends on you.
2 Kings 20:1-7

Some convictions are nothing more than prejudices.
Galatians 3:26-29

Unless you velieve, you will not understand. - Augustine
Hebrews 11:1-6

Christ is the only way to heaven; all other paths are detours to doom.
2 Corinthians 4:1-7

Many Christians are doing nothing, but no Christians have nothing to do!
John 4:31-38

We bury the seed; God brings the harvest.
Isaiah 55:8-13

The texture of eternity is woven on the looms of time.
Ecclesiastes 7:1-6

It's not just what we know about God but how we use what we know.
1 Corinthians 8

The best way to avoid lying is to do nothing that needs to be concealed.
Acts 5:1-11

God transforms trials into blessing by surrounding them with His love and grace.
2 Chronicles 20:1-4, 20-30

Confessing your sins is no substitute for forsaking them.
Psalm 51:1-10

If you shoot arrows of envy at others, you would yourself.
Philippians 1:12-18

He who has no vision of eternity doesn't know the value of time.
Ephesians 5:8-17

He who abandons himself to God will never be abandoned by God.
Psalm 123

No danger can come so near the Christian that God is not nearer.
Psalm 121

Many a man lays down his life trying to lay up a fortune.
Matthew 6:19-24

God's grace is infinite love expressing itself through infinite goodness.
Philippians 1:1-11

One way to do great things for Christ is to do little things for others.
Romans 16:1-16

You rob yourself of being you when you try to do what others are meant to do.
Romans 12:1-8

Don't pretend to be what you don't intend to be.
Matthew 23:1-15

Meeting God in our trials is better than getting out of them.
Psalm 42

If sinners are to escape God's judgement, God's people must point the way.
Matthew 24:15-27

It's not a sin to get angry when you get angry at sin.
John 2:13-22

We prepare for the darkness by learning to pray in the light.
1 Samuel 2:1-10

Christianity is not a way of doing certain things but a certain way of doing all things.
Ephesians 5:1-7

Better to know the truth and beware than to believe a lie and not care.
Jeremiah 28

A true servant does not live to himself, for himself, or by himself.
Genesis 13

Those who do the most earthly good are those who are heavely mined.
Philippians 1:19-26

A good marriage requires a determination to be married for good.
Genesis 2:18-24

If you're looking for something to give your life to, look to the one who gave His life for you.
1 Corinthians 3:1-11

When we have nothing left but God, we discover that God is enough.
Psalm 46

God is with us inthe darkness as surely as He is with us in the light.
1 Peter 1:1-9

Some people spend most of their life at the complaint counter.
1 Thessalonians 5:12-22

Of all creation, only man can say "yes" or "no" to God.
Genesis 9:8-17

The most rewarding end in life is to know the life that never ends.
Ecclesiates 8:10-15

One of the marks of a well-fed soul is a well read Bible.
Joshua1:1-9

Because God gives us all we need, we should give to those in need.
Proverbs 14:20-31

It's never too early to receive Christ, but at any moment it could be too late.
Luke 16:19-31

God's grace keeps pace with whatever we face.
2 Corinthians 12:7-10

Coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is success.
1 Corinthians 12:12-27

When we give God our burdens, He gives us a song.
Psalm 57

Do the thing you fear, and the death of fear is certain. - Emerson
1 Corinthians 2:1-8

The best way to conquer an enemy is by the strategy of love.
Matthew 5:38-48
******************************************************************************
Loneliness is being unaware of the One who is with us everywhere.
******************************************************************************
When the Christian stays his mind on Christ, he develops a wonderful CALMplex.
******************************************************************************

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21682
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <May.12.04.27.47.1993.9935@athos.rutgers.edu> gchin@ssf.Eng.Sun.COM
writes:

>Let me say that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is
>central to Christianity. If you personally believe that Jesus Christ
>died for you, you are a part of the Christian body of believers.

>We are all still human. We don't know it all, but homosexual or heterosexual,
>we all strive to follow Jesus.  The world is dying and needs to hear about
>Jesus Christ.

>Are you working together with other Christians to spread the Gospel?

Let me salute Gary Chin for speaking the gospel which is our source
of life.  Any who will follow his example, and accept the priorities
Christ commands of us, that the weightier matters of the law are justice
and mercy and good faith, is my brother or sister in Christ, and I will
attend to such a person with humility and charity.  We may not, in the
end, agree -- siblings often don't -- but we can at least talk.


-- 
Michael L. Siemon		I say "You are gods, sons of the
mls@panix.com			Most High, all of you; nevertheless
    - or -			you shall die like men, and fall
mls@ulysses.att..com		like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21683
From: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell)
Subject: Re: homosexuality

I am going to stop reading the homosexuality posts, at least for a  
while, because of the repeated seemingly personal attacks on me via  
post/e-mail(mainly e-mail).  If anyone has a specific comment,  
suggestion, and/or note that does not contain any name calling, etc.  
that they would like for me to read, send it to me via e-mail.  I  
would like a copy of file mentioned by the moderator ragarding the  
exergetical issue of it.  I attempted to get it via ftp but was  
unable.

In Christ's Love,
Bryan

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21684
From: fortmann@superbowl.und.ac.za (Paul Fortmann - PG)
Subject: "The Word Perfect" EXE file needed

A friend of mine managed to get a copy of a computerised Greek and Hebrew 
Lexicon called "The Word Perfect" (That is not the word processing 
package WordPerfect). However, some one wiped out the EXE file, and she 
has not been able to restore it. There are no distributors of the package in 
South Africa. I would appreciate it, if some one could email me the file, or 
at least tell me where I could get it from. 

My email address is
	fortmann@superbowl.und.ac.za     or
	fortmann@shrike.und.ac.za
 
Many thanks.

In Him, Paul Fortmann

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21685
From: aidler@sol.uvic.ca (E Alan  Idler)
Subject: Re: Mormon Temples

dhammers@pacific.? (David Hammerslag) writes:

>This paragraph brought to mind a question.  How do you (Mormons) reconcile
>the idea of eternal marriage with Christ's statement that in the ressurection
>people will neither marry nor be given in marriage (Luke, chapt. 20)?

Here is the short answer: because only
certain marriages are recorded in Heaven.

Now for the long answer:

In Doctrine and Covenants section 132, the 
chapter discussing eternal marriage (and, yes,
plural marriage), the distinction between
sealings under the priesthood and other 
marriages is revealed.  

When "the children of this world marry, or are
given in marriage" when they receive "the 
resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are
given in marriage" (Luke 20:34-35).
Jesus was simply teaching that marriages "until
death do you part" are not in force after death.

However, the Doctrine and Covenants continues 
describing eternal marriage.

D&C 132:19
   And again, verily I say unto you, if a 
man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and
by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is
sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise,
by him who is anointed this power and the keys 
of this priesthood; ... [ shortened for brevity AI]
and shall be of full force when they are out of
the world; and they shall pass by the angels, 
and the gods, which are set there, to their 
exhaltation and glory in all things, as hath been 
sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a 
fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever
and ever.

The Lord told Peter "whatsoever thou shalt bind
on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt 16:19).
Do you doubt that Peter was given the power to 
perform sealings?
Peter thought so because he taught that husbands
and wives were "heirs *together* of the grace of
life" (1 Peter 3:7).

"In order to obtain the highest" (degree of
celestial glory), a man must enter into this
order of the priesthood" (D&C 131:2).
When a man and wife are sealed they truly become 
"one flesh" because their eternal "increase" 
(destinies) are enjoined completely.

Our Father has an eternal companion (and maybe
more because of the plural marriage conditions
of the law) who participated in our creation
and is equally concerned with our progress here.

There is no scriptural basis for this doctrine.
If fact, the only mention of our Mother is in
one verse of a hymn written early in the history
of the Church:

    O My Father

    I had learned to call thee Father,
    Through thy Spirit from on high,
    But, until the key of knowledge
    Was restored, I knew not why.
    In the heav'ns are parents single?
    No, the thought makes reason stare!
    Truth is reason; truth eternal
    Tells me I've a mother there.

Why don't we hear more about our Mother?

1.  Because our Father presides under Priesthood
authority (which is not a calling for Her);

2.  Because we don't all (necessarily) have the
same Mother it would be confusing for worship;

3.  Because our Father wishes to withhold Her
name and titles because of how some people
degrade sacred things.

A IDLER

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21686
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: James and Sirach

On Thursday 6 May 1993, Dave Davis writes:

 > I'm leaning... SIRACH... is more directly referenced by JAMES
 > than JOB or RUTH is... in any NT verse I've seen.

It would help if you mentioned chapter and verse from SIRACH and
from JAMES.

Job 5:13 ("He taketh the wise in their craftiness") seems to be
quoted in 1 Corinthians 3:19.

James 5:11 ("You have heard of the patience of Job"), while not a
quote, implies that James and his listeners are familiar with a
story of a man named Job who exhibited exemplary patience. It is
possible that the story they know is not that found in the Hebrew
Bible, but rather another similar and related story. (One has the
same problem with direct quotes.)

Again, Matthew 1:5 ("Boaz begat Obed of Ruth") tells us that Matthew
knew a story about a woman named Ruth who married a man called Boaz
and  became the ancestor of David. Since Ruth is not mentioned in
the OT outside the Book of Ruth, it seems likely that Matthew was
familiar with the book and respected it, and thought Ruth important
enough to be one of the few women mentioned in the genealogy.

References like this do not prove that the NT writer considered his
OT source inspired or inerrant or canonical. But neither do direct
quotes.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21687
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: certainty of canonizations

On Friday 7 May 1993, Marty Helgesen wrote:

 > Public revelation, which is the basis of Catholic doctrine, ended
 > with the death of St John, the last Apostle. Nothing new can be
 > added.

Every so often, the Pope declares that some departed Christian is
now in Heaven, and may be invoked in the public rites of the Church.
It is my understanding that Roman Catholics believe that such
declarations by the Pope are infallible. I see three possibilities:
     1) The Church has received a Public Revelation since the death
of (for example) Joan of Arc.
     2) The Church was given a list before the death of St John
which had Joan's name on it.
     3) There is no public revelation about Joan, and Roman
Catholics are free to doubt that she died in a state of grace, or
even that she is a historical character.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21688
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: Paul's "thorn in the side"

Joe Moore writes:

 > Paul repeatedly talks about the "thorn" in his side. Some think
 > it refers to lust, others pride, but who knows? Whatever the
 > thorn was, apparently it was not compatible with Christianity,
 > yet does that make his epistles any less?

Paul mentions his "thorn" (SKOLOPS, actually a sharp stake) in 2
Corinthians 12:7-9

 + And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of
 + revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of
 + Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated. Three
 + times I besought the Lord about this, that it should leave me;
 + but he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my
 + power is made perfectr in weakness."

He does not explain what it was, but it need not have been a moral
problem.  One guess is that Paul had a disorder of the eyes. He
ordinarily dictated his letters, and then added a personal note and
his signature. At the end of the letter to the Galatians, he says,
"See, I am writing in large letters with my own hand," or else, "See
what a long letter I have written with my own hand." If the former
translation is adopted, it seems that Paul could not write in the
small script of a practiced writer, but needed to make his letters
larger, and this suggests eye problems. Again, he says to the
Galatians (4:13-15),

 + You know that it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached
 + the gospel to you at first; and although my condition was a trial
 + to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an
 + angel of God.... For I bear you witness that, if possible, you
 + would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me.

Perhaps this last line means simply, "You would have done anything
for me, not withholding your most precious possessions (your eyes)."
But in that case, we would expect some wording like, "If I had
needed them." "If it were possible" sounds as though the bodily
ailment was connected with his eyes.

William Barclay, in his volume on Acts, makes a more specific
suggestion.  Before Paul preached in the highlands of Galatia, he
had been preaching in the coastal areas of Asia Minor. If he had had
a malarial attack while there, a doctor would have advised him to
leave the low country and head for the hills. Malaria might well
have given him both severe headaches and blurred vision.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21689
From: plastic@ecr.mu.oz.au (Jason_Brinsley LEE)
Subject: 25 words or less....

Everywhere we see and hear about christianity (due to its
evangalistic nature). Witnessing, spreading the gospel, etc.
But what I want to know is...

"Why should I (or anyone else) become a Christian?"

(In twenty five words or less).

	Zeros and Ones will take us there....
	peace. plastic. 1993.

[We've had enough discussions about evidence recently that it would
probably be best to respond via email.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21690
From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal F Lillywhite)
Subject: Re: Mormon beliefs about children born out of wedlock

In article <May.13.02.30.13.1993.1529@geneva.rutgers.edu> aaronc@athena.mit.edu (Aaron Bryce Cardenas) writes:
>Bruce Webster writes:
>>Indeed, LDS doctrine goes one step further and in some cases
>>holds parents responsible for their children's sins if they have
>>failed to bring them up properly (cf. D&C 68:25-28

>Hi Bruce.  How do you reconcile this practice with Ezekiel 18?
>Ezekiel 18:20 "The soul who sins is the one who will die.  The son will not
>share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the
>son.  The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and
>the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him."

Actually in D&C 68:25-28 the parents are being held accountable for
their own sins.  Specifically they are accountable for their failure
to teach their children properly.  If I fail to teach my children
that stealing is wrong then I am responsible for their theft if they
later indulge in such behavior.

This is very similar to the instructions Ezekiel was given in
Eze 3:18.  If Ezekiel failed to do his duty and warn the wicked, 
not only would the wicked die in his sins but the Lord would hold
Ezekiel responsible!  Similarly parents are responsible to teach
their children right from wrong.  I suspect most Christians (and
Jews etc.) would agree that parents have this responsibility.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21691
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one
another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with
gratitude in your hearts to God. 
Colossians 3:16

A reminder: These verses are from the New International Version. As with any
translation, faithfulness to the original Hebrew and Greek may vary from time
to time. If a verse sounds a little off occasionally, compare it with another
translation or with the original texts, if you are able to do so.

God Bless You,
Chuck Petch

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21692
From: mussack@austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Subject: Re: Dreams and out of body incidents

Ever since I was a kid and learned to tell when I was in a 
dream I have used my dreams for fantasies or working out problems.
In my dreams I have done everything from yell at my mom
to machine-gunning zombies, not to mention myriad sexual
fantasies. I have deliberately done things that I would never
do in real life. I understand the need to control ones
thoughts, but I always felt that dreams were format free,
no morals, no ethics, no physical laws, (though sometimes I would 
have to wake myself up to go to the bathroom.)

Is this an incorrect attitude? Rather than weakening my inhibitions,
I could argue that I got certain things "out of my system" by 
experiencing them in dreams. By analyzing a dream I can determine
if I have a problem with a certain situation, i.e. in a dream
something will be exagerated that I can then contemplate and
see if it really bothers me or not.

I can't believe that other people don't do the same. It seems 
silly to attach moral significance to dreams.

I think that this is entirely different from out of body
experiences, which I have never had.

Contradictions welcome.

Chris Mussack

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21693
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Subject: Reason and Homophobia

This has troubled me for a long time and needs to be dealt with.

From a long article Available through an individual on this newsgroup.

About scripture being against homosexuality:
------------------------------------------
When we  are
less homophobic we will see that what we know as gay and lesbian  people,
engaging in loving, voluntary erotic relations with each other, aren't  even
mentioned. [in the Bible, tk]
------------------------------------------

This frightens me (not in the homophobic sense, but intellectually),
especially because it was written by someone from a homosexual church.

So, if my interpretation is different than theirs, I am homophobic!  This
can't be right. Disagreement in interpretation of the Bible and/or rejection
of homosexual acts is not tantamount of homophobia.

====================================          
Ted Kalivoda (tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu)
University of Georgia, Athens
Institute of Higher Ed. 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21694
From: azamora@cs.indiana.edu (Tony Zamora)
Subject: Re: more on 2 Peter 1:20

In article <May.13.02.28.01.1993.1436@geneva.rutgers.edu> JEK@cu.nih.gov  
writes:
>      In one sense, no statement by another is subject to my private
> interpretation. If reliable historians tell me that the Athenians
> lost the Pelopennesian War, I cannot simply interpret this away
> because I wanted the Athenians to win. Facts are facts and do not go
> away because I want them to be otherwise.
>      In another sense, every statement is subject to private
> interpretation, in that I have to depend on my brains and
> expereience to decide what it means, and whether it is sufficiently
> well attested to merit my assent. Even if the statement occurs in an
> inspired writing, I still have to decide, using my own best
> judgement, whether it is in fact inspired. This is not arrogance --
> it is just an inescapable fact.

Yes, there are these two senses of interpretation, and certainly our
decision to accept Scripture as inspired ultimately rests on our own
private opinion.  However, when reading Scripture, we have to remember
that the Scriptures were given by God for our instruction, and that
the interpretation that matters is the one God intended.  For example,
if I decide that the fact that John the Baptist is Elijah teaches the
doctrine of reincarnation, I am wrong because that is not the intended
interpretation.  The prophets didn't make up this teaching; it came
from God, and we must accept it as such.  This necessarily means that
our private interpretations must take a back seat to the meaning God
intended to convey.  Certainly we must rely on our best efforts to
determine what this meaning is, but this very fact should make us
recognize that our private interpretations cannot be automatically
accepted as the infallible interpretation of God.  We need to test the
spirits to see if they are from God.  When the Holy Spirit speaks, he
says the same thing to all; he won't tell me that a passage means one
thing and tell you it means another.  If the two of us come to
conflicting conclusions, we can't both be completely right.  We know
our interpretations are reliable only when the Church as a whole
agrees on what Scripture means.  This is how we know the doctrines of
the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, etc. infallibly.  These
matters are not up for private interpretation.

This is the reason Peter goes on to talk about the deceptiveness of
the false teachers.  They preferred their own private interpretation
to the God-given teaching of the apostles.  It is through such private
interpretation that the traditions of men, so soundly denounced in
Scripture, are started.

Tony

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21695
From: tdarcos@access.digex.net (Paul Robinson)
Subject: Homosexuality is Immoral (non-religious argument)

[This was crossposted to a zillion groups.  I don't intend to
carry an entire discussion crossposted from alt.sex, particularly
one whose motivation seems to be having a fun argument.  However
I thought readers might be interested to know about the
discussion there.  --clh]

I intend to endeavor to make the argument that homosexuality is an
immoral practice or lifestyle or whatever you call it.  I intend to
show that there is a basis for a rational declaration of this
statement.  I intend to also show that such a declaration can be 
made without there being a religious justification for morality,
in fact to show that such a standard can be made if one is an atheist.

Anyone who wants to join in on the fun in taking the other side,
i.e. that they can make the claim that homosexuality is not immoral,
or that, collaterally, it is a morally valid practice, is free to do
so.  I think there are a lot of people who don't believe one can have
a rational based morality without having a religion attached to it.

This should be fun to try and figure this out, and I want to try and
expose (no pun intended) my ideas and see other people's and see where
their ideas are standing.  As I'm not sure what groups would be interested
in this discussion, I will be posting an announcement of it to several,
and if someone thinks of appropriate groups, let me know.

If someone on here doesn't receive alt.sex, let me know and I'll make
an exception to my usual policy and set up a mailing list to automatically
distribute it in digest format to anyone who wants to receive it as I'll
use that as the main forum for this.  By "exception to usual policy" is
that I normally charge for this, but for the duration the service will be
available at no charge to anyone who has an address reachable on Internet
or Bitnet.

I decided to start this dialog when I realized there was a much larger
audience on usenet / internet than on the smaller BBS networks.

To give the other side time to work up to a screaming anger, this will 
begin on Monday, May 24, to give people who want to make the response
time to identify themselves.  Anonymous postings are acceptable, since
some people may not wish to identify themselves.  Also, if someone else
wants to get in on my side, they are free to do so.  

This should be *much* more interesting than Abortion debates!

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21696
From: adamsj@gtewd.mtv.gtegsc.com
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <May.13.02.29.39.1993.1505@geneva.rutgers.edu>, revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille) writes:
> Of course the whole issue is one of discernment.  It may be that Satan
> is trying to convince us that we know more than God.  Or it may be that
> God is trying (as God did with Peter) to teach us something we don't
> know- that "God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears
> him and does what is right is acceptable to him." (Acts 10:34-35).
> 
> revdak@netcom.com

Fine, but one of the points of this entire discussion is that "we"
(conservative, reformed christians - this could start an argument...
But isn't this idea that homosexuality is ok fairly "new" [this
century] ? Is there any support for this being a viable viewpoint
before this century? I don't know.) don't believe that homosexuality
is "acceptable to Him". So your scripture quotation doesn't work for
"us".

-jeff adams-

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21697
From: sun075!Gerry.Palo@uunet.uu.net (Gerry Palo)
Subject: Re: Christianity and repeated lives

In article <May.12.04.26.40.1993.9887@athos.rutgers.edu> u9245669@athmail1.cause
way.qub.ac.uk writes (single angle brackets):

>> Jesus is talking with the
>>apostles and they ask him why the pharisees say that before the messiah can 
>>come Elijah must first come. Jesus replies that Elijah has come, but they did 
>>not recognize him. It then says that the apostles perceived that he was referi
ng 
>>to John the Baptist. This seems to me to clearly imply reincarnation.
>
>This was a popular belief in the Judaism of Jesus` time, that Elijah
>would return again (as he had been taken in to heaven in a chariot and
>did not actually die).  However Jesus was referring to John the
>Baptist not in the sense that Elijah was reincarnated as John
>(remember Elijah didn`t die) but that John was a similar prophet to
>Elijah. >

There is no question of similarity in Jesus indication about John.
The passage in Matthew is very direct.  Where Luke (1:17) reports
the angel Gabriel prophesying that John will go before Christ "in the 
power and spirit of Elias", In Matthew 11: 14, Jesus himself says of John,
   
   "And if you care to accept it, he himself is Elijah, who
    was to come".

It is interesting that Jesus prepended the words, "If you care to accept
it", as if to say that the implications of this truth, namely of rein-
carnation, I will not force on you, but for those who can accept it, here it
is.  A Jewish poster to other newsgroups on Jewish esotericism and other
topics has outlined the esoteric, cabbalistic Jewish teaching of of
reincarnation and Karma, a teaching that is little known among Jews
today, but which is apparently widespread enough in Israel that Hannah
Hurnard ("Hinds Feet on High Places") was told about it by a Rabbi
she was trying to convert back in the 1940s as a missionary in Palestine.
Thus there may well have been a small number of Jews who knew about this,
whereas the large number of people did not.  The statement of Jesus about 
John, the greatest human personality in the New Testament, is guarded
but nevertheless quite direct.  Again, the subject of reincarnation, one
way or another, is not a subject of the New Testament, nor is the fate in general
of the human being between death and the last judgement.  But there are 
occasional indications that point to it.

As for the "popular belief" that Elijah would come again, it was more than 
a popular belief, as Jesus confirms it in more than one place, and he never 
corrected those who were expecting Elijah --  for example, those who thought 
that Jesus himself be he.

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21698
From: sun075!Gerry.Palo@uunet.uu.net (Gerry Palo)
Subject: Re: Jacob and Esau (reincarnation)

In article <May.12.04.30.10.1993.10089@athos.rutgers.edu> JEK@cu.nih.gov writes:

>Gerry Palo wrote that there is nothing in Christianity that excludes
>the theory of a succession of lives.
>
>I wrote that the Apostle Paul, in Romans 9, speaks of God as
>choosing Jacob over Esau, and adds that this is not as a result of
>anything that either child had done, since they had not been born
>yet.
>
>Clearly, Paul does not believe that they had had previous lives, nor
>does he suppose that his readers will believe it. For if they had
>had previous lives, it would not make sense to say, "Neither of them
>has done anything good or bad as yet, since they are not yet born."
>

Paul's statement only asserts that that particular choice was not
a matter of karmic fulfillment of the past, just as the fate of the
man born blind (John 9) was not.  There is no question here of the
simplistic idea of karma as a machine that is the sole determiner
of one's destiny.  Even the eastern traditions, or many of them,
do not say that, as one knowledgeable poster pointed out.

And if in fact that Paul did not know about or believe in reincarnation
does not say anything one way or another about it.  Even John the Baptist,
who Jesus says emphatically is Elijah (Matt 11:14), does not appear to 
have been aware of it, at least at the point at which he was asked. But 
it is interesting that his threefold denial -- to the question whether 
he is the Christ, the Prophet (i.e. Isaiah), or Elijah, is emphatic in 
the first case and very weak in the third.

I would like to add once again that, while it is important to discuss the
different passages that may point directly to the teaching of repeated
earth lives, one way or another, what I really see as important in our
time is that the subject be revisited in terms of the larger view of
Christianity and Christian doctrine.  For the most part, those who do
accept it either reject the central ideas of Christianity or, if they
are Christians, hold their conviction as a kind of separate treasure.
I believe that Christianity has important new understanding to bring
to bear on it, and vice versa, much that is central to Christianity
takes on entirely new dimensions of meaning in light of repeated earth
lives. It has a direct bearing on many of the issues frequently discussed 
in this newsgroup in particular.

I have said openly that I have developed my views of repeated earth lives
largely from the work of Rudolf Steiner.  Not that I hold him as an
authority, but the whole picture of Christianity becomes clearer in light
of these ideas.  Steiner indicated that the old consciousness of reincar-
nation necessarily had to fade away that it could be renewed in later
times, after a time of development of the Christ idea through the first
two millenia after Christ's deed on Golgotha.  In our own time, it becomes 
important that, having received the basic gospel of salvation, our 
understanding of life and of the human being can now grow to embrace the 
significance of this idea.  For the discussions in this newsgroup, I 
have tried to focus on that which can be related as directly as possible 
to scripture and to fundamental Christian teaching and tradition.

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21699
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: tongues (read me!)

Persons interested in the tongues question are are invited to
peruse an essay of mine, obtainable by sending the message
 GET TONGUES NOTRANS
 to LISTSERV@ASUACAD.BITNET or to
    LISTSERV@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21700
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps) writes:

>   To summarize, you accused the original poster of saying if something
>is not forbidden by the Bible, then that proves it is OK; i.e. if
>something cannot be disproven, it is true.  He rather seemed to be

You are absolutely right. After reading it over again, I realized that I
misunderstood what he said. My apologies. As for the question about
slavery, I have to disagree. Slavery in those times was the same as slavery
in the US. Some may have been indentured servants, but not all. I would also
expect Paul to do a little more than just HINT about a particular slave.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21701
From: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes)
Subject: Re: Hyslop and _The_Two_Babylons_

In article <May.13.02.30.57.1993.1557@geneva.rutgers.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:

>Seeing as how _The_Two_Babylons_ has been brought up again, it is time for
>me to respond , once again, and say that this book is junk.  It is nothing
>more that an anti-Catholic tract of the sort published ever since the there
>were protestants.  Its scholarship is phony and its assertions spurious.


I have not seen this book, though I have had several people quote it in 
support of some tendentious assertions they were making, so I have become 
curious about it.

I don't want to malign this Hislop fellow, whoever he may be, as I have only 
heard the arguments at second hand, but both of the arguments seemed to turn 
on false etymology that SEEMED to be derived from Hislop.

I would be interested in knowing more about these things. 

The first one claimed that the word "church" was derived from the Greek 
"cyclos", and that it was therefore related to the worship of "Circe".

I don't know if Hislop is the source of this assertion, but it does seem to 
be based on false etymology.

The second claimed an etymological relationship between "Ishtar" and 
"Easter", which seemed to be even more fanciful and far-fetched than some 
of the wilder notions of the British Israelites.

Regarding the latter, as far as I have been able to find out, "Easter" is 
derived from the old English name for April - "Eosturmonath". The Venerable 
Bede mentioned that this was associated with a goddess called "Eostre", but 
apart from that reference I have not been able to find out anything more 
about her. It also seems that the term "Easter" is only used by the English 
and those they evangelized. The Germans, for example, also use the term 
"Ostern", but Germany was evangelized by English missionaries.

So I would be interested in any evidence of "Easter" being used for Pascha 
by people who do not have any kind of connection with the ancient Anglo-
Saxons and their offshoots. Such evidence might support the claims of those 
who appear to derive the theory from Hislop.





============================================================
Steve Hayes, Department of Missiology & Editorial Department
Univ. of South Africa, P.O. Box 392, Pretoria, 0001 South Africa
Internet: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za         Fidonet: 5:7101/20
          steve.hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
FAQ: Missiology is the study of Christian mission and is part of
     the Faculty of Theology at Unisa

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21702
From: eledw@nuscc.nus.sg (Simon D. Wibowo)
Subject: Quit Smoking

My girlfriend is a smoker. She has been addicted to it for quite some time.
She has been tried a couple of times, but then always get back to it. Her 
background is non-Christian, but she's interested in Christianity. I'm a
Christian and non-smoker.

I would like to collect any personal stories from Christians who managed to 
quit. I hope that this will encourage her to keep on trying. If anybody ever 
had a similar problem or knows a good book on it, pls reply by email. 

I appreciate any kinds of helps. Thanks a lot.

=======================================================================
Simon Darjadi Wibowo                    Telp : (65)7726863
Dept. of EE, Nat'l Univ. Of S'pore      Fax  : (65)7773117
Singapore 0511                          Internet : eledw@nuscc.nus.sg

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21703
From: mdw@violin.hr.att.com (Mark Wuest)
Subject: Re: Boston C of C

Aside to the moderator:

In article <May.13.02.30.00.1993.1520@geneva.rutgers.edu> Rick_Granberry@pts.mot.com (Rick Granberry) writes:

><see below...>

I won't quote any of it, but there are several errors in the article.
Not things that are just differences of opinion, but the writer just
plain has his facts confused.

For example, Kip McKean was *asked* to come to the Lexington church
by the leaders there. He brought no team. He actually had been in
Charleston, IL up to that point. He had many friends, even leaders in
Gainesville, telling him not to go, because people in the Northeast
weren't "open" and he'd be wasting his time and talents. Really!!
(This fact was a kind of "inside joke" at one point after the church
in Boston took off so well... Not open, indeed!) ;-)

I could take it on point by point, but I am not in a position to know
one way or the other about some things in the article. I just wanted
to point out that it contains misinformation.

Mark
-- 
Mark Wuest                              |     *MY* opinions, not AT&T's!!
mdw@violin.hr.att.com (Sun Mailtool Ok) |
mdw@trumpet.hr.att.com (NeXT Mail)      |

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21704
From: wagner@grace.math.uh.edu (David Wagner)
Subject: Re: homosexual issues in Christianity

"Michael" == Michael Siemon <mls@panix.com> writes:

Michael> The kind of interpretation I see as "incredibly perverse" is
Michael> that applied to the story of Sodom as if it were a blanket
Michael> equation of homosexual behavior and rape.  Since Christians
Michael> citing the Bible in such a context should be presumed to have
Michael> at least READ the story, it amounts to slander -- a charge
Michael> that homosexuality == rape -- to use that against us.

and

Michael>  It is just
Michael> as wrong (though slightly less incendiary, so it's a
Michael> secondary argument from the 'phobic contingent) to equate
Michael> homosexuality with such behavior as to equate it with the
Michael> rape of God's messengers.

Let's review the Sodom and Gomorrah story briefly.  It states
clearly that the visitors were angels.  But "all the men from every
part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the
house.  They called to Lot, `Where are the *men* who came to 
you tonight?  Bring them out to us so that we can have sex 
with them.' " 

For the rest of the story the angels are referred to by the men
of Sodom and by Lot as *men*.  Furthermore we know from Gen 18:20,21
that the Lord had already found Sodom guilty of grievous sin--before
the angels visited the city.  It is clear that the grievous sin
of Sodom and Gomorrah involved homosexual sex.  It appears that
the men had become so inflamed in their lust that they had
group orgies in the public square--which simply indicates 
the extremity of their depravity.  It does not show that lesser 
degrees of homosexuality are not sinful, as Michael would have us
believe.

Ultimately our understanding of God's will for sexuality comes from
the creation story--not solely on the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.  He
created us male and female, and instituted marriage as a relationship
between one male and one female, "Therefore a man will leave his
father and mother, and be united with his wife, and they will become
one flesh."  This marriage relationship is the only sexual
relationship which God blesses and sanctions. He regulates and
protects the marriage of man and woman, and even uses it as a picture
of the relationship between himself and his church.  But we find not
one word of blessing or regulation for a sexual relationship between 
two men, or between two women.

Everything else that we find in the Bible about sexuality derives from
or expresses God's will in instituting and blessing marriage.  Thus
the Levitical code, which was given only to the Jews, forbade incest,
homosexuality, bestiality; the Ten Commandments forbade adultery and
the coveting of our neighbor's wife; other commandments forbade rape.
The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were regarded as sexually immoral and
perverse (Jude 7) because they abandoned and/or polluted the marriage
relationship.  Thus also Paul regarded homosexuality as `unnatural',
Romans 1:26,27--not because this was simply Paul's opinion,
but because it was contrary to God's purpose in creating us
male and female.
  
Michael> Christians, no doubt very sincere ones, keep showing up here
Michael> and in every corner of USENET and the world, and ALL they
Michael> ever do is spout these same old verses (which they obviously
Michael> have never thought about, maybe never even read), in TOTAL
Michael> ignorance of the issues raised, slandering us with the vilest
Michael> charges of child abuse or whatever their perfervid minds can
Michael> manage to conjure up, tossing out red herrings with (they
Michael> suppose) great emotional force to cause readers to dismiss
Michael> our witness without even taking the trouble to find out what
Michael> it is.

Really, have you no better response to `slander' than more
slander?

David H. Wagner			"The day is surely drawing near
a confessional Lutheran		When God's Son, the Annointed,
				Shall with great majesty appear
				As Judge of all appointed.
				All mirth and laughter then shall
					cease
				When  flames on flames will still
					increase
				As Scripture truly teacheth."
				--"Es ist gewisslich an der Zeit" v. 1
				--Bartholomaeus Ringwaldt, 1586

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21705
From: REXLEX@fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Hyslop and _The_Two_Babylons_

In article <May.13.02.30.57.1993.1557@geneva.rutgers.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu
(Charley Wingate) writes:
>Seeing as how _The_Two_Babylons_ has been brought up again,
>  Its scholarship is phony and its assertions spurious.
>-- 
>C. Wingate       

Maybe you should dig a little further Charles.  Hislop's scholarship was
accepted by the Bristish Oriental Institute which, at the time, was the premere
Institute for Oriental studies.  As I've stated over and over,  I've checked
out about 25% of his references (most are now out of print or in private
libraries) and the likes of Wilkerson and Layard hold their own merit.  THey
too came to the same conclusions and if you will trouble yourself, you will
find that their knowledge of the mysteries have yet to be surpassed.  Both were
highly honored by the British Oriental Museum.  Wilkerson is known as one of
the leading archeologist in the history of Egyptiology and Layard is still
being refered two after 200 yrs of archeology in the Mesopotamian regions.  He
was recently refered to in a TIME article on Babylonian archeology.  

Phony scholarship is when you review their references and find that they have
misquoted or misrepresented the conclusions.  Hislop did not.  His conclusions
do not tickle the ears, that much is self evident.  But to assert that his
conclusions are "spurious" is without merit.  He gave references to all his
conclusions and as I have stated, for the last 25 years I have used his
conclusions in debates at RC seminaries and brotherhoods, not to mention the
individual priests and bishops that I have talked to one on one.  No counter to
Hislops scholarship was made.  The only rebuttals were against his conclusions
because they do totally undermined the claims of the RCC. He was showing that
the intitution of the RCC was based on the mysteries (which others have shown
even to this day in various articles and topics).  THe tongues movement in
Corinth was a direct result of the mysteries entering into the church.  If it
was so in Corinth, why could they not have an influence in Rome, the city of
seven hills?

Also, you do not have to listen to his conclusions, you can draw your own
conclusions by looking at the customs, artifacts, the cerimonial dress, the
docrine of purgatory, etc from the vantage of the mysteries.  You don't even
have to be a believer to see the parallels.  Just one example.  THe mitre. 
Where did it come from?  Why is it shaped the way it is?  What are the two
tails that hang down the back represent?  Was this an ancient  head dress from
an earlier culture and why was it in Rome at the time of the beginnings of the
church of the State of Rome?  Does it have pagan history behind it, and if so,
why did the RCC chose regardless?

Any lay person of middle eastern religion can answer these questions.  Even the
scriptures themselves refer to it.  All Hislop did was collect the information
from all the various sources and put them in one binding.  There is no lack of
scholorship in that.

Please tell me why you discredit this man by your accusation, yet present no
evidence supporting it.  

--Rex

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21706
From: ptrei@bistromath.mitre.org (Peter Trei)
Subject: Re: Athiests and Hell

In article <May.13.02.27.26.1993.1411@geneva.rutgers.edu> REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov writes:
>In article <May.11.02.36.29.1993.28068@athos.rutgers.edu>
>ptrei@bistromath.mitre.org (Peter Trei) writes:
>>In article <May.9.05.38.49.1993.27375@athos.rutgers.edu> REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
>writes:
>>[much deleted] 
>>>point today might be the Masons.  (Just a note, that they too worshipped 
>>>Osiris in Egypt...)
>>[much deleted] 
>>
>>     It bugs me when I see this kind of nonsense.
>>
>>     First, there is no reasonable evidence linking Masonry to ancient
>>Egypt, or even that it existed prior to the late 14th century (and
>>there's nothing definitive before the 17th).
>
[I'm going to cut "Rex"'s ramblings down a bit.]

[...]
>You must not be past your 20th level.  You should read Wilkinson's
>Egyptians and how he shows this Egyptian religion paralleling his own British
>Masonry.  There is a man here at this laboratory who is a 33 degree black
>mason.  I've talked with him, [...]
>There is the public side with motorcyle mania and
>childrens hospitals and then there is the priviate side that only the highest
>degree mason every learns of.

   Rex, there are literally hundreds of thousands of 32nd degree
Masons in this country, and thousands of 33rds. If nasty stuff was
really going on, don't you think you'd have more than a couple of
disgruntled members "exposing" it? Heck, if what you say is true, then
Rev. Norman Vincent Peale is an Osiris worshiper.
 
[...
Long quote from someone named Hislop (source not given) deleted. I'm
attempting to extract from it the relevent points: 

  * Osiris is actually Nimrod, a Babylonian Deity. 

  * "It is admitted that the secret system of Free Masonry was originally
    founded on the Mysteries of the Egyptian Isis, the goddess-mother, or
    wife of Osiris."

  * The Babylonian Nimrod and Osiris are both connected with the building
    trade, ie, with Masonry.

  * Nimrod, as the son of Cush, was a negro. [isn't this refering to a 
    Biblical Nimrod, rather than the Babylonian god?]

  *  ...there was a tradition in Egypt, recorded by Plutarch, that 'Osiris
     was black'.
...]

     There is a long tradition in Masonry of claiming ancient lineage
for the order, on the flimsiest of grounds. This dates right back to
the Constitutions of 1738, which cite Adam as the first Mason. I've
seen other claims which place Masonry among the Romans, Greeks, and
Egyptians, and Atlanteans. I even have a book which claims to prove
that Stonehenge was originally a Masonic temple. 

    Claims prove nothing. Where's the beef, Rex?

[...Claims ex-Mason showed him leopard skin he wore in lodge]
> Any representation of Osiris usually show the wearing of some leopard.

   I'd have to check this. The tomb paintings I remember don't show
this.

>  It is interesting that the Druids of Britian also show, or should I say
> hide, this representation.  They, however, worshipped the "spotted cow".

   Can you give ancient citations for this? The druids were suppressed
over 2000 years ago. What's your point?

   This whole "leopard skin" business sounds bizarre.  I have not yet
gone through the Scottish Rite (which contains all of those "higher
degrees" anti-Masons get so excited about, and which was invented in
the 1750's), but I know enough people who have (and who are good
Christians), that I reject your claim.

>I'll stand by my statements.  Masonry is of the "mystery" religions
>that all find their source in Babylon, the great harlot. Sorry Peter,
>I do not mean to be a "cold slap to the face" but there is to much

Not so much a 'slap in the face' as 'a weary feeling of deja vu'. I'm
going through a very similar argument over on soc.culture.african.american.

>evidence to the contrary that Masonry doesn't find its origins in
>Egypt.  Of the Masons I have personally talked to, all refered to
>Egypt as their origin.  

    Why don't you try reading some serious books on Masonic history, such
as Hamill's "The Craft"?

>Why are you now separating yourself from this which not many years ago,
>was freely admitted?

   Because we got honest. If you can come up with actual evidence that
Masonry existed prior to 1390, I'd be VERY impressed (actually,
anything earlier than 1630 would be pretty good.)

>-Rex
						Peter Trei
						ptrei@mitre.org

Disclaimer: I do not speak for my employer.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21707
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <May.13.02.30.39.1993.1545@geneva.rutgers.edu> noye@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>i believe that the one
>important thing that those who wrote the old and new testament
>passages cited above did NOT know was that there is scientific
>evidence to support that homosexuality is at least partly _inherent_
>rather than completely learned.

Note that "scientific evidence" in this area does not prove any conclusions.
There has been evidence to suggest that a certain part of homosexual's
brains are different from heterosexuals- but that proves very little.

Also notice that the apostles did not have with them the "scientific
evidence" linking certain genes with alcoholism, or stealing with certain
genetic problems.  Even if they did have scientific evidence, I doubt it
would have stopped them from communicating the teaching from the Holy 
Spirit that these things are sinful.

This reminds me of a conversation with a professor of mine.  He said 
something very true.  Christianity teaches that we should not give in
to our every inclination.  Most people do give in to their leanings.
In Christianity, we have the concept of struggling with the flesh,
and bringing it into submission.  One person may have a problem with
his temper, and having a murderous heart, another may have a problem
with homosexuality, another may be inclined to greed.  But God offers
us the opportunity to be more than conquerers.

>sources where you can find this information, there is homosexual
>behavior recorded among monkeys and other animals, which is in itself
>suggestive that it is inherent rather than learned, or at least that
>the word "unnatural" shouldn't really apply....

The preying mantis bites the head off of her mate after she mates
with him.  Is it natural for a woman to do the same thing to her husband?
The Bible is concerned with human morality, and only touches on animal
morality as it relates to humans.

Link Hudson.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21708
From: USTS012@uabdpo.dpo.uab.edu
Subject: Should teenagers pick a church parents don't attend?

Q. Should teenagers have the freedom to choose what church they go to?

My friends teenage kids do not like to go to church.
If left up to them they would sleep, but that's not an option.
They complain that they have no friends that go there, yet don't
attempt to make friends. They mention not respecting their Sunday
school teacher, and usually find a way to miss Sunday school but
do make it to the church service, (after their parents are thoroughly
disgusted) I might add. A never ending battle? It can just ruin your
whole day if you let it.

Has anyone had this problem and how did it get resolved?
f.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21709
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: homosexual issues in Christianity

In article <May.13.02.31.26.1993.1577@geneva.rutgers.edu> mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:
>>I notice that the verse forbidding bestiality immediately follows the
>>verse prohibiting what appears to be homosexual intercourse.

> It is
>absolutely irrelevant and incomparable to the issues gay Christians *do*
>raise (which concern sexual activity within committed, consensual human
>adult realtionships), so that your bringing it up is no more relevant
>than the laws of kashrut.  If you cannot address the actual issues, you
>are being bloody dishonest in trailing this red herring in front of the
>world.

No.  It is very relevant.  Homosexual acts and acts of beastiality are
topically aranged together in the law.  This is very important.
Anyone who would want to say that this command against homosexuality
deals with temple prostitution (and I think you would agree that there
is no proof for this.)  If the Law reveals the character of God, and 
is "holy, just, and good" as is written in the New Testament, then
those who consider we who are against commiting homosexuals acts
to be biggots have to address this passage of Scripture.  

Why must we only discuss Scriptures that involve consensual human
adult relationships?  Isn't that bordering on sophistry?  The point
we are making is that God did not ordain certain kinds of sex acts.
Not everyone who brings up these Scriptures is just trying to use and emotional
argument that compares homosexuals to beastophiles and child molestors.
The issue we are dealing with is that some sex acts are ungodly.  

I do not have problem with a loving, nonlustful relationship with a member
of the same sex.  I have them, and we all do.  The issue at hand is 
the sinfulness having sex with members of the same sex, or lusting after.
So other forbidden sex acts are a valid topic for conversation. 

And the idea that these relationships may be  emotional  relationships
between adult humans is red herring.  We all agree that it is okay 
for adults to  have caring relationships with one another.

Link Hudson.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21710
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <May.13.02.29.39.1993.1505@geneva.rutgers.edu> revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille) writes:
> It was the manifestation of the spirit among the gentiles
>that convinced Peter (Acts 10) that his prejudice against them (based on
>scripture, I might add) was not in accordance with God's intentions.

I would just like to point out that the particular command not to eat
or fellowship with Gentiles is not found in the Old Testament.  This
was part of the "hedge built around the law."  It was a part of Peter's
tradition, and not the Scripture.

Link Hudson.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21711
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: Goedel's ontological proof

Fred Gilham asks (May 11) whether it is true that Kurt Goedel wrote
a version of the ontological argument for the existence of God.

Yes, he did. He did not publish it, but it will be published by the
Oxford University Press in German and with English translation in
Volume 3, due to appear this fall, of his Collected Works.

Meanwhile, you can find a summary, or perhaps the whole thing, in an
article by Jordan Howard Sobel called "Goedel's ontological proof"
in the book ON BEING AND SAYING, edited by Judith Jarvis Thompson
(sp?), published by the MIT Press in 1987.

Professor C Anthony Anderson of the Philosophy Department of the
University of Minnesota has written an article, "Some Emendations of
Goedel's Ontological Proof," which appeared in the magazine FAITH
AND PHILOSOPHY, v. 7 (1990): 291-303. It discusses some objections
that various critics have raised against Goedel's proof, and offers
a revised version of the proof that is not vulnerable to these
objections.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21712
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In <May.13.02.31.16.1993.1569@geneva.rutgers.edu> djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu
(Darin Johnson) writes:

>Ok, what's more important to gay Christians?  Sex, or Christianity?

I'm afraid I see that question as very tendentious.  Try rephrasing it:

	What's more important to Christians?  Love of God or love
	of other human beings?

to which of course the only conceivable answer is that the one is like
the other.  I am *deeply* suspicious of any "flavor" of Christianity
which would elevate one clause of the Great Commandment to a "priority"
over the other such as to claim a conflict.  True, we are told to let
the dead bury the dead, to "hate" family rather than let it keep us from
following Christ.  But the dichotomy here is not one between love of our
fellows and love of God, but of allowing *social* constructs to blind us
to the presense of God.  It is particularly satanic to twist love of God
in such a manner as to become an excuse to treat others as on a different
level than the one who is so caught up in "love" of God.

The trouble comes in the relation of human love and human sex.  Yes, it
has sometimes been the case that the Church has "taught" that all sex
was nasty, evil, sinful stuff.  But when man and wife leave their parental
homes to become helpmates, living in one flesh, it is the sex that is the
vehicle of becoming "one flesh" (if you doubt me, read St. Paul on what
is wrong with frequenting prostitutes :-)).  Less provocatively, what I
mean is just this: sexual bonding is a deeply founded aspect of our social
interaction, and in particular is the foundation of the institution of
marriage, so that unlike with many mammals, human males remain with and
foster the children they beget and support their children's mothers.
This is the schema behind Genesis 2:18-24 (and behind Jesus' citation of
that passage.)

	[ I observe, by the way, that not all human males in fact do as
	  I have just described; but another thing that characterizes
	  human societies is our raising of *non*begotten children, not
	  only orphans and adoptees and the like, but products of the
	  quite common infidelities of humans to their spouses. We are
	  in this not unique in the animal world, but the full extent of
	  social consequences and implications is most intricate for us. ]

Yes, of course it sometimes goes "wrong" -- like all else we do, it is
infected with sin, and you find married "couples" where there is no bond,
and people so deliriously addicted to the initial stages of sexual bond
formation (the "infatuation", "falling in love" phase) that they break
any forming bond in order to keep stepping over the threshold of the deep
unity God has prepared for us, and stepping back out again right away.
Satan may indeed *use* sex as a very handy tool to corrupt human love --
but in the Edenic creation, that is not its nature, and with God's grace
under the power of Christ to make all things new it need not be a problem
for Christians (though we must be vigilant, even in Christ, as the devil
is watchful, prowling around like a roaring lion seeking someone to devour.)

So, returning to the original question, what is more important to STRAIGHT
Christians?  Sex, or Christianity?  Paul, clearly, tended to think that
sex was at best a distraction from Christianity (though to be charitable
to him, his context was in expectation of immediate parousia, so that the
hard TASKS of a married union -- the lifelong building and adaptation to
each other -- seemed somehow to undercut the "proper" preparation for an
immediate eschaton.  Since we *do not* know the hour of return, we should
act *both* with instant readiness for that *and* with a commitiment to our
mates that proposes a long lifetime together.  And telling people *not* to
bond in such a perspective strikes me as crippling us in the second clause
of the the commandment to love.  I would claim that only a very few saints
have the CAPACITY to deeply love (without sexual tinges or complication,
mind you) their fellow human beings unless they have had a deeply spiritual
life in married union growing together as one flesh -- and that means in
the type case, with a persistent and continued sexual relationship.  We
are human, and little good comes of trying to "mortify the flesh" to the
point of pretending to be otherwise, pretending NOT to be sexual beings.

>Christianity I would hope.  Would they be willing to forgo sex
>completely, in order to avoid being a stumbling block to others,

It depends entirely on context.  If that context is major hypocrisy
on the part of those who find us "stumbling blocks" I am much less of
a mind to efface myself so that they can pontificate about MY sins.

There are some people for whom a life of celibacy is a spritual gift,
and maybe even a victory against a to-them troubling sexual urge that
seems to them to lead only to sin.  Nothing I say should ever be read
as demeaning such a gift.  Nor the even rarer gift of love for all our
conspecifics, and indeed for all God's creation, that can develop to
the full *without* the tutoring of a spousal/helpmate marriage founded
in sex.  But there is a difference between spiritual gifts and penance;
telling people that they HAVE to have a particular gift (or else? what?)
is fraught with manipulation and disregard of the differences of our
spiritual endowments from God.  To one person is given the gift of
speaking in toungues, to another intepretation of toungues; to yet
another prophecy; and to still another teaching.  The notion that some
*particular* gift is required of *all* is one of the earliest heresies.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		I say "You are gods, sons of the
mls@panix.com			Most High, all of you; nevertheless
    - or -			you shall die like men, and fall
mls@ulysses.att..com		like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21713
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin


 creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps) writes:

[Anyway, your argument seems to be saying, "If _I_ were
God, I certainly wouldn't do things that way; therefore, God doesn't do
things that way."]

I would never have the audacity to say such a thing. My argument says
only that I do not understand.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21714
From: bill@twg.bc.ca (Bill Irwin)
Subject: Re: What WAS the immaculate conception

ragraca@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Randy A. Graca) writes:

:                                                               Consequently,
: this verse indicates that she was without sin.  Also, as was observed at
: the very top of this post, Mary had to be free from sin in order to be the
: mother of Jesus, who was definitely without sin.

If the mother of Jesus had to be without sin in order to give
birth to God, then why didn't Mary's mother have to be without
sin in order to give birth to the perfect vessel for Jesus?  For
that matter, why didn't Mary's grandmother have to be without sin
either?  Seems to me that with all the original sin flowing
through each person, the need for the last one (Mary) to have
none puts God in a box, where we say that He couldn't have
incarnated Himself through a normal human being.

My God is an all powerful God, Who can do whatever suits His
purpose.  This includes creating a solar system and planet earth
with the appearance of great age; providing a path through the
Red Sea for the children of Israel that does not depend on the
existence of a ridge of high ground and a wind blowing at the
right speed and direction; and the birth of Himself from a normal
sinful person without being tainted by her original sin.

I see far too much focus on the "objects" of religion and not
nearly enough on the personal relationship that is available to
all believers with the Author of our existence, without the
necessity of having this relationship channeled through conduits
to God in the form of Mary, Apostles and a Pope.

: Note that the idea of Mary being conceived without Original Sin, i.e. the
: Immaculate Conception, is distinct from the idea of Mary not having sinned
: during her lifetime, which is a separate doctrine and, I believe, also
: held by the Catholic Church.

If Mary was born without original sin, and didn't sin during her
lifetime, how is she any different from Jesus?  This means the
world has had two perfect humans:  one died to take away the sins
of the world;  the other gave birth to Him?  I would certainly
want to see some scriptural support for this before I would start
praying to anyone other than God.  Everything I have ever read
from the bible teaches me that Jesus was and is the only sinless
Lamb of God, not His mother, grandmother........

: Hope this is useful to you.

Very useful in helping me understand some of the RC beliefs.
Thank you.
-- 
Bill Irwin     -      The Westrheim Group     -    Vancouver, BC, Canada
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
uunet!twg!bill            (604) 431-9600 (voice) |     Your Computer  
bill@twg.bc.ca            (604) 430-4329 (fax)   |    Systems Partner

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21715
From: mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server)
Subject: Re: Eternal Marriage


 hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal F Lillywhite) writes:
>In article <May.11.02.39.09.1993.28334@athos.rutgers.edu> dhammers@pacific.? 
>(David Hammerslag) writes:
> 
>>This paragraph brought to mind a question.  How do you (Mormons) reconcile
>>the idea of eternal marriage with Christ's statement that in the ressurection
>>people will neither marry nor be given in marriage (Luke, chapt. 20)?
> 
>[deletions]
> 
>I think what Jesus is saying here (and it is clearest in Matthew's
>and Mark's accounts) is that marriages will not be performed in the
>resurrection.  This goes along with our belief that if a person is
>to marry at all it must be done on this earth... [deletions]

The problem with this view is that the topic under discussion in this
passage *is* marriages that were performed on earth.  Jesus' words
seem to me to indicate that He regards His response as the answer to their
question about which earthly marriage would be valid after the resurrection.
This being the case, the most straightforward interpretation, in my
opinion, is that marriage does not exist in the next life because those
who are raised are of a different nature than what we are now.  Other-
wise, why would Jesus offer "but are like the angels in heaven" as a
contrast to the idea of the resurrected marrying and being given in
marriage?  We do not have angel-like natures now, but someday we shall,
and when we do, our earthly marriages will be irrelevant.  Or at least,
that's what I think Jesus is saying about the post-resurrection validity of 
marriages performed on earth.  Your mileage may vary. :)

- Mark

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21716
From: mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Subject: Re: On Capital Punishment

In article <May.12.04.29.37.1993.10035@athos.rutgers.edu> gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock) writes:
...
>       safety.  To the degree that means other than the death
>       penalty and military operations are sufficient to keep the
>       peace, then these non-violent provisions are to be preferred
>       because they are more in proportion and in keeping with the
>       final goal of protection of peace and human dignity.

Thanks for posting the exact wording which I had not seen
previously. The part I quote above seems to me to indicate
disapproval of capital punishment - it is to be used only when
other means are not sufficient; I would say this is a stronger
restriction than saying that capital punishment is useable when
justifiable. I would certainly say there are cases where a
crime justifies death (perhaps this is the Old Testament
interpretation), but my reverence for life would say that I
would oppose the actual infliction of the death penalty (a New
Testament interpretation?). It is a matter for debate whether
the death penalty works to keep the peace in a way that
non-violent provisions do not. I don't believe it does, and I
would certainly observe that in the USA, where you have the
death penalty, there is a far higher murder rate than here in
the UK, where we do not.

Matthew Huntbach

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21717
From: maridai@comm.mot.com (Marida Ignacio)
Subject: Re: Bernadette dates


    |JEK@cu.nih.gov writes:                                            
    |Joe Moore writes:                                                 
    |                                                                  
    | > Mary at that time appeared to a girl named Bernadette at       
    | > Lourdes.  She referred to herself as the Immaculate Conception.
    | > Since a nine year old would have no way of knowing about the   
    | > doctrine, the apparition was deemed to be true and it sealed   
    | > the case for the doctrine.                                     
    |Bernadette was 14 years old when she had her visions, in 1858,    
    |four years after the dogma had been officially proclaimed by the  
    |Pope.                                                             
    |                                                                  
    | Yours,                                                           
    | James Kiefer

I forgot exactly what her age was but I remember clearly
that she was born in a family of poverty and she did not
have any education, whatsoever, at the age of the apparitions.
She suffered from asthma at that age and she and her family were
living in an abandoned prison cell of some sort.

She had to ask the 'Lady' several times in her apparitions about 
what her name was since her confessor priest asked her to do so.  
For several instances, the priest did not get an answer since 
Bernadette did not receive any.  One time, after several apparitions
passed, The Lady finally said, "I am the Immaculate Conception".
So, Bernadette, was so happy and repeated these words over and
over in her mind so as not to forget it before she told the
priest who was asking.  So, when she told the priest, the
priest was shocked and asked Bernadette, "Do you know what
you are talking about?".  Bernadette did not know what exactly
it meant but she was just too happy to have the answer for
the priest.  The priest continued with, "How did you remember
this if you do not know?".  Bernadette answered honestly that
she had to repeat it over and over in her mind while on her
way to the priest...

The priest knew about the dogma being four years old then.
But Bernadette did not know and yet she had the answer which
the priest finally observed and took as proof of an authentic
personal revelation of Our Lady to Bernadette.

(Note: This Lady of Lourdes shrine has a spring of water which
our lady requested Bernadette to dig up herself with her
bare hands in front of pilgrims.  At the start little
water flowed but after several years there is more water 
flowing.)

-Marida
 "...spreading God's words through actions..."
 -Mother Teresa

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21718
From: joe@erix.ericsson.se (Joe Armstrong)
Subject: Angels on needles?


    I recall reading somewhere that a number of bishops spent  a great
deal of  time  debating the topic of "how many angels could fit on the
tip of a needle".

    Does anybody have a reference to this?

    Thanks

    Joe Armstrong

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21719
From: benha@castle.ed.ac.uk (Ben Hambidge)
Subject: Committing my life to God?

Hi everyone,

I'm trying to find my way to God, but find it difficult as I can't hear
God talking to me, letting me know that he exists and is with me and
that he knows me, and I feel that I can't possibly get to know him until
he does. Maybe he _is_ talking to me but I just don't know or understand
how to listen.

Some Christians tell me that (in their opinion) the only way to find God
is to take a plunge and commit your life to him, and you will discover.
This idea of diving into the totally unknown is a little bit
frightening, but I have a few questions.

1) How do you actually commit yourself? If I just say, "OK God, her you
go, I'm committing my life to you", I wouldn't really feel that he'd
listened - at least, I couldn't be sure that he had. So how does one (or
how did you) commit oneself to God?

2) In committing myself in this way, what do I have to forfeit of my
current life? What can I no longer do? I feel that I'm as 'good' as many
Christians, and I try to uphold the idea of 'loving your neighbour' - I
don't go round killing people, stealing, etc., and I try not to get
jealous of other people in any way - and I would say that I keep to the
standards of treating other people as well as many Christians. So what
do I have to give up?

3) When committed, what do I have to do? What does it involve? What (if
any) burdens am I taking on?

4) So then, what's the general difference before and after? I assume,
that (like on your birthday you don't suddenly feel a year older) it
won't suddenly change my life the day I commit myself. So what happens?

5) How can I be sure that it is the right thing to do? How can I find
out what the 'it' in the last sentence actually _is_?!

Thanks very much for all your help in answering these questions. Perhaps
e-mail would be a better way to reply, but it's up to you.

Ben.
<benha@castle.ed.ac.uk>    <JANET:benha@uk.ac.ed.castle>
(20 year-old at University in Scotland)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21720
From: dlhanson@amoco.com (David L. Hanson)
Subject: Re: SJ Mercury's reference to Fundamentalist Christian parents

In article <May.14.02.10.09.1993.25137@athos.rutgers.edu> David.Bernard@central.sun.com (Dave Bernard) writes:
>From: David.Bernard@central.sun.com (Dave Bernard)
>Subject: Re: SJ Mercury's reference to Fundamentalist Christian parents
>Date: 14 May 93 06:10:10 GMT
>In article 28120@athos.rutgers.edu, dan@ingres.com (a Rose arose) writes:
>
>>	"Raised in Oakland and San Lorenzo by strict fundamentalist
>>	Christian parents, Mason was beaten as a child.  He once was
>>
>>Were the San Jose Mercury news to come out with an article starting with
>>"Raised in Oakland by Mexican parents, Mason was beaten...", my face would
>>be red with anger over the injustice done to my Mexican family members and
>
>
>Although I'm neither Fundamentalist nor Evangelical, I have often noticed
>this trend in the media.  In short, it is permissable to bash Fundamentalists.
>No need to substitue a nationality such as "Mexican..." try simply to 
>substitute a different religion "...raised by Muslim parents," or "...raised
>by Jewish parents..."  The paper simply would not do this.

I have noticed that newspapers don't even know what a fundamentalist is;
at the least, they confuse new evangelicals and fundamentalists.  In this
news group, the liberals don't even know what a fundamentalist is (crying
out "legalist" at anyone who believes and obeys God's Word). A fundamentalist
would train their children in the way God proscribes, not in the way that
man proscribes.  This would not include life threatening beatings but would
include corporal punishment. 

To the liberals, I cry out infidel at anyone who does not believe God's Word.

Signature follows:
"Your statutes are wonderful: therefore I obey them."  Psalm 119:129
=========================================================================
David L. Hanson
Any opinions expressed are my own!

[As most people here know, I believe fundamentalist is sufficiently
ill-defined that I advise using some more specific term.  I think many
people use it to cover people who believe in inerrancy and a number of
related concepts (e.g. denial of evolution).  While the original
fundamentals movement was somewhat more specific, I would think most
people who accept inerrancy would actually support the whole original
agenda.  (It included a list of key traditional doctrines, e.g.  the
virgin birth.)  The term is now being used by the press to describe
aggressive conservative religions in general, most typically those who
are attempting to legislate religion.

Legalism is yet another ill-defined term.  However there is some
reason for its use in this context.  In fact the common theological
definition is the believe that salvation is through the Law.  I hope
no one here believes that our conservative contributors hold this
view.  However there is a basic difference in approach over what we
expect to get out of the Bible.  The conservative approach expects to
find specific behavioral rules.  Generally the posters advocating this
approach talk about the relevant passages from Paul's letter as God's
Law.  The liberal approach expects to find general principles, but it
regards specific behavioral rules subject to change depending upon the
culture and other things.  It's easy to see why a liberal would regard
the conservative approach as legalism.  It's hard to know quite what
other term to use.  The issue in this case is not inerrancy, because
no one is saying that Paul made a factual error.  Rather, the question
is whether his statements are to be taken as Law.  Calling the
positive answer legalism seems obvious enough terminology.  I haven't
seen any good alternative.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21721
From: carlson@ab24.larc.nasa.gov (Ann Carlson)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In article <May.14.02.11.48.1993.25266@athos.rutgers.edu>, dps@nasa.kodak.com (Dan Schaertel,,,) writes:
|> In article 28328@athos.rutgers.edu, carlson@ab24.larc.nasa.gov (Ann Carlson) writes:
|> >Anyone who thinks being gay and Christianity are not compatible should 
|> >check out Dignity, Integrity, More Light Presbyterian churches, Affirmation,
|> >MCC churches, etc.  Meet some gay Christians, find out who they are, pray
|> >with them, discuss scripture with them, and only *then* form your opinion.
|> 
|> If you were to start your own religion, this would be fine.  But there
|> is no scriptural basis for your statement,   

How about Acts 11: 15-18, 22-23
or, I John 4:1-8
which says to *try* the spirits to see if they be of God.  

|> in fact it really gets to the heart of the problem.
|> You think you know more than scripture.
|> Your faith is driven by feel goodism and not by the Word of God.  

How do you know?  When have you tried to learn anything about me?
-- 



*************************************************      
*Dr. Ann B. Carlson (a.b.carlson@larc.nasa.gov) *       O .
*MS 366                                         *         o  _///_ //
*NASA Langley Research Center                   *          <`)=  _<<
*Hampton, VA 23681-0001                         *             \\\  \\
*************************************************

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21722
From: William_Mosco@vos.stratus.com
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

>We are all still human. We don't know it all, but homosexual or heterosexual, 
>we all strive to follow Jesus.  The world is dying and needs to hear about 
>Jesus Christ. 
 Gaining entry into heaven cannot be done without first being cleansed by 
 the blood of Jesus. 
 Sin cannot dwell in heaven.  It is against the natural laws of God. 
 Being converted to christianity means being baptized by the Holy Spirit. 
 You cannot get to heaven by good works only. 
 Because of the union with the holy spirit, the man's behavior will change. 
 If there is true union he will not desire to be homosexual.  Fornication 
 and homosexuality will leave your life if you are truly baptized by the 
 holy spirit.  It's not to say that we don't stumble now and then.   
  

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21723
From: creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)
Subject: Re: What WAS the immaculate conception

In article <May.14.02.11.19.1993.25177@athos.rutgers.edu> seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson) wrote:
>I have quite a problem with the idea that Mary never committed a sin.
>Was Mary fully human?  If it is possible for God to miraculously make 
>a person free of original sin, and free of committing sin their whole
>life, then what is the purpose of the Incarnation of Jesus?  Why can't
>God just repeat the miracle done for Mary to make all the rest of us
>sinless, without the need for repentance and salvation and all that?

   Yes, Mary is fully human.  However, that does not imply that she was
just as subject to sin as we are.  Catholic doctrine says that man's
nature is good (Gen 1:31), but is damaged by Original Sin (Rom 5:12-16).
In that case, being undamaged by Original Sin, Mary is more fully human
than any of the rest of us.

   You ask why God cannot "repeat the miracle" of Mary's preservation
from Original Sin.  A better way to phrase it would be "why _did_ He
not" do it that way, but you misunderstand how Mary's salvation was
obtained.  Like ours, the Blessed Virgin Mary's salvation was obtained
through the merits of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.  However, as
God is not bound by time, which is His creation, God is free to apply
His Sacrifice to anyone at any time, even if that person lived before
Christ came to Earth, from our time-bound perspective.  Therefore,
Christ's Death and Resurrection still served a necessary purpose, and
were necessary even for Mary's salvation.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21724
From: autry@sgi.com (Larry Autry)
Subject: Re: What WAS the immaculate conception

In article <May.14.02.11.19.1993.25177@athos.rutgers.edu> seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson) writes:
>In article <May.9.05.39.52.1993.27456@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes:
>[referring to Mary]
>>She was immaculately conceived, and so never subject to Original Sin,
>>but also never committed a personal sin in her whole life.  This was
>>possible because of the special degree of grace granted to her by God.
> skipping......
>I don't particularly object to the idea of the assumption, or the
>perpetual virginity (both of which I regard as Catholic dogma about 
>which I will agree to disagree with my Catholic brothers and sisters 
>in Christ), and I even believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, but 
>this concept of Mary's sinlessness seems to me to be at odds with 
>the rest of Christian doctrine as I understand it.

The Catholic church has an entirely different view of Mary than do 
"most" other Christian churches (those with parallel beliefs
notwithstanding).  Christ, by most accounts, is the only sinless
person to ever live.  I too, have trouble with a sinless Mary
concept just. 
As for the related issue of the "original" sin - only Adam and
Eve will answer for that one.  My children do not answer for my sins,
certainly I only answer for mine.
--
Larry Autry
Silicon Graphics, St. Louis
autry@sgi.com 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21725
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock)
Subject: Hail Mary, Full of Grace

In article <May.14.02.11.19.1993.25177@athos.rutgers.edu> seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson) writes:
>In article <May.9.05.39.52.1993.27456@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes:
>[referring to Mary]
>>She was immaculately conceived, and so never subject to Original Sin,
>>but also never committed a personal sin in her whole life.  This was
>>possible because of the special degree of grace granted to her by God.

>I have quite a problem with the idea that Mary never committed a sin.
>Was Mary fully human?  If it is possible for God to miraculously make 
>a person free of original sin, and free of committing sin their whole
>life, then what is the purpose of the Incarnation of Jesus?  Why can't
>God just repeat the miracle done for Mary to make all the rest of us
>sinless, without the need for repentance and salvation and all that?

>I don't particularly object to the idea of the assumption, or the
>perpetual virginity (both of which I regard as Catholic dogma about which
>I will agree to disagree with my Catholic brothers and sisters in
>Christ), and I even believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, but this
>concept of Mary's sinlessness seems to me to be at odds with the
>rest of Christian doctrine as I understand it.


If you don't agree with Joseph's accurate statement of the Catholic dogma
of Mary's perpetual sinlessness, then how do you interpret Luke 1:28,

	And when the angel had come to her, he said, "Hail, full of 
	grace, the Lord is with thee.  Blessed art thou among women."

and Luke 1:48? 

	...for, behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

I suppose that these verses might be interpreted to mean that Mary was
possessed of some limited quantity or quality of grace, just as some of 
us are, but it seems to me that "full of grace" means just what it says:   
filled to the brim, incapable of containing more.  The only other people we 
know of who have an abundance of grace are those souls existing in heaven now 
(another Catholic dogma, based on the communion of saints, as I explained in 
an earlier post).  Full of grace to me means sinless, and anyone who has 
ever sinned in his life cannot be without sin in the same sense as Mary  
was sinless.  

As a Catholic, I too find certain of the dogmas tough to embrace.  But
that's where the Catholic faith and prayer come into play.  I pray God
to strengthen my will to accept the faith given the bride of Christ,
which in turn usually strengthens my community faith in His Church.  And,
as you probably know, faith in Christ's Church is tantamount to faith in
Christ inasmuch as the Church is Christ's Mystical Body.  A Catholic by
nature must have two aspects to his faith in Christ: (1) a personal faith in 
Christ as his own personal redeemer and (2) a community faith in the Church 
as the body of Christ.

 
-- 
Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock 
Catechist
gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu 

[You might want to check the Greek.  "full of grace" translates a
single word that simply means "favored", or perhaps more literally,
"graced".  The "full" is a vestige of the specific translation you're
using.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21726
From: poram%mlsma@att.att.com
Subject: Re: Deuterocanonicals, esp. Sirach

Andrew - continuing the discussion on the Deuterocanonicals...

In article <May.13.02.29.43.1993.1508@geneva.rutgers.edu> revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille) writes:
>poram@ihlpb.att.com wrote:
>: Lets talk about principles. If we accept that God sets the
>: standards for what ought to be included in Scripture - then we
>: can ask:
>: 1. Is it authoritative?
>
>"Authoritative" is not a quality of the writing itself- it is a statement
>by the community of faith whether it will accept the writing as normative.

Arguably, it is both. Since authority is a matter of both
communicator and recepiant we can say that, for example "Jesus
is Lord" whether the world at large accepts the authority or
not. Thus the Bible can be considered for its authoritative
content whether or not it is accepted (This issue is at the
heart of Pilate's pragmatic question "What is truth?" to Jesus
when our Lord was brought before Him. Jesus' reply was to appeal
to the authority of his Father)
You also might like to consider the claimed authority
represented by the statements "thus says the Lord" in the Bible,
which claim to put across the exact words of God.

You fall into the danger of relativism with your rejection of
inherant authority and claim that it lies only in the "community
of faith" - does something become truth because it is accepted?
The main thrust of my argument is that there is a Godward
direction as well as a manward (which is where the reference to
Rev 22 came in.)

>: 2. Is it prophetic?
>
>How is "prophecy" to be defined? If it is "speaking forth" of God's message,
>much of the apocrypha must surely qualify.

If we narrowed it down to the predictive elements - which will
cut out some of the 39 accepted OT books as well - we
nonetheless have criteria for determining the validity of the
book: Jesus' standards were that "Scripture cannot be broken".
Can you name a single prophecy that fits the bill in the Apocrapha?
(ie definitely fulfilled AFTER it has been written)

>: 3. Is it authentic?
>
>Again, by what standard?  Is "authenticity" a function of the authors? the
>historical accuracy? 

Does it have a subjective 'ring of truth' about it - and does
other evidence that has come to light contradict or confirm the
authenticity? (archaeological, other textual evidence for
example)

>: 4. Is it dynamic?
>
>What is this supposed to mean?  Many of the apocryphal books are highly
>"dynamic" -thought provoking, faithful, even exciting.

What this is getting at is the relationship between text and
reader. It is to do with the quality of writing, which should
have the ability to fire the mind, affect our thought life and
cause us to act in a certain way - there is something of this
in Jesus' quote: "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every
word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord". (Matt 4.4)

>: 5. Is it received, collected, read and used?
>
>By whom?  Of course the apocryphal books were received (by some),
>collected (or else we would not have them), read and used (and they still are,
>in the Catholic and Orthodox churches).

Does the Catholic Church give the same authority to the
Apocrapha as to the accepted 66 books? Certainly it is not as
widely used as the OT and NT.

>: On these counts, the apocrapha falls short of the glory of God.
>
>This is demonstrably false.

Think about what I have said above. You may want to revise your
conclusion. In addition think about other 'sacred writings', eg
the Koran, the book of Mormon and how and why you would
categorise them using the above principles. One word of caution
- you may find some 'reflected glory' in some of these books: in
that the 'inspired quality' may be derived from the Bible.
Remember that Lucifer is quite capable of appearing as an angel
of light and quoting Scripture.

>: To quote Unger's Bible Dictionary on the Apocrapha:
>: 1. They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and
>: anachronisms.
>
>So do other books of the Bible.

What were you thinking of?

>[deletions]
>
>: How do you then view the words: "I warn everyone who  hears the
>: words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to
>: them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
>: And if anyone takes away from this book the prophecy, God will
>: take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the
>: holy city" (Rev 22.18-9)
>: Surely this sets the standard and not just man-made traditions.
>
>These words clearly were meant to refer to the book of Revelation alone,
>not to the whole body of scripture.  Revelation itself was accepted very
>late into the canon.  The church simply did not see it as having a primary
>role of any kind in identifying and limiting scripture.

We've lost the point and the context here. I am not arguing that
the statement in Rev. can be applied indescriminately, just that
the whole acceptance/rejection idea does not just follow on from
man-made traditions - but there is I believe an act of God
involved in the selection and criteria of what is classified as
Scripture and comes under the definition of 2Tim 3.16.

>
>revdak@netcom.com

Barney Resson
"Many shall run to and fro, & knowledge shall increase" (Daniel)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21727
From: maridai@comm.mot.com
Subject: Re: Bernadette Dates


    |JEK@cu.nih.gov writes:                                            
    |Joe Moore writes:                                                 
    |                                                                  
    | > Mary at that time appeared to a girl named Bernadette at       
    | > Lourdes.  She referred to herself as the Immaculate Conception.
    | > Since a nine year old would have no way of knowing about the   
    | > doctrine, the apparition was deemed to be true and it sealed   
    | > the case for the doctrine.                                     
    |Bernadette was 14 years old when she had her visions, in 1858,    
    |four years after the dogma had been officially proclaimed by the  
    |Pope.                                                             
    |                                                                  
    | Yours,                                                           
    | James Kiefer

I forgot exactly what her age was but I remember clearly
that she was born in a family of poverty and she did not
have any education, whatsoever, at the age of the apparitions.
She suffered from asthma at that age and she and her family were
living in a prison cell of some sort.

She had to ask the 'Lady' several times in her apparitions about 
what her name was since her confessor priest asked her to do so.  
For several instances, the priest did not get an answer since 
Bernadette did not receive any.  One time, after several apparitions
passed, The Lady finally said, "I am the Immaculate Conception".
So, Bernadette, was so happy and repeated these words over and
over in her mind so as not to forget it before she told the
priest who was asking.  So, when she told the priest, the
priest was shocked and asked Bernadette, "Do you know what
you are talking about?".  Bernadette did not know what exactly
it meant but she was just too happy to have the answer for
the priest.  The priest continued with, "How did you remember
this if you do not know?".  Bernadette answered honestly that
she had to repeat it over and over in her mind while on her
way to the priest...

The priest knew about the dogma being four years old then.
But Bernadette did not know and yet she had the answer which
the priest finally observed and took as proof of an authentic
personal revelation of Our Lady to Bernadette.

(Note: This Lady of Lourdes shrine has a spring of water which
our lady requested Bernadette to dig up herself with her
bare hands in front of pilgrims.  At the start little
water flowed but after several years there is more water 
flowing.)

-Marida
 "...spreading God's words through actions..."
 -Mother Teresa




-- 
-Marida (maridai@ecs.comm.mot.com)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21728
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Subject: *****TO EVERYONE IN DIALOG WITH TONY ROSE***** Please Read This!

Hello everyone. I just wanted to let everyone know that I have just
been selected as part of the Reduction In Force here at Amdahl. For all
that are currently in a dialog with me, or are waiting letters from me,
I have saved your letters on floppy and will continue when I get back
on the net from another account in the future.

For those who are on the GEnie network, my email address there is:

                     T.ROSE1

God Bless and Goodbye until then. If you want to continue dialogs with
me via US MAIL, I can be contacted at:

            Tony Rose
            c/o JUDE 3 MISSIONS
            P.O. Box 1035
            Felton, CA 95018

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21729
From: revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille)
Subject: Re: Mary's assumption

Dave Bernard (David.Bernard@central.sun.com) wrote:

: When Elizabeth greeted Mary, Elizabeth said something to the effect that
: Mary, out of all women, was blessed.  If so, it appears that this
: exactly places Mary beyond the sanctification of normal humanity.

The phrase is "eulogemene su en gunaixin"- "blessed are you among women."
There is nothing to indicate that this is an exceptional or unique status,
only that _as a woman_ Mary was blessed.  Adding the word "all" is not
a fair reading of the text.  There are some good reasons for the church's
veneration of Mary, but they cannot depend on this verse.

revdak@netcom.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21730
From: norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak)
Subject: Boston Church

(Dear Moderator: Would you add this to the BCC faq?)

In case there are any ex-members of the "Boston Church of Christ"
looking for a support organization, here's the number of "BostonEX" in
Burlington, MA: 617-272-1955.

--------

s.r.c readers in New England may be interested in seeing a series of
news reports about the BCC in the 6 pm nightly news on Channel 5
(WCVB, Boston), for the next few days (starting Wed, 5/19).

For viewers outside the Boston area, the same telecasts will also be
aired on the "New England Cable News" channel at 8 pm.  

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21731
From: marka@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley)
Subject: Marian Apparitions #1

The Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to Catherine Laboure, a nun of the
sisters of Charity on July 18, 1830 at Rue du Bac, Paris.

Sister Catherine was awakened late that night by a small boy, age 5
or 6, who was literally glowing with some sort of interior light. 
The child led her to the sanctuary of the chapel where he promised
the Virgin Mary was to be found awaiting her. Our Lady appeared to
her and instructed her for two hours or more on matters pertaining
to her life and to the future of France and the world.

On November 27 Our Lady appeared again to Catherine. She instructed
her to have a medal struck. She told her that those who wore this 
medal would enjoy special protection from the Mother of God and would
receive great graces. In less than a year there were three more
apparitions. In June of 1831 the medals were a reality. Many reports
were received by those who wore it. Within two years of its issuing
the medal was known as the "Miraculous Medal". Catherine died in 1876.
Her body to this day is remarkably preserved (incorrupt). She was
canonized on July 27, 1947. Her body lies in the chapel at the
motherhouse on the Rue du Bac where she had her first meeting with
Our Lady.

The apparition on November 27 1830 was of average height and clothed
in white with a veil that flowed over the head and fell to the floor.
Above the altar, a pyramid painted to represent God's all knowing
wisdom looked down on them. Our Lady's feet rested on a white globe
and there was also a green serpent with yellow spots that she was
stepping on. In her hands was a golden ball that represented the world.
Great streams of light issued from her hands and she also showed 
Catherine an image of two hearts, the Sacred Heart wrapped in
piercing thorns and her own heart punctured by a sword. The sword
represented her suffering with Jesus.

The apparitions announced the onset of the great battle and forewarned
that a dark era lay in the immediate future. It was the apparition 
leading up to the recent ones. Our Lady began to dispense secrets.
And with the globe she revealed herself in worldwide dispute
with the forces of the dark. She told Catherine "The times are
evil. Misfortunes will fall upon France. The throne will be
overturned. The entire world will be overcome by evils of all
kinds."

Refer to books on St. Catherine for more of Our Lady's messages.
A copy of the medal is also available in Catholic bookstores.

I will post other Marian events every few days or so including
the ones happening today which are still under investigation.
These postings serve only to introduce you to these events.
Please look more into them and understand the reason for 
the increasing number and urgency of these apparitions.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Ashley                        |DISCLAIMER: My opinions. Not Harris'
marka@gcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com      |
The Lost Los Angelino              |

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21732
From: atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez)
Subject: Re: Baptism requires Faith

aaronc@athena.mit.edu (Aaron Bryce Cardenas) writes:

>It troubles me that there have been so many posts recently trying to support
>the doctrine of Original Sin.  This is primarily a Catholic doctrine, with no
>other purpose than to defend the idea of infant baptism. ...
>If you read all of Ezekiel 18, you will see that God doesn't hold us guilty
>for anyone else's sins.  So we can have no original guilt from Adam.

  This neatly eliminates the need for a savior and "proves" that we can be
saved by works alone!  If we have no original sin, then it is possible for
us to save ourselves by not sinning.  I understand the reasoning behind your
argument, but it leads to sheer folly.  Original sin is the reason we need
faith to be saved.

Alan Terlep				    "...and the scorpion says, 'it's 
Oakland University, Rochester, MI		in my nature.'"
atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu	

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21733
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

[Eugen Bigelow writes:

>It is also noteworthy to consider Jesus' attitude. He had no
>argument with the pharisees over any of the OT canon (John
>10.31-6), and explained to his followers on the road to Emmaus 
>that in the law, prophets and psalms which referred to him - the 
>OT division of Scripture (Luke 24.44), as well as in Luke 11.51
>taking Genesis to Chronicles (the jewish order - we would say
>Genesis to Malachi) as Scripture.

You should remember that in Adam's transgression, all men and women
sinned, as Paul wrote.  All of humanity cooperativley reblled against
God in Adma's sin, thus, all are subject to it, and the sin is
transmitted from generation to generation.

Andy Byler]

Andy, I did not write the above paragraph. I believe this is about the 3rd
time someone else's words have been attributed to me. I can't speak for
the rest of humanity, but I did not cooperatively rebell against anything.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21734
From: aidler@sol.uvic.ca (E Alan Idler)
Subject: Re: Mormon beliefs about children born out of wedlock

aaronc@athena.mit.edu (Aaron Bryce Cardenas) writes:

>Bruce Webster writes:
>>Indeed, LDS doctrine goes one step further and in some cases
>>holds parents responsible for their children's sins if they have
>>failed to bring them up properly (cf. D&C 68:25-28; note that this
>>passage applies it only to members of the LDS church).

I include the key verse (D&C 68:25) because others
may not have the reference.

"And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion,
or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach
them not to understand the doctrine of repentance,
faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of
baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying
on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be
upon the heads of the parents."

What is "the sin" of the parents?

>Hi Bruce.  How do you reconcile this practice with Ezekiel 18?
>Ezekiel 18:20 "The soul who sins is the one who will die.  The son will not
>share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the
>son.  The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and
>the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him."

>Is Ezekiel 18 not translated correctly in your eyes perhaps?

Ezekiel 18 teaches a correct principle.
However, it assumes that fathers and sons have 
equal knowledge to prepare for the judgment.

Parents are responsible to teach their children
the Gospel and other life skills.  Should they
fail to make a sufficient attempt to teach their 
children, the parent would be held responsible
-- not for their children's sins, but for not
teaching them properly.

Whenever the Lord installs someone to a position 
of authority in either the family or the church He
expects that person to teach those in his charge.

In Ezekiel 33:7-9 someone called to care for others 
is likened to "a watchman unto the house of Israel."
"If thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from 
his way, that man shall die in his iniquity; but
his blood will I require at thine hand.
Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to 
turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he
shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast
delivered thy soul."

Even though the D&C prefaces this commandment with
"parents have children in Zion" I believe all
parents are responsible for teaching their children 
whatever good principles they understand.
However, LDS parents accept greater responsbility
and could be judged more strictly.

A IDLER

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21735
From: mpaul@unl.edu (marxhausen paul)
Subject: Re: Mary's assumption

David.Bernard@central.sun.com (Dave Bernard) writes:

>When Elizabeth greeted Mary, Elizabeth said something to the effect that
>Mary, out of all women, was blessed.  If so, it appears that this
>exactly places Mary beyond the sanctification of normal humanity.

I don't see how this logically follows.  True enough, Mary received a blessing
beyond any granted in all the history of humanity by being privileged to be 
the mother of the Savior.  It says nothing about Mary needing to be a "blessed 
person" _first_ in order that she might thereby be worthy to bear the Son of 
God.  Again, I think the problem is that as humans we can't comprehend how the 
sinless Incarnation could spring from sinful human flesh and God's Spirit.
Rather than simply accept the gracious miracle of God, we must needs try
to dope out a mechanism or rationale as to how this could be.  Mary's own
words, 

"...my spirit rejoices in God _my Savior_, for he has regarded the low
 estate of his handmaiden,..."

sound like the words of a human aware of her own humanity, in need of a 
Savior, similar to what David proclaimed in his psalms...not the words
of a holy being with no further need for God's grace.

I really apologize for harping on this, I don't suppose it's important.
It's just that I see Mary and Joseph and the Baby reduced to placid,
serene figurines I feel we lose the wonder in the fact that God chose
to come down to you and I, to be born of people like you and I, to share
our existence and redeem us from it's fallenness by his holy Incarnation.

--
paul marxhausen .... ....... ............. ............ ............ .......... 
 .. . .  . . . university of nebraska - lincoln .  . . .. . .  .. . . . . . . .
 .     .    .  .   .     .   .  .    .   .  .   .    .   .  grace .   .    .  . 
   .         .       .      .        .        .      .        .   happens .     

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21736
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: ARSENOKOITAI: NT Meaning of


			    Conviction of Sin

		A meta-exegetical or methodological essay


In article <May.14.02.10.06.1993.25123@athos.rutgers.edu>
REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov writes:

>I can't post it all at once, so it will come piece meal and not daily.

I look forward to reading it.  When I got to the library last week, it
was with the object in view to look at some articles that have appeared
over the last few years, since my previous look at the literature.  Un-
fortunately, they had moved the journal back-issues, so I didn't get a
look at the articles I was hoping to find.  I will continue to reserve
my own judgment on _arsenokoitai_ until I have seen the latest scholarly
work, and I can hope that REXLEX's posting may give some meat to chew on.

However, what I *can* do now, is to point out the methodological issues
-- what needs to be shown for anything to be concluded in this matter.
If the article REXLEX posts addresses these issues, so much the better;
if not, you will perhaps understand why the problem is hard.

>                 James B. DeYoung

writes, _in abstractu_:

>this study argues that Paul coined the term arsenokoitai, deriving it
>from the LXX of Lev 20:12 (cf. 18:22) and using it for homosexual
>orientation and behavior

	[it is only a minor point, but let me make it anyway; De Young has
	already contradicted his own prior assertion in this abstract that
	the ancient analysis of these issues was concerned with actions and
	NOT with orientation.  I doubt this will have much bearing on the
	article as such, but thought I should point it out from the start.]

The hypothesis De Young is advancing is that Paul a) coined the word and
b) his intended meaning for it was in reference to the Levitical law.  The
questions I wish to raise are

	1.)  how would one go about confirming the truth of this hypothesis?
and	2.)  what follows if one accepts (or stipulates, for the sake of the
	     discussion) that it is correct?

Note that b) is independent of a); I consider b) far more plausible than a),
which seems merely to be a counsel of despair over finding nothing in the
literature contemporary with Paul to clarify this word.  So far as I know,
Paul does NOT in general invent words anywhere else in his letters.  Unless
you have an otherwise-established pattern of coinages, it is *not* sound
methodology to assume it -- particularly if he gives no hint in the immedi-
ate text to "fix" the coinage's meaning for his audience.

As yet, the extract presents no evidence at all.  What do we need to confirm
or reject the hypothesis? (which, I should say at the outset, I find somewhat
plausible; I certainly know of nothing which makes it an *impossible* way
of construing this problem passage.)  I'm going to set aside for the moment
the question of whether Paul might have coined this usage, to look at the
more tractable question of what it means.  For this there are, in principle,
two kinds of evidence that can be adduced, internal and external.  That is,
we can look at the text of Paul's letter for clarification or look outside
that to prior or contemporary writings that Paul might have relied on, or to
derivative writings that have some claim of access to Paul's meaning.

The single WORST problem with this word in Corinthians is that there IS no
internal evidence for Paul's meaning.  He uses the word totally without an
explanation or hint as to his meaning, save that its inclusion in a list of
negatives implies that it has for him SOME negative meaning.

We are left, as the only "internal" clue, with the etymology or formation
of the word -- which is indeed the reason that De Young (and others before
him) have associated it with the Leviticus prohibition of men VERBing with
other men, where VERB is some standard euphemism for having sex ("lie" in
Leviticus, "bed" in Greek).  One problem is that "bedders" (_-koitai_) is
not, as far as I know, USED that way in Greek.  THEREFORE, I offer one
serious test which de Young's hypothesis *must* pass or be rejected:

	o  find a body of Greek texts contemporary with Paul (or not much
	   prior to his day) such that the _X-koitai_ formation implies
	   "men who have sex with X"  [obviously, the "best case" is to
	   find such usages of _arsenokoitai_ itself.]

such texts would be confirmation that the word *can* be read that way.
It is worth emphasizing that compound words are NOT in general under-
standable by projecting what the READER may imagine by the juxtaposition
of the roots.  Existence of such parallels doesn't *prove* the hypothesis
correct -- but it goes a long way towards making such a usage (whether or
not original with Paul in the specific case of X == _arse:n_) possible
of comprehension by his readers.

My "test" moves in the direction of external evidence.  If Paul does NOT
in his text explain his word (and he does not), then he has to expect his
readers to already know the word (which stands against its being a coinage)
or to expect that it mimics word formations that they *do* know, such that
they can guess his meaning without too much floundering.

External evidence, that is, texts other than Paul's own and lexicographic
or social/historical considerations that might be adduced, then come into
the picture.  *If* there are other uses of the word, not dependent on Paul,
which *have* sufficient internal (contextual) evidence -- or some gloss by
a contemporary scribe -- to show a derogatory reference to male homosexu-
ality, or similar _-koitai_ formations used in similar ways, *then* one
has grounds for

	o  denying that Paul coined the word
and	o  assuming that his readers might understand his meaning

Do you see the problem?  If Paul coined the word, then he REQUIRES his
readers to share enough context with him to COMPREHEND his coinage and
its intent -- in this case that they would (stipulating De Young's guess)
understand him to be referring to the Levitical "universal" prohibition
of male-male sex (this, mind you, in a context where Paul has emphasized
at least to OTHER congregations (and so one assumes to the Corinthians --
how else to explain 1 Cor. 6:12, and the Corinthians having to be pulled
back from overinterpreting their freedom?) the NON applicability of Torah
law to his gentile converts!)

Among the considerations that make it implausible for Paul to have coined
the word, its first element is archaic -- _arse:n_ is an old Attic or
Ionic form of what in even classical (let alone koine) times would be
assimilated as _arre:n_.  To me, this implies that we are even more than
usually needful of external evidence to pin down meaning and usage.  What
is Paul doing inventing a word in obsolete Attic formation?

And if he *didn't* coin the word, but picked it up like the others in
his list as common terms of derogation, then his meaning will be -- for
his readers -- constrained by that common meaning (since he gives no
other.)

I cannot emphasize enough that Paul DOES NOT TELL US what he means by
this word.  We (and his original readers) are guessing.  They, at least,
had a contemporary context -- and maybe Paul had used this very word and
explained it in great detail to them in person.  But we have no trace of
evidence of that, and to *suppose* it is mere fantasy.

So -- we are *desperately* in need of external evidence about this word.
And it seems to be exceptionally meagre.  That is precisely the problem.
I can think of several more or less equally plausible hypotheses about
the word:

	a)  it was a standard gutter term of abuse for (some or all, maybe
	    very specific, maybe very general) homosexual male activities

	b)  it was a term of abuse used by Jews about the awful homosexual
	    Greeks (which may or may not be consciously associated on their
	    part with the Leviticus passage)

	c)  Paul invented the term -- and again there may or may not be an
	    association with Leviticus in his doing so.  He may or may not
	    intend the word to have an explicit and universal application
	    with absolute and clear boundaries.  [Since none of his OTHER
	    words in that list have such character, this last seems to me
	    about the *least* plausible of the hypotheses I'm advancing.]

Of these, I'd say off the top of my head that a) is most plausible -- but
I still have reservations about that, too.

If the word NEVER appears before Paul, and in later uses has some evidence
of depending on Paul, then one can opt for Paul's coining it.  If it does
appear before him, he might *still* have coined it being unaware of prior
use (in which case, his coinage is inherently confusing!) but one should
normally demote c) on the basis of any earlier uses (especially if they
can be shown to have been at all common in the places Paul traveled.)  In
either of the a) or b) cases, one has to take into account Paul's relation
to the community of usage he picked the word up from -- and whether it be
from the Greek or Jewish communities, Paul's relations are hardly straight-
forward!

There is, so far as I have yet seen, little or no external evidence to aid
us in selecting one of these (or some other) hypothesis.  Your guess is as
good as mine (or maybe worse or maybe better, depending on a lot of things).
But it remains -- so far -- guesswork.  And I don't know about you, but I
for one WILL NOT equate human guesswork with the will of God.  By all means
be convinced in your own conscience about what Paul is getting at -- as he
says elsewhere on what was in HIS day a major controversy of somewhat this
same character (Romans 14:22-23)

	"Hold on to your own belief, as between yourself and God -- and
	consider the man fortunate who can make his decision without going
	against his conscience.  But anybody who eats in a state of doubt
	is condemned, because he is not in good faith, and every act done
	in bad faith is a sin."

For my part, I cannot see any way to resolve Paul's meaning in the use of
_arsenokoitai_ without directly applicable external evidence -- and by
the nature of such external evidence, it will never reach to certainty
of constraining Paul's own intent.  Paul, like Humpty Dumpty (and me, and
all the rest of us) *will* use words in ways that are personal choices --
and sometimes leave his readers puzzled.  If that puzzlement leads you
to God, it may be blessed -- if it should lead away (as some of Paul's
words HAVE led some people), then Paul's intense communicative effort to
contrive his meaning in our souls may have some regretable consequences.
I have always found Paul to be a fantastically reliable guide -- if I
read him "in the large", if I can see him lay out his position in detail
and hammer it home time and time again.  I am much less certain about his
meaning in his many brief and cryptic passages (such as this one.)

In my usual discursive way, I have gone on at great length about the first
of my intended meta-exegetical points -- what would be needed to confirm
that Paul a) coined or b) in any case meant the word to mean the same as
the Leviticus prohibition.  My second point is to *stipulate* this hypo-
thesis, and follow up what it implies for both his initial readers and
for later Christians.  Given my verbosity, this will be tomorrow night's
meditation :-)
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		I say "You are gods, sons of the
mls@panix.com			Most High, all of you; nevertheless
    - or -			you shall die like men, and fall
mls@ulysses.att..com		like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21737
From: mikec@procom.com (Mike Christensen)
Subject: Re: homosexual issues in Christianity

mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:

>In article <May.11.02.36.34.1993.28074@athos.rutgers.edu> mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (someone named Mark) writes:


>>"... Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, 
>>nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, 
>>nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom  of God.  And such were 
>>some of you..."  I Cor. 6:9-11.

>The moderator adequately discusses the circularity of your use of _porneia_
>in this.  I think we can all agree (with Paul) that there are SOME kinds of
>activity that could be named by "fornication" or "theft" or "coveting" or
>"reviling" or "drunkenness" which would well deserve condemnation.  We may
>or may not agree to the bounds of those categories, however; and the very
>fact that they are argued over suggests that not only is the matter not at
>all "clear" but that Paul -- an excellent rhetorician -- had no interest
>in MAKING them clear, leaving matters rather to our Spirit-led decisions,
>with all the uncomfortable living-with-other-readings that has dominated
>Christian discussion of ALL these areas.


What is fornication? (sex outside of marriage, abuse of sex)  

Is not homosexual intercourse outside the context of marriage?
Isn't it an unatural use of what God has given us?

Why is it that homosexuals are using the Grace of God as a license to
practice sin? 

   For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long
   beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who
   turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only 
   Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

                                      Jude 4 (NASB)

What is defined by God as a legitimate marriage?

   For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and
   shall cleave to his wife; and the shall become one flesh.

                                      Gen 2:24 (NASB)

   And He answer and said, "Have you not read, that He who created them
   from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, 'FOR THIS 
   CAUSE A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND CLEAVE TO HIS WIFE;
   AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?  Consequently they are no longer
   two, but one flesh.  What therefore God has joined together, let no
   man separate." 

                                      Matt 19:4-6 (NASB)

   But because of immoralities, let each man have his own wife, and let
   each woman have her own husband.  Let the husband fulfill his duty
   to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband.

                                      1 Corinthians 7:4,5 (NASB)

>  There are plenty of
>laws prohibiting sexual behavior to be found in Leviticus, most of
>which Christians ignore completely.  They never even BOTHER to examine
>them.  They just *assume* that they know which ones are "moral" and
>which ones are "ritual."  Well, I have news for you.  Any anthropology
>course should sensitize you to ritual and clean vs. unlcean as categories
>in an awful lot of societies (we have them too, but buried pretty deep).
>And I cannot see any ground for distinguishing these bits of Leviticus
>from the "ritual law" which NO Christian I know feels applies to us.

I disagree... Every law that is written in Leviticus should be looked at 
as sin.  That is why we have a need for a savior.  I can understand 
someone who may not know a particular sin listed in the Levitcal law, but
I would hope that they would repent when confronted with it.

>>I notice that the verse forbidding bestiality immediately follows the
>>verse prohibiting what appears to be homosexual intercourse.

>Well, la-ti-da.  So what?  This is almost as slimey an argument as the
>one that homosexuality == rape.  I know of no one who argues seriously
>(though one can always find jokers) in "defense" of bestiality.  It is
>absolutely irrelevant and incomparable to the issues gay Christians *do*
>raise (which concern sexual activity within committed, consensual human
>adult realtionships), so that your bringing it up is no more relevant
>than the laws of kashrut.  If you cannot address the actual issues, you
>are being bloody dishonest in trailing this red herring in front of the
>world.  If *you* want to address bestiality, that is YOUR business, not
>mine.  And attempting to torpedo a serious issue by using what is in
>our culture a ridiculous joke shows that you have no interest in hearing
>us as human beings.  You want to dismiss us, and use the sleaziest means
>you can think of to do so.

Also I noticed that the preceeding verses say.  

   Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness during her
   menstrual impurity.  And you shall not have intercourse with your
   neighbors wife, to be defiled with her. 


                                   Leviticus 18:19, 20 (NASB)

These verses are just as relevant as:

   You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an
   abomination.

                                   Leviticus 18:22 (NASB)

Why was God telling the Israelites not to practice such things?

   Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these
   the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled.
   For the land has become defiled, therefore I have visited its 
   punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants.
   But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and Judgments, and 
   shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor
   the alien who sojourns among you

                                    Leviticus 18:24-26 (NASB)

He is the Lord...  Listen to what he has to say... 

Nobody wants to dismiss homosexuals.  We do love you, but we don't 
agree that what you practice is not sin.  You have not truly repented
of your sin.  We hate the sin that is within your lives.  I hate sin
that is in my life.  All Christians should hate the sin that is within
their own lives.  Confrontaion with sin should bring about repentance. 
Yes I agree with John 3:17, but I also know that Jesus said, "Repent for
the kingdom of heaven is at hand"  Matt 3:17.  If you don't agree that
homosexuality is sin than how can you repent from it?  This means that
you remain in bondage to it.  Repent from it and God will set you free.

In His Love, 

       Mike

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Christensen                 |  Trust the Lord with all your heart,
Senior Product Support Engineer     |  And do not lean on your own 
Procom Technology, Inc.             |  understanding.   Proverbs 3:5 (NASB)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21738
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse

You will keep in perfect peace him whose mind is steadfast, because he trusts
in you. 
Isaiah 26:3

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21739
From: armstrng@cs.dal.ca (Stan Armstrong)
Subject: Sleeping with one's aunt

The last time we discussed homosexuality, I asked whether anyone could
identify any other act besides homosexual intercourse that the Bible
prohibited, but which might in some circumstances bring no apparent
harm to anyone. Put another way, the question is whether homosexual
intercourse is the only act that Christians are supposed to believe
is immoral solely on the basis that God says it is, with no insight
being offered as to *why* it is immoral. No one could answer my
question in either form from the Bible. (I did get an interesting
response based on Roman Catholic theology).

However, I think now that I can at least answer my first question.
Link Hudson pointed me to it in his recent comments about sleeping
with one's aunt. Incest is held to be immoral in every society,
that is, there are some degrees of relationship where marriage
(and thus, intercouse) is prohibited. The Bible is no exception.
The trouble is that it may be difficult to see *why* a particular
relationship qualifies as incestuous. Societies differ as to
how they define incest. Genetic reasons are sometimes offered, but
all the Biblical cases cannot be dealt with that way. Why can't
a man sleep with his step mother--assuming that his father is
dead and that he has "married" her? How does this case differ
from the *duty* to marry one's brother's childless wife.

Are these two cases parallel? Does the Bible prohibit some incestuous
marriages and homosexual marriages for the same reason, perhaps
that God knows they are not good for us and yet we are incapable
of understanding why.

P.S. Please don't bother writing me to tell me that I am a homophobe,
as some did last time. My mind is not made up on these questions.
You don't know whether I am homophobic or not. You don't
know me. To call me or anyone else a homophobe without knowing the
person may be as much an expression of bigotry as some homophobic
remarks.
-- 
Stan Armstrong. Religious Studies Dept, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, N.S.
Armstrong@husky1.stmarys.ca | att!clyde!watmath!water!dalcs!armstrng

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21740
From: REXLEX@fnnews.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Question about hell

In article <May.14.02.11.45.1993.25249@athos.rutgers.edu> pwhite@empros.com
(Peter White) writes
>Luke 16 talks about the rich man and Lazarus. Matthew 25 talks about 
>the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Revelations
>20 and 21 reference this fire as the place where unbelievers are
>thrown. Matthew 18 talks about being thrown into the eternal fire and
>the fire of hell. It seems quite clear that there is this place where
>a fire burns forever. From the Revelations passages it is clear that
>the devil and his angels will be tormented there forever. From the
>Matthew 25 passage it doesn't seem abundantly clear whether the
>punishment of unbelievers is everlasting in the sense of final or
>in the sense of continual. 

You've missed on very important passage.

2 Thess. 1:6-10
 For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who
afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when
the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming
fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do
not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. And these will pay the penalty of
eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of
His power, when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be
marveled at among all who have believed-- for our testimony to you was
believed.

Things to note from this passage.  Unbelievers are both those who openly reject
the gospel, and those who do not know God.  The eternal destruction is the same
as the eternal hope in 2:16.  This distructions primarily emphasize that it is
separation from the presence of God.  THe context is speaking of the 2nd advent
while 2:1 is speaking of the rapture.  Don't confuse the two. 
>
>In the Bible, I am not aware of any discussion about the specifics of
>hell beyond the general of hot, unpleasant and torment.

Yet we have a far greater discription of hell that we do heaven.

 For instance,
>it is not discussed how (if at all) the rich man can
>continually stay in the fire and still feel discomfort or pain or
>whether there is some point at which the pain sensing ability is
>burned up. If you can forgive the graphicalness, if you throw a
>physical body into a fire, assuming the person starts out alive,
>at some fairly quick point, the nerves are destroyed and pain is
>no longer sensed. 

If this was like earthly fire that requires a gas producing substance to
ignite.
However, there seems to be a different type of fire as expressed in the burning
bush that was not consumed.  Also, the Daniel acct. shows that the laws of
nature can be interupted even with earthly fire.

>It is not stated what occurs when at the judgement,
>the unbelievers, (who are already physically dead) are cast into hell

Maybe you don't understand.  There will be those who are alive at the end of
the millenium, who will walk straight into the GWTJ.  Even those who have died
in their sin will be resurrected, i.e. reunited with their physical body, to
receive condemnation.

>i.e. they no longer have a physical body so they can't feel physical pain.

This is contrary to the teaching of Scripture.

> What could be sensed continually is that those in hell are
>to be forever without God. 
> 
>The Lazarus/rich man parable is told with the idea of having the listener
>think in physical terms in order to get the point that some people
>won't listen to God even after he rises from the dead. 

THis is conjecture at best if you are using it to support the "no physical
body" thesis.

>The point of
>the parable is to reach the hard-hearted here who are not listening
>to the fact of the resurrection nor the Gospel about Jesus Christ.
>It seems reasonable to also draw from the parable that hell is
>not even remotely pleasant.

The true awlfulness of hell, is that it is eternal separation from God, after
having seen the glory of His presence at the GWTJ.  But whether it was open
rebellion against the revealed gospel of Christ or if it is not having known
GOd (not saught Him as He is), then as Paul says, they are without excuss and
that every mouth will be stopped.  There will be no defense at the judgment
seat of God. THerefore we understand "it is appointed unto man once to die, and
then comes judgment" literally.  

just because it is horrific, doesn't make it less of a reality.  
it should compel those of us who have the riches of Christ to share it with
others

--Rex

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21741
From: REXLEX@fnnews.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: FAQ essay on homosexuality

In article <May.14.02.10.20.1993.25156@athos.rutgers.edu>
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>I think we must be careful before we totally throw out Leviticus.  
>If the Law is reflection of God's character and true holy nature, then
>those who say that God endorses homosexuality run into a problem


Though this will be addressed in the series of articles I'm posting now under
"ARESNOKOITIA", I can't wait.  This just really blew my socks off.  Read I Tim
1: 3-11.  Verses 3-8 speaks against those who have perverted the teachings of
the Mosaic Law.  In vv.9-10, we have, *IN ORDER*, the 5th thru the 9th
commandments and in the midst of this listing is "homosexuals."  The decalogue,
above everything else, is seen as God's absolute.  If you don't believe in
absolutes, then you have nothing do do with Jehovah of the OT, which Paul
reveals to be the Messiah of the NT. "Lord Christ Jesus" transliterates to read
"Jehovah's Anointed Savior."  
  In I Cor5, we see the same emphasis of moral separation from the pagan
gentiles as we do in Lev 18-20.  In I Cor 6:9-10, only one notation (drunkards)
is not found in Lev 18-20.  Paul was not naive in his use of the LXX.  He knew
full well how he was using the Law of God that was given in the OT, for
application in the NT.  As I've said, the Law was fulfilled, not done away
with.

>>of questions we are trying to deal with.  He encountered homosexuality
>>only in contexts where most people would probably agree that it was
>>wrong.  He had never faced the experience of Christians who try to act
>>"straight" and fail, and he had never faced Christians who are trying
>>to define a Christian homosexuality, which fits with general Christian
>>ideals of fidelity and of seeing sexuality as a mirror of the
>>relationship between God and man.  It is unfair to take Paul's
>>judgement on homosexuality among idolaters and use it to make
>>judgements on these questions.

This understanding is thoroughly rebutted in DeYoungs article that is being
posted.  Please refer to it.

>
>One of the reasons that some of us do not accept that common argument
>is because Paul probably did face this and other problems. 

We can do better than "probably" which is not an adequate defense against the
statement that Paul's culture didn't have the same understanding of
homosexuality as ours.  
Again read the article because it uses facts.

>>I claim that the question of how to counsel homosexual Christians is
>>not entirely a theological issue, but also a pastoral one.
>
>I don't see how you come to that conclusion.

I think I do, because I have worked in the homosexual community by means of
working with AIDs patients.  The pastoral is merely the practical application
of the theological truth however.  Those who are working thru the issue of
homosexuality need to have our love and understanding just as with a friend who
is contiplating cheating on his wife or a friend who lives with his girlfriend,
yet you continue to witness to him.  But, once the choice is made, and there is
no remorse, then I feel that Paul's "pastoral" care, as presented in the
Corinthian Church, come to bear significance.  THe one in active rebellion
should be placed outside of the church if a believer, and if a non-believer,
then one wipes his sandels and leaves it in Gods hand.  If there was a member
in your youth group who was constantly pawing at the little girls, you wouldn't
hesitate to deal with the matter quickly and decisivly.  That, in part, betrays
the present "political correctness" of the issue.  Pederasty is not accepted at
the present, but some how we are to accept homosexuality because the latter is
politically correct, while the former is not -at least not yet.  THis is how
the morals decay.  

I guess this would follow the liberal application in the political realm of
economics.  The liberals want to tax the rich in the federal, yet in their own
states, when they try to get businesses to settle there, they give tax
incentives to these same richies.  It comes down to a moral code of
relativeness, or to use the cultural thing, politically correct -at the moment.
--Rex

[You might want to look over 1 Tim 1:10 again.  If this is really the
5th through 9th commandments, we seem to be missing thieves, and
homosexuals would have to be fit in under adultery.  This is of course
possible if "arsenokoitia" has a narrower meaning than homosexuality
in general, but I think that's not your thesis.  I have no objection
per se to the idea that the author of 1 Tim might have quoted the 10
commandments, but 5 through 9, minus one and plus a few things, begins
to look a bit marginal.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21742
From: HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com
Subject: Re: Question: Jesus alone, Oneness

In article <May.5.02.53.16.1993.28886@athos.rutgers.edu>
jblanken@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (James R. Blankenship) writes:
 
>
>"Jesus Only" and "Oneness" tend to refer to groups that do deny the
>trinity.    .....
>They explain Matthew by saying that Jesus is the name of the Father, Jesus
>is the name of the Son, and Jesus is the name of the name of the Holy
>Spirit, Father, Son, & Holy Spirit referring to different roles, all
>filled by Jesus. ....
 
IMHO this are going from bad to worse. 3-in-1, 1-in-3 was bad enough.
 
I do not like a God who prays to Himself.  I refuse to believe Jesus prayed
to Himself  --   let's get real, if the scriptures say He prayed to the
Father, then the Father IS someone different than the Son.  I have no
problems with multiple Gods.  To me, the whole context of the scriptures
says:  Be perfect, even as your Father Who is in Heaven; that we can be
co-heirs with Christ; that we will be like Him.
 
Co-heirs share all things equally--including knowledge, power, dominion etc.
When I am like Him (Christ), I will be the same as HE is--and He is a God.
 
If God cannot do this, the His is not all powerful--and He is NOT God.
If He will not, He is a Liar--and He is NOT God.
 
But if He does, He is the greatest of all the Gods.
 

[I don't know of anyone who says that Jesus prayed to himself.  The
whole point of the Trinity is that there's enough of a distinction
within God that relationship is possible.  This implies some sort of
communication.  I assume that in their "native" form, the Father and
Son are directly enough connected that prayer in our sense isn't
involved.  But Jesus is the incarnation of the Son, i.e.  the Logos
made flesh.  When he's in a human form, his human actions are limited
to human capabilities.  So communication with the Father takes the
form of prayer.  I don't see that there's anything problematical about
that.  It seems to be implicit in the whole idea of incarnation.
--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21743
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: Deuterocanonicals, esp. Sirach

In article <May.14.02.11.26.1993.25198@athos.rutgers.edu> db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes:
>Michael Siemon writes:

>Protestants love to play up Jerome for all he is worth. 

Yes, but no more than he is worth. :-).  Seriously: Jerome is merely
(and grandly) another Christian witness, to be taken for what he can
tell us.  He is one in the community of saints.  You seem to wish for
a greater polarization and dichotomy between Catholic and Protestant
thought than seems to me, from a historical perspective, to be valid.
To be sure, Rome rejects (some significant aspects of) Protestant
thought just as vehemently as Protestants reject (some significant
aspects of) Roman thought.  Other than some peoplw who apparently try
to embody the greatest extreme of this rejection, on either side, there
is not quite so vast a gulf fixed as casual observers seem to assume.

Ecumenical consultations between Rome and the Lutherans, as well as 
those between Rome and the Anglican communion (to which I belong) show
very nearly complete convergence on understanding the basic theological
issues -- the sticking points tend to be ecclesiology and church polity.
Thus, for example, as you go on to say:

>                                                        They should
>remeber that after the Decree of Pope St. Damsus I,

Many of us do not regard a papal decretal as having any necessary (as
opposed to political) significance.  Sometimes it will, sometimes it
won't.  You misread me if you think that my communion, at least, "throws
out" the deuterocanonical books.  Nor do I think you should overstress
the sense in which the more Reformed may do so.

>Again, why must the Church of Jesus Christ adopt the canon of the
>unbelieving Jews, drawn up in Jamnia in 90 AD, in countering the
>Christian use of the Septuagint.                 ^^^^^

I seriously suggest you rethink what you are saying here.  It verges on,
and could be taken as, anti-Semitic in the worst sense.  The "unbelieving"
Jews were, according to what I understand as a Christian, the chosen
people of God, and the recipients of His pre-Incarnational revelation.
I think they have some say in the matter.  The Javneh meeting should not
be over-interpreted.  A recent magisterial study titled _Mikra_ (I don't
have more citation information on hand, sorry) produced primarily from
the background of Christian (rather than specifically Jewish) scholarship
suggests strongly that the Javneh meeting mostly resolved a lingering
question, where in practice the canon had long been fixed on the basis
of the scrolls that were kept in the Temple, and thereby "made the hands
unclean" when used.  The list of "sacred books" that may be drawn up from
Josephus and other pre-Yavneh sources correspond (plus or minus one book,
if I rememeber the chapter correctly) to the current Jewish canon of Tanakh.

All of this is not to "throw out" the deuterocanonicals (what, by the way,
is YOUR position about the books the Greeks accept and Rome does not? :-))
-- just to observe that the issue is complex and simply binary judgment
does not do it justice.
>
>Andy Byler


-- 
Michael L. Siemon		I say "You are gods, sons of the
mls@panix.com			Most High, all of you; nevertheless
    - or -			you shall die like men, and fall
mls@ulysses.att..com		like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21744
From: mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server)
Subject: Christian Homosexuality (part 1 of 2)

Note:  I am breaking this reply into 2 parts due to length.

mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:
>In article <May.11.02.36.34.1993.28074@athos.rutgers.edu> 
>mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (someone named Mark) writes:
>>mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:
>>>Homosexual Christians have indeed "checked out" these verses.  Some of
>>>them are used against us only through incredibly perverse interpretations.
>>>Others simply do not address the issues.
>> 
>>I can see that some of the above verses do not clearly address the issues, 
> 
>There are exactly ZERO verses that "clearly" address the issues.

I agree that there are no verses that have gone unchallenged by gay rights 
activists.  But if there are zero verses that "'clearly' address the issues," 
doesn't that mean that there are also no verses that clearly *support* your 
case?  Are you sure you want to say that there are zero verses that clearly 
address the issues?

>>however, a couple of them seem as though they do not require "incredibly 
>>perverse interpretations" in order to be seen as condemning homosexuality.
> 
>The kind of interpretation I see as "incredibly perverse" is that applied
>to the story of Sodom as if it were a blanket equation of homosexual
>behavior and rape.  Since Christians citing the Bible in such a context
>should be presumed to have at least READ the story, it amounts to slander
>-- a charge that homosexuality == rape -- to use that against us.

The story in Genesis 19 tells of the citizens of Sodom demanding an opportunity 
to "know" the two men who were Lot's guests; the fact that the Sodomites became 
angry when Lot offered them his daughters could be seen as indicating that they 
were interested only in homosexual intercourse.  Yes, what they wanted was 
rape, homosexual rape, and everybody agrees that that is wrong.  Some 
Christians believe that the homosexual aspect of their desire was just as 
sinful as the rape aspect of their desire.  The passage does not say what it 
was that so offended God, whether it was the homosexuality, or the intended 
rape, or both, but I believe that it is only fair to consider all the possible 
alternatives in the light of related Scriptures.  I do not believe that those 
who believe God was offended by both the homosexuality and the rape are trying 
to say that homosexuality is itself a form of rape.

You seems to take the view that the *only* sin described in Gen. 19 is in the 
fact that the Sodomites wanted to commit rape, and that it is unfair to 
"stigmatize" their homosexuality by associating it with the sin of rape.  I can 
see how you might reach such a conclusion if you started from the conclusion 
that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, but then again we're not 
supposed to start from our conclusions because that's circular reasoning.  If 
God is in fact opposed to homosexual intercourse in general, then the more 
probably interpretation is that He was at least as offended by the Sodomites' 
blatant homosexuality as He was by their intent to commit rape.  Later on I 
will document why I believe the Old Testament portrays God as One who despises 
*any* homosexual intercourse, even if both partners are consenting adults.

>>"... Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, 
>>nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor 
>drunkards, 
>>nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom  of God.  And such 
>were 
>>some of you..."  I Cor. 6:9-11.
> 
>The moderator adequately discusses the circularity of your use of _porneia_
>in this.  

The moderator found my proposal to be circular in that he regarded the church 
as the proper  authority for determining what *kinds* of marriages would be 
legitimate, and thus the church's refusal to recognize "perverted" marriages 
was circular reasoning.  My questions, however, had nothing to do with the 
church ordaining new kinds of marriages, and so his argument was something of a 
straw man.  In terms of my original question, the precise 
definition/translation of "porneia" isn't really important, unless you are 
trying to argue that the Bible doesn't really condemn extramarital sex.  I'm 
not sure the moderator was trying to do that.

In any case, I think both you and the moderator have missed the point here.  
When Jesus was asked about divorce, He replied, "Have you not read, that He who 
created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this 
cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife; and 
the two shall become one flesh'?  Consequently they are no longer two, but one 
flesh.  What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." (Mt. 
19:4-6).  I read here that the sexual union of a man (male) and his wife 
(female) is a divinely-ordained union.  In other words, the institution of 
heterosexual marriage is something ordained and established by God--not by men, 
and not by the church, but by God.  Men are not supposed to dissolve this 
union, in Jesus' words, because it is not something created by men.

This is not circular reasoning, this is just reading God's word.  I read in the 
Bible that God ordained the union of male and female.  I do not read of any 
similar divinely-ordained union of two males or two females.  Granted, there 
have been uninspired men who have ordained "alternative" unions (isn't Caligula 
reported to have "married" his horse?), but the only union that Jesus refers to 
as "what God has joined together" is the heterosexual union of a man and his 
wife.

(Pardon me for mentioning Caligula.  I know that's probably inflammatory, and I 
should save it for the discussion on bestiality, in part 2 of this post.  
Please hold off on passing judgement on me until you have read that section of 
my reply.)

Anyway, my original question was not whether we should translate "porneia" in a 
way that condemns only a select few kinds of extramarital sex, my question was: 
given that heterosexual marriage is the only union described by the Bible as 
divinely-ordained, and given a Biblical prohibition against sex outside of 
marriage, is homosexual intercourse sinful?  Of course, I see now that first we 
need to ask whether the Bible really condemns sex outside of marriage.  You 
seem to be trying to argue that only certain kinds of extramarital sex (and 
other sins) are really wrong:

>>I think we can all agree (with Paul) that there are SOME kinds of
>activity that could be named by "fornication" or "theft" or "coveting" or
>"reviling" or "drunkenness" which would well deserve condemnation.  We may
>or may not agree to the bounds of those categories, however; and the very
>fact that they are argued over suggests that not only is the matter not at
>all "clear" but that Paul -- an excellent rhetorician -- had no interest
>in MAKING them clear, leaving matters rather to our Spirit-led decisions,
>with all the uncomfortable living-with-other-readings that has dominated
>Christian discussion of ALL these areas.

Alternatively, it may be that the definition of such terms as "porneia" and all 
the rest was, in Paul's day, what we would call a FAQ; i.e. the Law, as the 
"tutor" appointed by God to lead us to Christ, had just spent some sixteen 
centuries drumming into the heads of God's people the idea that things like 
homosexual intercourse were abominations that deserved punishment by death.  
Perhaps Paul didn't go into detail on what "porneia" &c were because after 1600 
years he considered the question to have been dealt with already.  Perhaps the 
reason God's apostles and prophets did not devote a great deal of time defining 
a distinct, New Testament sexuality was because He did not intend any 
significant changes in the sexuality He had already established by the Law.  
I'll discuss the Law and homosexuality in greater detail below, but I just 
wanted to point out that the New Testament's failure to develop a detailed new 
standard of sexuality is not necessarily evidence that God does not care about 
sexual conduct--especially after 1600 years of putting people to death for 
practicing homosexuality!

>Homosexual behavior is no different.  I (and the other gay Christians I
>know) are adamant in condemning rape -- heterosexual or homosexual -- and
>child molestation -- heterosexual or homosexual -- and even the possibly
>"harmless" but obsessive kinds of sex -- heterosexual or homosexual --
>that would stand condemned by Paul in the very continuation of the chapter
>you cite [may I mildly suggest that what *Paul* does in his letter that
>you want to use is perhaps a good guide to his meaning?]
> 
>        "'I am free to do anything,' you say.  Yes, but not everything
>        is for my good.  No doubt I am free to do anything, but I for one
>        will not let anything make free with me."  [1 Cor. 6:12]
> 
>Which is a restatement that we must have no other "god" before God.  A
>commandment neither I nor any other gay Christian wishes to break.  Some
>people are indeed involved in obsessively driven modes of sexual behavior.
>It is just as wrong (though slightly less incendiary, so it's a secondary
>argument from the 'phobic contingent) to equate homosexuality with such
>behavior as to equate it with the rape of God's messengers.

And how do you define an "obsessively driven" mode of sexual behavior?  How do 
you determine the difference between obsessive sexual behavior and normal sex 
drives?  Is the desire to have "sinful" sex an obsessively driven mode of 
behavior?  I think you see that this is circular reasoning:  Why is it defined 
as sinful?  Because it is obsessive.  What makes it obsessive?  The fact that 
the person is driven to seek it even though it's sinful.  Or is it obsessive 
because it is a desire for that which society condemns?  Once again, that's 
circular:  Why is it defined as obsessive?  Because the person wants it even 
though society condemns it.  Why does society condemn it?  Because it is 
obsessive.

You seem to be trying to limit the Bible's condemnation of "porneia" to only 
"perverted" sex acts, but I don't think you can really define "perverted" 
without falling into exactly the same circularity you accuse me of.  What, 
then, is Paul condemning when he declares that "Fornicators...shall not enter 
the kindgom of heaven"?

>I won't deal with the exegesis of Leviticus, except very tangentially.
>Fundamentally, you are exhibiting the same circularity here as in your
>assumption that you know what _porneia_ means.

I think you misunderstood me:  I was not trying to make an argument on some 
technical definition of "porneia", I was raising the issues of the sinfulness 
of extramarital sex and the lack of any Scriptural evidence of a homosexual 
counterpart to the divinely-ordained union of heterosexual couples.

>There are plenty of
>laws prohibiting sexual behavior to be found in Leviticus, most of
>which Christians ignore completely.  They never even BOTHER to examine
>them.  They just *assume* that they know which ones are "moral" and
>which ones are "ritual."  Well, I have news for you.  Any anthropology
>course should sensitize you to ritual and clean vs. unlcean as categories
>in an awful lot of societies (we have them too, but buried pretty deep).
>And I cannot see any ground for distinguishing these bits of Leviticus
>from the "ritual law" which NO Christian I know feels applies to us.
> 
>I'm dead serious here.  When people start going on (as they do in this
>matter) about how "repulsive" and "unnatural" our acts are -- and what
>do they know about it, huh? -- it is a solid clue to the same sort of
>arbitrary cultural inculcations as the American prejudice against eating
>insects.

Please remember what you just said here for when we discuss bestiality, in part 
2.

>On what basis, other than assuming your conclusion, can you
>say that the law against male-male intercourse in Leviticus is NOT a part
>of the ritual law?

I am glad you asked.  Would you agree that if God condemns homosexual 
intercourse even among those who are not under the Law of Moses, then this 
would show that God's condemnation of homosexual acts goes beyond the ritual 
law?  If I can show you from Scripture that God punished the homosexual 
behavior of people who were *not* under the Law of Moses, would you agree that 
God's definition of homosexual intercourse as an abomination is not limited to 
just the ritual law and those who are under the Law?

I've been having a private Email discussion with a 7th Day Adventist on the 
subject of the Sabbath, and my main point against a Christian sabbath-keeping 
requirement has been that nowhere in Scripture does God command Gentiles to 
rest on the sabbath, nor does He ever condemn Gentiles for failing to rest on 
the Sabbath.  This illustrates the difference between universal requirements 
such as "Thou shalt not kill", and requirements that are merely part of the 
(temporary, Jews-only) Law of Moses, such as the Sabbath.

The point you are trying to make is that you think the classification of 
homosexual intercourse as "an abomination" is *just* a part of the temporary, 
Jews-only Law of Moses.  I on the other hand believe that it was labelled by 
God as an abomination for Gentiles as well as Jews, and that He punished those 
guilty of this behavior by death or exile.  Here's why:

Back in Genesis 15, God promises to give Abraham all the land that was then in 
the possession of "the Amorite"--kinda hard on the Amorite, don't you think?  
But in verse 16 we have a clue that this might not be as unjust as it sounds:  
it seems God is going to postpone this takeover for quite a while, because "the 
iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete".

Remember, this is all long before there was a ritual law.  What then was the 
iniquity the Amorite was committing that, when complete, would justify his 
being cast out of his own land and/or killed?  Go back and look at Lev. 18 
again.  Verses 1-23 list a variety of sins, including child sacrifice, incest, 
homosexuality, and bestiality.  Beginning in verse 24, God starts saying, "Do 
not defile yourselves by any of these things; for _by_all_these_ _things_ the 
nations which I am casting out before you _have_ _become_defiled_.  For the 
land has become defiled, therefore I have visited its punishment upon it, so 
the land has spewed out its inhabitants... For whoever does any of these 
abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their 
people."

Notice that God says the Gentile nations (who are *not* under the ritual Law of 
Moses) are about to be punished because they have "defiled" themselves and 
their land by committing "abominations" that include incest, bestiality, and 
homosexuality.  Flip ahead two chapters to Lev. 20, and you will find these 
same "abominations" listed, and this time God decrees the death penalty on 
anyone involved in any of these things, including, specifically, a man "lying 
with another man as one lies with a woman" (Lv. 20:13).  Their 
"bloodguiltiness" was upon them, meaning that in God's eyes, they deserved to 
die for having done such things.  According to Lev. 18:26-29, even "the alien 
[non-Jew] who sojourns among you" was to refrain from these practices, on 
penalty of being "cut off [by God?] from among their people."

Under the circumstances, I believe it would be very difficult to support the 
claim that in the Old Testament God objected only to the intended rape, and not 
the homosexuality, in Sodom.  Since God took the trouble to specifically list 
sex between two consenting men as one of the reasons for wiping out the 
Canaanite nations, (not homosexual rape, mind you, but plain, voluntary gay 
sex), I'd say God was not neutral on the subject of homosexual behavior, even 
by those who had nothing to do with the Mosaic Covenant.

>For those Christians who *do* think that *some* parts of Leviticus can
>be "law" for Christians (while others are not even to be thought about)
>it is incumbent on you *in every case, handled on its own merits* to
>determine why you "pick" one and ignore another.

According to II Tim. 3:16, all Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable 
for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness; thus, I 
believe that even though we Gentile Christians are not under the Law, we can 
learn from studying it.  If a certain action is defined as a sin because it is 
a violation of the Law, then it is a sin only for those who are under the Law 
(for example, in the case of Sabbath-keeping).  Where God reveals that certain 
actions are abominations even for those who are not under the Law, then I 
conclude that God's objection to the practice is not based on whether or not a 
person is under the Law, but on the sinfulness of the act itself.  In the case 
of homosexuality, homosexual intercourse is defined by God as a defiling 
abomination for Gentiles as well as Jews, i.e. for those who are not under the 
Law as well as for those who are.  Thus, I am not at all trying to say that 
Gentile Christians have any obligation to keep any part of the Law, I am simply 
saying that God referred to homosexuality as a sin even for those who are not 
obligated to keep the Law.  If this is so, then I do not think we can appeal to 
our exemption from the Law as valid grounds for legitimizing a practice God has 
declared a bloodguilty abomination that defiles both Jew and Gentile.

(continued in Part 2)

- Mark

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21745
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: SJ Mercury's reference to Fundamentali

In article <May.11.02.37.07.1993.28120@athos.rutgers.edu>, dan@ingres.com (a Rose arose) writes:
|> 	"Raised in Oakland and San Lorenzo by strict fundamentalist
|> 	Christian parents, Mason was beaten as a child.  ...

|> Were the San Jose Mercury news to come out with an article starting with
|> "Raised in Oakland by Mexican parents, Mason was beaten...", my face would

>Perhaps because there is a connection here that is not there in the Mexican
>variant you bring up.

This is true. The statement didn't say anything about Christians in general.
It specifically said "strict fundamentalist" Christians. It reflects a
common perception that people have about fundamentalists being strict
disciplinarians. Whether or not this perception is justified is another issue.


[The other reading is that they are distinguishing between strict
and relaxed fundamentalists.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21746
From: Christopher.Vance@adfa.oz.au (Christopher JS Vance)
Subject: Re: Mormon temples

In article <May.14.02.11.39.1993.25225@athos.rutgers.edu> shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker) writes:
| Early in Church history, the catechumens were dismissed prior to the celebration 
| of the Eucharist.  It WAS secret, giving rise to the rumors that Christians

I have no problem with the idea that catechumens be dismissed before
the Eucharist.  They were not considered qualified to participate.

| were cannibals and all sorts of perverse claims.  The actions were considered
| too holy to be observed by non-Christians, as well as potentially dangerous
| for the individual Christian who might be identified.

Does the dismissal in the early church mean that the eucharist was a
secret?  I mean, was it:

	you don't have to stay; from now on, only the membership can
	participate; you really don't have to hang around; yes, I know
	you're obliged to keep up attendance to qualify, but now is an
	exception, okay?

or was it:

	you may not stay; what happens next is secret

When we have had reason to conduct business meetings after church,
we've made it clear that only members can vote.  But we've always been
happy for non-members to stay and observe.

Do you have evidence for intentional secrecy?  (Other than rumours,
which will always happen when you have an underclass doing things not
approved of by those in power?)

-- Christopher

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21747
From: koberg@spot.Colorado.EDU (Allen Koberg)
Subject: Re: _Christianity In Crisis_ by Hank Hanegraaff

In article <May.12.04.27.23.1993.9926@athos.rutgers.edu> af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.) writes:
>Has anyone read this important book?  If so, what are your feelings about it?
>

I have not yet read the book, though I intend to.  Judging from the
promos I hear constantly on the radio, it sounds good.  In John
MacArthur's "Charismatic Chaos" series and the book, he talks about
much of the same things.  The "Health,Wealth,And Prosperity" thing
is a very real part (and very prominent) of TV religion.  Every time
I turn to TBN, there's Paul Crouch (showing off his new building)
talking about it's a sin to be poor and unhealthy.  Gr..

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21748
From: mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server)
Subject: Christian Homosexuality (part 2 of 2)

(This is a continuation of an earlier post)

mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:
>For those Christians who *do* think that *some* parts of Leviticus can
>be "law" for Christians (while others are not even to be thought about)
>it is incumbent on you *in every case, handled on its own merits* to
>determine why you "pick" one and ignore another.  I frankly think the
>whole effort misguided.  Reread Paul: "No doubt I am free to do anything."
>But Christians have a criterion to use for making our judgments on this,
>the Great Commandment of love for God and neighbor.  If you cannot go
>through Leviticus and decide each "command" there on that basis, then
>your own arbitrary selection from it is simply idiosyncracy.  In this
>context, it is remarkably offensive to say:
> 
>>I notice that the verse forbidding bestiality immediately follows the
>>verse prohibiting what appears to be homosexual intercourse.

(I am sorry you found this offensive.  It was not my intent to offend.  I was 
leading up to another point, which I discuss in more detail below.)

>Well, la-ti-da.  So what?  This is almost as slimey an argument as the
>one that homosexuality == rape.  I know of no one who argues seriously
>(though one can always find jokers) in "defense" of bestiality.  It is
>absolutely irrelevant and incomparable to the issues gay Christians *do*
>raise (which concern sexual activity within committed, consensual human
>adult realtionships), so that your bringing it up is no more relevant
>than the laws of kashrut.  If you cannot address the actual issues, you
>are being bloody dishonest in trailing this red herring in front of the
>world.  If *you* want to address bestiality, that is YOUR business, not
>mine.  And attempting to torpedo a serious issue by using what is in
>our culture a ridiculous joke shows that you have no interest in hearing
>us as human beings.  You want to dismiss us, and use the sleaziest means
>you can think of to do so.

I can see you have a revulsion for bestiality that far exceeds my distaste for 
homosexuality.  Certainly if I spoke about homosexuality the way you speak of 
bestiality, nobody would have any trouble labelling me a homophobe.  Let me ask 
this gently:  why are you so judgemental of other people's sexual preferences?  
What happened to "No doubt I am free to do anything"?  I think you have a 
serious double standard here.  When you describe a comparison between 
homosexuality and bestiality as "slimey" and "sleazy", you are making an 
implicit judgement that bestiality is perverted, sinful, disgusting, 
unnatural--in short, all the things that society once thought about 
homosexuality.  Not all people share your view.  You claim not to know any 
sincere zoophiles, but this does not mean that they do not exist.  They even 
have their own newsgroup:  alt.sex.bestiality.  Are you going to accuse them 
all of being mere "jokers"?

I notice you deleted the main point of my comment:  the fact that the only 
Biblical condemnations of bestiality occur in connection with the Levitical 
prohibitions against homosexuality.  While there are some New Testament 
passages that can arguably be taken as condemning homosexuality, there are none 
that condemn bestiality.  One of your main points seems to be that Christian 
homosexuality is acceptable due to the lack of any "clear" New Testament 
statements against it; if this is a valid argument, then should not Christian 
zoophilia be made that much more acceptable by the fact that the New Testament 
makes no reference, clear or unclear, to the subject at all?

I am quite serious here.  If I am going to accept homosexuality as Biblically 
acceptable on the basis of your arguments, then I am going to be fair and apply 
the same standards to everyone else's declared sexual preferences as well.  If 
the arguments you make for homosexuality can be applied to other sexual 
preferences as well, I'm going to apply them and see what comes up.  I'm not 
trying to "torpedo a serious issue" by using what you label "a ridiculous 
joke".  I posted a question about how we should interpret Biblical guidelines 
for Christian sexuality, and I don't think such a question is "irrelevant" in a 
group called "soc.religion.christian".  The Bible discusses homosexuality and 
bestiality together in the same context, and therefore I feel I have a good 
precedent for doing the same.

>Jesus and Paul both expound, very explictly and in considerable length,
>the central linch-pin of Christian moral thought: we are required to
>love one another, and ALL else depends on that.  Gay and lesbian Christ-
>ians challenge you to address the issue on those terms -- and all we get
>in return are cheap debate tricks attempting to side-track the issues.

I don't know whether it makes any difference, but for the record, this is not a 
side issue for me.  I believe loving one another includes not encouraging 
people to defile themselves, therefore it is of high importance to determine 
whether God regards certain sexual acts as defiling.  I can read in the New 
Testament that "God has joined together" heterosexual couples, and that the 
marriage bed is undefiled.  I can read in the Old Testament that homosexual 
intercourse and bestiality defile a person whether or not that person is under 
the Law.  If gay Christians can validly put aside the Old Testament standards 
of defilement, then I want to know so that I can fairly apply it to all the 
sexual practices that defiled a person in the old days.  I don't think it's 
right to take just bits and pieces of the Law and try and apply them to 
Christians today, e.g. bestiality still defiles you but homosexuality doesn't.  
That was pretty much what you said earlier, right?  You used different 
examples, but I think you said essentially the same thing about it being wrong 
to apply only certain parts of the Law to Christians. 

>Christians, no doubt very sincere ones, keep showing up here and in every
>corner of USENET and the world, and ALL they ever do is spout these same
>old verses (which they obviously have never thought about, maybe never
>even read), in TOTAL ignorance of the issues raised, slandering us with
>the vilest charges of child abuse or whatever their perfervid minds can
>manage to conjure up, tossing out red herrings with (they suppose) great
>emotional force to cause readers to dismiss our witness without even
>taking the trouble to find out what it is.

It was not my intent to stir up such an emotional reaction.  I personally don't 
get all that upset discussing alternatives to the monogamous heterosexual 
orientation; I'm afraid I naively assumed that others would have a similar 
attitude.  Please note that I have never intended to equate homosexuality with 
child abuse.  I have merely noted that, for all the lack of "clear" NT 
condemnation of homosexuality, there is an even greater lack of NT condemnation 
(or even mention) of bestiality, a practice which a number of people (e.g. on 
alt.sex.bestiality) consider to be their true sexual orientation.

>Such behavior should shame anyone who claims to have seen Truth in Christ.
>WHY, for God's precious sake, do you people quote irrelevant verses to
>condemn people you don't know and won't even take the trouble to LISTEN
>to BEFORE you start your condemnations?  Is that loving your neighbor?
>God forbid!  Is THAT how you obey the repeated commands to NOT judge or
>condemn others?  Christ and Paul spend ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more time in
>insisting on this than the half-dozen obscure words in Paul that you are
>SO bloody ready to take as license to do what God tells you NOT to do.
> 
>Why, for God's sake?
> [quote from John 3:17ff omitted for brevity]

This is an excellent question, and I pray that you will not treat it as a mere 
rhetorical question, but will genuinely seek to discover and understand the 
answer.  I recommend you begin with a little introspection into why you 
yourself have much the same attitude towards zoophilia.  Why do you find 
bestiality so repugnant that you regard it as slanderous to even mention in 
connection with other alternative sexual orientations?  Why do you not apply 
all the same verses about love and tolerance to zoophiles the way you apply 
them to homosexuals?

Is it because you automatically experience a subjective feeling of revulsion at 
the thought?  A lot of people have the same experience at the thought of 
homosexual intercourse.  Is it because you regard the practice as socially 
unacceptable?  A lot of people regard homosexuality as socially unacceptable.  
Do you feel that it violates the traditional Judeo-Christian standard of sexual 
morality?  Many people feel that homosexuality does.  Do you feel the Bible 
condemns it?  Many people think the Bible says more to condemn homosexuality 
than it does to condemn bestiality.  Why then do you think comparing bestiality 
with homosexuality is insulting to homosexuality?  If you can honestly answer 
this question, you will have come a long way towards understanding why many 
people feel the same way about homosexuality as you feel about bestiality.

Also please note that I am not in any sense condemning *people*.  I am merely 
pointing out that when I read the Bible I see certain sexual *practices* that 
the Bible appears to condemn, e.g. sex outside of marriage.  When I say I think 
adultery and pre-marital sex are sinful, do you take that as me failing to love 
my neighbor?  When you treat bestiality as something disgusting and 
unmentionable, are you disobeying "repeated orders not to judge or condemn 
others"?  When you say other Christians are guilty of sinning by condemning you 
and judging you, are you by that accusation making yourself guilty of the same 
offense?  Or are you and I both simply taking note about *practices* the Bible 
brands as sinful, and leaving the judgement of the *people* up to God?

>For long ages, we (many of us) have been confused by evil counsel from
>evil men and told that if we came to the light we would be shamed and
>rejected.  Some of us despaired and took to courses that probably *do*
>show a sinful shunning of God's light.  Blessed are those whose spirits
>have been crushed by the self-righteous; they shall be justified.
>
>However, we have seen the Truth, and the Truth is the light of humanity;
>and we now know that it is not WE who fear the light, but our enemies who
>fear the light of our witness and will do everything they can to shadow
>it with the darkness of false witness against us.
>-- 
>Michael L. Siemon               I say "You are gods, sons of the
>mls@panix.com                   Most High, all of you; nevertheless
>    - or -                      you shall die like men, and fall
>mls@ulysses.att..com            like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7

I'm not sure what you mean by the above two paragraphs.  If you mean that Jesus 
is the Truth, and that He accepts sinners, and does not reject them, then I 
agree.  If we were not sinners, then we would not *need* a Savior.  Our 
salvation in Christ, however, does not mean that sin is now irrelevant for us, 
and we can now do whatever we want.  Nor does Christ's grace mean that those 
who refer to sin as "sin" are being judgemental or intolerant.  I am speaking 
in general terms here, not specifically about homosexuality.  If the Bible 
calls something "sin", then it is not unreasonable for Christians to call it 
sin too.

As applied to Christian homosexuality, I think the only definitive authority on 
Christian sexuality is the Bible.  If you make a list of everything the Bible 
says on the subject of homosexual intercourse, I think you will find that every 
verse on the list is negative and condemning at worst, and "unclear" at best.  
The most pro-gay statement you could make about the list is that there is some 
dispute about the New Testament verses which many people interpret as 
condemning homosexual intercourse.  That is, from a gay perspective, the most 
positive thing you can say about the Bible's treatment of homosexuality is that 
some verses fail to clearly condemn it.  That's it.  Jesus declared all foods 
clean, the council at Jerusalem declared that Gentiles were not required to 
keep the ritual Law, but nobody ever reclassified homosexual intercourse from 
being an abomination deserving of death to being an accepted Christian 
practice.  You have verses describing homosexual intercourse as an abomination 
that defiles both Jews under the Law and Gentiles not under the Law, and you 
have some verses which are at best "not clear" but which some people believe 
*are* clear in their condemnation of homosexual behavior, and that's the sum 
total of what the Bible says about same-sex intercourse.

I can appreciate (from personal experience) your desire to have everything 
simple, cut-and-dried, black-and-white, what-I-want- is-ok, and 
those-who-oppose-me-are-wicked.  However, I do not think the Bible makes your 
case as definitively as you would like it to.  In fact, I don't believe it says 
anything positive about your case at all.  Yes, I know the verses about loving 
one another, and not judging one another, but that's not really the issue, is 
it?  You know and admit that there are still things that are sinful for 
Christians to do, since you say it is wrong for Christians to condemn you.  
Therefore, the issue is whether the Bible says homosexual intercourse is a sin.  
Even if you do challenge the clarity of the New Testament verses, you are still 
left with the fact that the only thing the Bible does say clearly about 
homosexual intercourse is that it is an abomination that defiles both those who 
are under the law and those who are not.

- Mark


[Actually I don't think the reaction to the comparision with
bestiality is based on bestialophobia.  I think what he regards as
slimey is the rhetorical approach of connecting homosexuality and
bestiality.  Most people who accept homosexuality take a radical
approach to the Law.  They regard all of Lev as not binding on
Christians.  The argument is that there's no way in the text to
separate bestiality, homosexuality, and wearing mixed fabrics.  This
does not mean that such people have no limits on their conduct, nor
does it mean that they accept bestiality.  It simply means that their
sexual ethics does not come from the Law, and particularly not from
Lev.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21749
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: David Rapier's Hebrew Quiz software

Is anybody using David Rapier's Hebrew Quiz software?  And can tell
me how to *space* when typing in the Hebrew?  (space bar doesn't work,
for me anyway...)  Email please; thanks.

Ken
-- 
miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
opinions are my own     

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21750
From: regy105@cantva.canterbury.ac.nz (James Haw)
Subject: Presentation Package for preaching?

Hi,
   What presentation package would you recommend for a Bible teacher?
   I've checked out Harwards Graphics for Windows. I think its more
suitable for sales people than for preachers or Bible teachers to present
an outline of a message.

   I'm looking for one that:
*  is great for overhead projector slides.
*  has or imports clip arts
*  works with Word for Windows or imports Word for Windows files.
*  works with inkjet printers
   If you know of any that meets part or all of the above, please let me know.
Please email your response as I don't keep up with the newsgroup.

Thanking you in advance,
James.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21751
From: tomault+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Galen Ault)
Subject: Re: Catholic doctrine of predestination

In article <May.13.02.28.48.1993.1471@geneva.rutgers.edu> creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps) writes:
>In article <May.11.02.37.03.1993.28114@athos.rutgers.edu> noye@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>   The Catholic doctrine of predestination does not exclude free will in
>any way.  Since God knows everything, He therefore knows everything that
>is going to happen to us.  We have free will, and are able to change
>what happens to us.  However, since God knows everything, He knows all
>the choices we will make "in advance" (God is not subject to time).  Too
>often arguments pit predestination against free will.  We believe in
>both.

Curiously enough, this subject has occupied a good bit of my prayer life
recently.  God's experience of time is so completely different from our own,
since He is both within and without it.  Using words like "foreknowledge"
and "predestination" are semantically incorrect when it comes to describing
God's perception of our action, because, for God, the beginning, living, and
ending of our lives are all the same.  Sort of.  For God, there is no "before"
when He did not know, so he could not have "foreknowledge" of our lives or
a time when he could have "predestined" our actions.  In fact, since our
understanding of things is so tied to our linear experience of time, I
would say that it is impossible for us to understand completely how our
free will interacts with God's control of the universe.

Tom Ault

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21752
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: Mary's assumption

>When Elizabeth greeted Mary, Elizabeth said something to the effect that
>Mary, out of all women, was blessed.  If so, it appears that this
>exactly places Mary beyond the sanctification of normal humanity.

I remember a couple of times when my ex-girlfriend said that she thought she
was blessed because of her son (whom she loved dearly). In fact, I've heard
people refer to someone as being blessed quite a few times. It's a common
figure of speech. Considering that Elizabeth was just another human, I think
this passage offers nothing towards justifying the "blessedness" of Mary. 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21753
From: REXLEX@fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Incarnation...Two minds of Christ..

In article <May.13.02.30.34.1993.1541@geneva.rutgers.edu>
tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:
>Nabil wrote:
>>5. Both families agree that He who wills and acts is always the one
Hypostasis
>>of the Logos Incarnate.
>
>Marhaba Nabil,
>
>If we posit two minds in Christ, the mind of the logos and the mind of the
>human Jesus, then we must admit two wills.  A mind is not a mind without a
>will.  I know this has been dealt with in past Church prnouncements, but there
>is a philosophical problem here that should examined.
>
>T. V. Morris argued that the Incarnation can be seen like this:
>
>      _____________		
>     (Mind of Logos)
>     (	 _______   )
>     (	(	)  )	Here, the mind of Jesus is circumsribed by God the
>     (	( Human	)  )	Son.  God the Son has complete access to the human
>     (  ( Mind	)  )	mind but the human mind only has access to the mind
>     (	(	)  )	of God the Son when the Son allows access.  This 
>     (	(_______)  )	explains why Jesus said even he did not know the 
>     (_____________)	time of the kingdom.	
>
>The ideas of a completely healthy version of split personality from
>the field of psychology, and the intriguing ideas of being in a dream, seeing
>yourself acting, knowing that is you, but also being omniscient.  
>

[I've explained it here before.  If you want the full document, ask me by mail
--Rex] 


   "Questions arise as we begin to think about LOGOS and what His inner
consciousness was composed of. We need to clarify the two natures of Christ
briefly.  The divine nature, which has existed eternally, did not undertake any
essential changes during the incarnation which would cause a conflict with the
attributes of God, the foremost of these being His immutability.  This would
mean that it remained impassable, that is, incapable of suffering and death,
free from ignorance and insusceptible to weakness and temptation.  In the realm
of the divine nature it is better to say that the Son of God became that which
was not absolute-and in Himself.  The result of the incarnation was that the
divine LOGOS could be ignorant and weak, could be tempted and suffer and die,
not in His divine nature, but by the derivation of His possession of a human
nature.
     This would mean that both the properties of the divine nature and the
human nature are properties of the person, and therefore ascribed to the
person. By this reason we can say that the person can be omnipotent,
omniscient, and omnipresent, yet at the same time be also a man of limited
power, knowledge, a man of sorrows, subject to human wants and miseries.  There
is, however, no penetration of one nature into the other.  Deity can no more
share the imperfections of humanity than humanity can share in the essential
perfection of the Godhead.
     We are not to assume that there is a double personality due to the
possession of the double natures.  Christ's human nature is impersonal, in that
it attains self-consciousness and self-determination in the personality of the
God-man.  We must now differentiate between the person and the nature of the
Man. Nature is defined:

"the distinguishing qualities or properties of something; the fundamental
character, disposition or temperament of a living being, innate and
unchangeable."

     Nature is then, in essence, the substance possessed in common, in as such
the Trinity have one nature.  There is also a common nature of mankind. 
Personality, on the other hand, is the separate subsistence of nature, with the
power of consciousness and will.  It is for this reason that the human nature
of Christ has not, nor ever had, a separate subsistence, that it is impersonal.
 LOGOS, the God-man, represents the principle of personality.  It is equally
important to see that self-consciousness and self-determination do not, as
such, belong to the nature.  It is for this reason that we can justifiably say
that Jesus did not have two consciousness or two wills, but rather one.  It is
theanthropic, an activity of the one personality which unites in itself the
human and the divine natures, being that neither the consciousness nor the will
are simply human or simply divine."


[The quotation given above is not identified, and it's not entirely
clear to me what position Loren is taking on it.  Just for clarity,
let me note that the view expressed in it is one of the classic
Christological heresies -- monothelitism.  That's the position that
Christ's two natures were not complete, in that there was only one
will.  In most cases (which I think includes this example), it was the
human will that was regarded as missing.

Normally people who talk about Christ's human nature as being
"impersonal" mean it in a somewhat more abstract sense.  That is, they
are using "person" as hypostatis, not in the usual English sense of
personality.  In this use, the doctrine is called "anhypostasia".
Personally I think anhypostasia is just a more sophisticated way of
denying that the Logos took on humanity fully.  However it has never
been formally ruled a heresy, and in fact has been held by influential
theologians both ancient and modern (e.g. Athanasius).  But the
quotation above appears to be going farther than even Athanasius went,
into the realm of the overtly heretical.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21754
From: REXLEX@fnal.gov
Subject: ARSENOKOITAI: Scroggs (#3)

[cont. Dr. James DeYoung; #3]

R. Scroggs

     Robin Scroggs has built upon the discussion of his predecessors and
suggested a new twist to the word.  Scroggs believes that arsenokoitai is a
"Hellenistic Jewish coinage, perhaps influenced by awareness of rabbinic
terminology."  The term is derived from Lev 18"22 & 20:13 where the LXX
juxtaposes the two words arsenos ("male") and koiten ("bed"), and represents
the Hebrew miskab zabar ("lying with a male").   Yet he believes that Paul did
not originate the term, but borrowed it from "circles of Hellenistic Jews
acquainted with rabbinic discussions" (180 n.14).  It was invented to avoid
"contact with the usual Greek terminology" (108).  If this is true, Scroggs
observes, it explains why the word does not appear in Greco-Roman discussions
of pederasty and why later patristic writers avoided it.  It was meaningless to
native-speaking Greeks (108).

     Scroggs takes the second part as the active word and the first word as the
object of the second part, thus differing from Boswell's "learned discussion"
(107).  Yet Scroggs understands the general meaning of "one who lies with a
male" to have a very narrow reference.  With the preceding malokoi (I Cor 6:9),
which Scroggs interprets as "the effeminate call-boy," arsenokoitai is the
active partner "who keeps the malakos of the 'mistress' or who hires him on
occasion to satisfy his sexual desires" (108).  Hence arsenokoitai does not
refer to homosexuality in general, to female homosexuality, or to the generic
model of pederasty.  It certainly cannot refer to the modern gay model, he
affirms (109).
     This is Scrogg's interpretation of the term in I Tim 1:10 also.  The
combination of pornoi ("fornicators"), arsenokoitai and andrapodistai ("slave
dealers") refers to "male prostitutes, males who lie [with them], and slave
dealers [who procure them]" (120).  It again refers to that  specific form of
pederasty "which consisted of the enslaving of boys as youths for sexual
purposes, and the use of these boys by adult males" (121).  Even "serious
minded pagan authors" condemned this form of pederasty.  He then uses these
instances of arsenokoitai in I Cor and I Tim to interpret the apparently
general condemnation of both female and male homosexuality in Rom 1. 
Consequently Paul "Must have had, could only have had pederasty in mind" (122).
We cannot know what Paul would have said about the "contemporary model of
adult/adult mutuality in same sex relation ships" (122).

     In relating these terms to the context and to contemporary ethical
concerns, Scroggs emphasizes the point that the specific items in the list of
vices in I Cor 6 have no deliberate, intended meaning in Paul.  The form and
function of the catalogue of vices are traditional and stereotyped.  Any
relationship between an individual item in the list and the context was usually
nonexistent.  He concludes that Paul "does not care about any specific item in
the lists" (104). 

     Both on the basis of the meaning of the terms and of the literary
phenomenon of a "catalogue of vices,"  Scroggs argues that the Scriptures are
"irrelevant and provide no help in the heated debate today" (129).  The "model
in today's Christian homosexual community is so different from the model
attacked by the NT" that "Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not
relevant to today's debate.  They should no longer be used in denominational
discussions about homosexuality, should in no way be a weapon to justify
refusal of ordination. . . " (127).

      REACTIONS TO THE NEW INTERPRETATIONS OF ARSENOKOITAI

D. Wright

     In more recent years the positions of Bailey, Boswell, and Scroggs have
come under closer scrutiny.   Perhaps the most critical evaluation of Boswell's
view is that by David Wright.  In his thorough article, Wright points out
several shortcomings of Boswell's treatment of arsenokoitai.   He faults
Boswell for failing to cite, or citing inaccurately, all the references to Lev
18:22 and 20:13 in the church fathers, such as Eusebius, the "Apostolic
Constitutions,"  Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Origen (127-28). 
Boswell has not considered seriously enough the possibility that the term
derives either its form or its meaning from the Leviticus passages (129).  This
is significant, for if the term is so derived, it clearly refutes Boswell's
claim that the first half of the word (arseno-) denotes not the object but the
gender of the second half (-koitai).  The LXX must mean "a male who sleeps with
a male," making arseno- the object.

     Wright also faults Boswell's claims regarding linguistic features of the
term, including suggested parallels (129).  Though Boswell claims that
compounds with arseno- employ it objectively and those with arreno- employ it
as an adjective, Wright believes that the difference between the two is merely
one of dialectical diversity: "No semantic import attaches to the difference
between the two forms" (131).  Wright believes that in most compounds in which
the second half is a verb or has a verbal force, the first half denotes its
object and where "the second part is substantival, the first half denotes its
gender" (132). 

     It is with Boswell's treatment of the early church fathers that Wright
takes special issue, because the former has failed to cite all the sources. 
For example, Aristides' Apology (c. AD 138) probably uses arrenomaneis,
androbaten, and arsenokoitias all with the same basic meaning of male
homosexuality (133), contrary to Boswell's discussion.  Boswell fails to cite
Hippolytus (Refut. Omn. Haer. 5:26:22-23) and improperly cites Eusebius and the
Syriac writer Bardensanes.  The latter uses Syriac terms that are identical to
the Syriac of I Cor 6:9 and I Tim 1:10 (133-34). 

     Next Wright shows how the early church fathers use arsenokoitai in
parallel with paidophthoria referring to male homosexuality with teenagers, the
dominant form of male homosexuality among the Greeks (134).  Sometimes this
parallelism occurs in the threefold listings of moicheia ("adultery"), porneia
("fornication"), and paidophthoria, with arsenokoitai replacing paidophthoris
(136).  Clement of Alexandria in Protr. 10:108:5 cites the second table of the
Ten Commandments as "You shall not kill, ou moicheuseis ("you shall not commit
adultery"), ou paidophthoreseis ("you shall not practice homosexuality with
boys"), you shall not steal. . ." (150 n. 43).

     Another occurrence of arsenokoitein ("commit homosexuality") exists in the
Sibylline Oracles 2:71-73.  It may be, Wright observes, that the word was
coined by a Jewish pre-Christian writer in a Hellenistic setting represented by
Or.Sib., book 2 (137-38).

     Wright also discusses uses of arsenokoitai in Rhetorius (6th c.) who drew
upon the first century AD writer Teucer, in Macarius (4th-5th c.), and in John
the Faster (d. 595) (139-40).  The last in particular bears the idea of
homosexual intercourse, contrary to Boswell.

     Wright next replies to Boswell's contention that the term would not be
absent "from so much literature about homosexuality if that is what it denoted
(140-41).  Wright points out that it should not be expected in writers prior to
the first century AD since it did not exist before then, that the Greeks used
dozens of words and phrases to refer to homosexuality, that some sources (e.g.
Didache) show no acquaintance with Paul's letters or deliberately avoid citing
Scripture, and that Boswell neglects citing several church fathers (140-41). 

     Boswell's treatment of Chrysostom in particular draws Wright's attention
(141-44).  Boswell conspicuously misrepresents the witness of Chrysostom,
omitting references and asserting what is patently untrue.  Chrysostom gives a
long uncompromising and clear indictment of homosexuality in his homily on Rom
1:26.  Boswell has exaggerated Chrysostom's infrequent use of the term.  Wright
observes that Boswell has "signally failed to demonstrate any us of
arsenokoites etc. in which it patently does not denote male homosexual
activity" (144).  It is infrequent because of its relatively technical nature
and the availability of such a term as paidophthoria that more clearly
specified the prevailing form of male homosexuality in the Greco-Roman world. 

     Wright also surveys the Latin, Syriac, and Coptic translations of I Tim
and I Cor.  All three render arsenokoitai with words that reflect the meaning
"homosexual" i.e., they understand arseno- as the object of the second half of
the word (144-45).  None of these primary versions supports Boswell's limited
conclusion based on them.

     Wright concludes his discussion with a few observations about the
catalogues of vices as a literary form.  He believes that such lists developed
in late Judaism as Hellenistic Jews wrote in clear condemnation of
homosexuality in the Greek world.  This paralleled the increased concern on the
part of moral philosophers over homosexual indulgence.  The term came into
being under the influence of the LXX (145) so that writers spoke "generally of
male activity with males rather than specifically categorized male sexual
engagement with paides" (146).  If arsenokoitai and paidophthoria were
interchangeable, it is because the former encompassed the latter (146).

     In summary, Wright seeks to show that arsenokoitai is a broad term meaning
homosexuality and arises with Judaism.   The views of Boswell, Scroggs, and
others who limit the term to "active male prostitutes" or pederasty are without
significant support from linguistic and historical studies.  

[Next: the questioning of Wrights position by William Peterson.  After that, we
get into the "good" stuff of historical & linguistic studies.  THis will
include "Symposium" by Plato.  If there is any doubt as to the modern
understanding of homosexuality being understood or contemmplated at the time of
Paul, this will certainly clear things up.  Also we will review Paul's use of
Lev18-20 in the NT and how, as for him, 1) the Law was fulfilled, but not done
away with, 2) Lev 18-20 was the universal and the following chapters the
general.  Those who put forth that the OT no longer holds true today in our
culture, should stick around for this one.]
___________________________
13 R. Scroggs, THe New Testament and Homosexuality (Phil: 1983) 86, 107-8. 
Independently we came to the same conclusion.  Apparently the connection is
made in E.A. Sophocles, Greek Lexicon of the Roman & Byzantine Periods (from
146BC to AD 1100).
14   See discussion, 101-4.  He says the same thing about Paul's language in
Rom 1:26-27 (128).  But this is doubtful.  See the more cautious words of P.
Zaas, "I Cor 6.9ff: Was Homosexuality Condoned in the Corinthian Church? SBLASP
17 (1979):205-12.  He observes that the words moixai, malakoi, and arsenokoitai
were part of Jewish anti-Gentile polemic.  Yet Paul's wors at the end of the
vice list, "and such were some of you," indicate that "Paul is addressing real
or potential abuses of his ethical message, not citing primitive tradition by
rote" (210).  Wright disputes Zaas' attempt to associate the term with idolatry
(147).
15  On Boswell's treatment of Rom 1:26-7, the article by R.B. Hays, "Relations
Natural and Unnatural"  A Response to John Boswell's Exegesis of Romans 1," JRE
14/1 (Spring 1986): 184-215, is an excellent critique.
16  D.F. Wright, "Homosexuals or Prostitutes?  The Meaning of ARSENOKOITAI (I
Cor 6:9, I Tim 1:10), VC 38 (1984):125-53.
17  In an unpublished paper, Henry Mendell, "ARSENOKOITAI: Boswell on Paul,"
effectively refutres Boswell's claims regarding the philology of arsenokoitai. 
He finds the meaning to be general, "a male who has sex with a male" (4-11).  
18  Wright's endnotes (148-49) list additional sources in the church fathers.
19   We also have noticed the same tendency by Boswell to fail to cite all the
references to Sodom and sodomy in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.  See  J.B.
DeYoung, "A Critique of Prohomosexual Interpretations of the OT Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha," BSac 146/588 (1990):437-53.
20   In light of the claim made by Boswell that the infrequency of arsenokoitai
points to a meaning lacking homosexual significance, Wright asks pertinently
"why neither Philo nor Josephus use  paidofthoria, nor Josephus paiderastia,
and why . . Clement did not use the latter and Chrysostom the former?"  (152 n.
71)  In a more recent article, "Homosexuality: The Relevance of the Bible," EvQ
61 (1989):291-300, Wright reiterates these same points.  Paul shows a
"remarkable originality" in extending the OT ethic to the church (300).

 

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21755
From: khan0095@nova.gmi.edu (Mohammad Razi Khan)
Subject: Re: Mary's assumption

David.Bernard@central.sun.com (Dave Bernard) writes:

>>I also don't see the _necessity_ of saying the Holy Parents were some-
>>how sanctified beyond normal humanity: it sounds like our own inability
>>to grasp the immensity of God's grace in being incarnated through an or-
>>dinary human being.  


>When Elizabeth greeted Mary, Elizabeth said something to the effect that
>Mary, out of all women, was blessed.  If so, it appears that this
>exactly places Mary beyond 


Whoa, dude I don't see the jump you made.
		She was blessed, I'll give you that much.
		What do you mean, she was placed "beyond" 





the sanctification of normal humanity.
-- 
Mohammad R. Khan                /    khan0095@nova.gmi.edu
After July '93, please send mail to  mkhan@nyx.cs.du.edu
If responses to this letter/post bounce, e-mail me at the nyx account.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21756
From: u2i02@seq1.cc.keele.ac.uk (RJ Pomeroy)
Subject: Re: Catholic doctrine of predestination

From article <May.13.02.28.48.1993.1471@geneva.rutgers.edu>, by creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps):
>    The Catholic doctrine of predestination does not exclude free will in
> any way.  Since God knows everything, He therefore knows everything that
> is going to happen to us.  We have free will, and are able to change
> what happens to us.  However, since God knows everything, He knows all
> the choices we will make "in advance" (God is not subject to time).  Too
> often arguments pit predestination against free will.  We believe in
> both.

Just a little issue of semantics:

Would it not be better, then to call it "pre-determination"?!

--

   RRRRR        OO       BBBBB          :
   R    R     OO  OO     B    B         :
   R     R   OO    OO    B    BB        :          Robert Pomeroy
   R   RR    O      O    B    B         :
   RRRR      O      O    BBBBB          :        u2i02@keele.ac.uk
   R  R      O      O    B    B         :
   R   R     OO    OO    B    BB        :              1993
   R    R     OO  OO     B    B         :
   R     R      OO       BBBBB          :



  My address }
    during   }    Hawthorns Hall, KEELE, Staffordshire, ST5 5AE. England.
  term-time. }


                            ________
                           /        \ /
                          <  Jn3:16  X
                           \________/ \

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21757
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: Re: Catholic doctrine of predestination

(Stephen A. Creps) writes:

	  The Catholic doctrine of predestination does not exclude free
   will in any way.  Since God knows everything, He therefore knows
   everything that is going to happen to us.  We have free will, and
   are able to change what happens to us.  However, since God knows
   everything, He knows all the choices we will make "in advance" (God
   is not subject to time).  Too often arguments pit predestination
   against free will.  We believe in both.

That last sentence of Steve's is an important one to remember.

There are certain things in the Catholic religion that cannot be
completely comprehended by a human being.  Were this not the case, it
would be good evidence that the religion was man-made.

In the case of predestination, you have to reconcile two things that
would at first appear to be irreconcilable: the sovereignty of God's
will over all things, and man's free will in deciding his own fate.
Catholics believe in both!  But that doesn't mean that anyone has come
up with a pat reconciliation...

I have often thought that Goedel's famous theorem has applicability to
Catholic dogma, at least in an analogous sense: there are things that
are true that cannot be proved.  God's intellect is far above ours.
There are many truths that we will never be able to understand.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21758
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: Mary, "blessed among women"

Dave Bernard writes:

 > When Elizabeth greeted Mary with the words: "Blessed art thou
 > among women" (Luke 1:42), it appears that this places Mary
 > beyond the sanctification of normal humanity.

But Deborah says (Judges 5:24):

 > Blessed among women shall be Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite,
 > Blessed above all women in the tents.

It can doubtless be taken that Jael's slaying of Sisera was a type
of Mary's victory over sin. But even if we take Deborah's words as
applying prophetically or symbolically to Mary, they must still be
applicable literally to Jael.  We may well take them to mean that
God used her as a part of His plan for the deliverance of His
people, and that she has this in common with Mary.  But we have no
reason to suppose that they mean that she was sinless, and thus no
reason to take the like expression applied to Mary as proof that she
was sinless.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21759
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: Relevant Subject Lines

A recent post bears the subject line:

 > Re: Serbian genocide work of God?

The text contains 80 lines devoted to a defence of the doctrine of
predestination as applied to the salvation of individuals. There is
then a five-line post-script on the Balkans. It is natural and easy
to keep the Subject line of the post that one is replying to, but
when the focus shifts, keeping the same Subject can cause confusion.

This is intended as a general request. The post mentioned is just
the handiest example.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21760
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: ARSENOKOITAI: NT Meaning of

Meta-exegesis: Conviction of Sin,  part II

Let me return to the question, stipulating that Paul meant his use of
_arseonkoitai_ to refer more or less exactly to the Levitical prohibition
of male-male sex.  In order to bring out the problems most clearly, I'll
also stipulate (what I think is far less plausible) that Paul coined the
term for this usage.  The question I want to turn to is what that would
mean for Paul's readers and for later Christians.  This should be shorter
than my last note, as we will see that this question rapidly confronts us
with some of the major divisions within Christ's body, and I am not trying
to open the gates for flames across any of the terrible chasms that
separate any of us from our fellow Christians.  My own biases (loosely
characterizable as "liberal") will be evident, but I am not grinding an
axe here, so much as trying to get all parties to see that it may be HARD
to reach "closure" when the issues involved strike at the heart of what we
each, in our own different ways, see as crucial to the Gospel of Christ.

So; stipulating Paul's intent, the immediate question is: HOW CAN HIS
READERS UNDERSTAND this intent?  And following on that question, there is
a second one: WHAT IS OUR PROPER ACTION if we *do* manage to understand him?

Since Paul gives not a single clue about his meaning in the text of 1st
Corinthians, there are two "positive" answers and one "negative" to this
question:

+	a.  Paul (or Apollos, or someone) in the apostolic community has
	    conveyed to the Corinthians the then-traditional Jewish condem-
	    nation of homosexual behavior, and Paul expects them to be
	    sufficiently well-tutored by this tradition that he needs no
	    futher explanation.  [I should note that there is no evidence
	    in the letter, or in 2 Corinthians for such a supposition :-)]

+	b.  The Spirit will teach us what Paul means (or, if not Paul,
	    what God means "behind" Paul's inspired word-choice.)

-	c.  We *don't* know, and cannot guess to within any better pre-
	    cision here than, for comparison, in the parallel use by Paul,
	    in the same passage of the word  _pleonektai_ ("those who have
	    more" -- if you think that _areseonkoitai_ is "obvious" from
	    its roots, try cutting your teeth on *this* word!  The NEB
	    translates it as "grabbers") or even _methusoi_ ("drunkards"
	    -- at least this has the advantage of being a common insult,
	    so that at least there is *some* hint as to its meaning!)

The three positions more or less -- if I can be allowed some exaggeration
for the sake of argument -- define a classical Catholic attitude towards
tradition, one form of Protestant _sola scriptura_, and a liberal/critical
demand for evidence.  All three positions have strengths and weaknesses.

_ad_ a:	It is unquestionable that the gospel was preached in and by the
	community of Christ's disciples and their successors, and that
	our NT scripture itself emerges from this communal tradition.
	But it's also the case that we know little or nothing about this
	tradition until almost a century after Paul, which is to say that
	we have access to the tradition only after several generations of
	possibly confused transmission.  The scripture is itself our only
	documentation of the tradition in the critical era.

_ad_ b:	If we are NOT born of water and Spirit [to revert to John in an
	attempt to explain Paul :-)], then we have no more hope of under-
	standing the gospel than Nicodemus had; neither the traditions of
	men nor the vain elevation of our own reason can prevent the Spirit
	from blowing where it will -- the Paraclete is a kamikaze.  But
	the downside of Protestant belief in the efficacy of the Spirit
	as our guide in scripture is that the wing of Protestantism that
	takes this most seriously is also the most fragmented over divergent
	understanding supposedly derived from the "clear" Word of God.

		[Note: classical Lutheran, Calvinist and Anglican thought
		constrains scripture to be read *within* tradition, even
		while reserving judgment against tradition out of scripture;
		the more bizarre forms of "I will read Scripture my way"
		are primarily a fringe aspect of "cultic" Protestantism.]

	The main problem with this approach is that there is apparently no
	means for ONE person to convey to another what that one may feel
	*is* teaching received from the Spirit; and history shows incredible
	conflict between Christians on this point, each in his own mind
	"convinced" that he is led by the Spirit.  No one can seriously
	urge point b without SOME sense of its potential for setting Christian
	against Christian.  To what purpose?

_ad_ c:	The critical approach has the distinct advantage that when it can
	reach a conclusion, it can lay out the data in a way which is open
	to all.  The weakness is an obvious corollary: this is not usually
	possible. :-)

	[If I may say a word here, out of my own already acknowledged bias;
	one complaint against critical methodology is that it "dissolves"
	faith -- but surely a "faith" that cannot honestly face the evalu-
	ation of evidence has problems which mere theology is helpless to
	address.]

Anyway, there is a serious and unfortunate possibility of schism between
"liberal" and "conservative" positions, mostly on the basis of extreme
zealots of positions b and c.  A Catholic sense of authority and tradition
tends to constrain arguments of b contra c to secondary position, so that
despite horrendous strains Rome is NOT as likely to find these issues as
ultimately divisive as the Protestant world will.  And Anglicans will (I
predict) muddle through on the _via media_, attempting to give each position
its due, but no more than its due. 

Second question.  Suppose tradition tells us, and lots of "spiritual"
Christians tell us, and critical thought at least admits as possible,
that Paul is refering to a flat, universal Levitical prohibition against
male-male sex.  What then?  Again, we can abdicate our personal responsi-
bility to tradition, and let it dictate the answer.  But it's precisely
where inherited traditions are NOT questioned that they're most dangerous.

We have EXAMPLES of Christ questioning the Pharisees and THEIR use of
tradition (despite his urging, in Matthew 23:2 that we are to heed them).
We have EXAMPLES of Peter, and more radically still Paul, jettisoning the
traditions that THEY were led by the Spirit to call into question.  Jesus
and Peter and Paul do not so much "throw out" tradition as subject it to
radical criticism, on a couple of very basic grounds:

     "the weightier demands of the law: justice and mercy and good faith"
							(Matthew 23:23)
and  "On these two commandments [love God & neighbor] hand the whole Law,
      and the Prophets, also."
							(Matthew 22:40)

If there is a fundamental (because derived from Christ) validity in the
challenge to *some* traditions, a validity that led the first generation
to go so far as to waive application of the Torah to gentile converts
(vastly beyond anything that is directly deducible from Jesus' reported
words and deeds), it signifies to me a certain failure of the imagination
to *postulate* that *only* the traditions that we have specific challenges
against are in fact open to challenge.

All traditions passed *through* men are traditions *of* men.  That God may
lead us even so, that these traditions are a source of our spiritual
instruction I will freely grant.  But tradition is inherently human, and
inherently corruptible (and given the Fall, corrupt).  Nothing in it is
immune to challenge, when the Spirit shows us a failure in justice, mercy
and good faith.  Nothing may ultimately stand unless it DOES follow from
love of God and love of neighbor.

I am perfectly willing to grant that I could be blind to my own sin.  That
the Spirit may have taught another what She refuses to teach me (or I am
too dense to learn).  That tradition *might* have value here.  But what I
*know* of tradition is that on one occasion, some superstitious Christians
appealed to Justinian after an earthquake in Asia Minor, and scapegoated
"sodomites" as the "cause" of the earthquake, so that legislation was
passed making homosexual behavior a capital offense.  If that is in
accord with the gospel of Christ, then I am no Christian.  That is human
tradition at its most hateful and vicious.  And I see nothing all that much
different in all the unbidden eruptions onto USENET of people who are quick
to condemn but slow to understand.  If that is the leading of the Spirit,
then I want no part of it.  But what I have found in obedience to the Lord
is that I am, myself, TOTALLY dependent on the witness of other Christians,
for the truth that lives in the Body of Christ.

And I say to all who doubt that gay Christianity is from God what Gamaliel
said to doubting Pharisees who would have suppressed the earliest Church:

	"be careful how you deal with these people...  If this enterprise,
	this movement of theirs, is of human origin it will break up of
	its own accord; but if it does in fact come from God you will not
	only be unable to destroy them, but you might find yourselves
	fighting against God."
							[Acts 5:36...39] 

All I ask is that you listen to your traditions, and read your scriptures
with a mind and soul OPEN to the Spirit, and to the past history of our
first Christian witnesses' willingness to challenge tradition and OTHER
readings of scripture -- though read with all the authority of scribes and
rabbis -- and a submission to the declaration that all must depend on the
love of God and neighbor.  Then, study the evidence; learn the history of
Christians oppressing Christians out of their traditions and eagerness to
judge where Jesus and Paul tell us NOT to judge.  And let the witness of
the Spirit in the lives of your fellow Christians -- including those who
are NOT of your preference in theology -- guide you towards God's truth.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		I say "You are gods, sons of the
mls@panix.com			Most High, all of you; nevertheless
    - or -			you shall die like men, and fall
mls@ulysses.att..com		like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7

[There's a certain ambiguity in your discussion of position (a), as to
whether you're speaking of tradition in Paul's time or ours.  I think
there are two ways to use tradition.  One is to say that when Paul and
his readers share a tradition, it makes sense to interpret his words
in the context of that shared tradition.  That's what makes me think
that these arguments over words turn out to be silly.  We know that
Paul came out of a background that was rather Puritanical on sex.
Everything else he says on sex is consistent with that background.
The tone of his remarks on homosexuality in Rom 1 is consistent with
that background.  Even if the words in the sin lists aren't the most
general terms for homosexual activity (and it seems to me that there's
some evidence that they are not), they are just one more piece of
evidence for something we would probably be willing to believe with no
evidence at all -- that Paul shares the common Jewish rejection of
homosexuality.

But when you identify (a) with the Catholic position, that's rather a
horse of a different color.  The Catholic position involves a
continuing church tradition.  Arguments specific to that tradition
might be (1) we can get guidance on how to interpret Paul's original
meaning from tradition, e.g. the way the Church Fathers interpreted
him, and (2) we gain confidence that his prohibitions still apply in
our time because of the universal judgement of the church between his
time and ours.  I think this is a somewhat different use of tradition.
A radical Protestant might be willing to use known 1st Cent.
tradition to illuminate Paul's original meaning, but not use the
Catholic position to answer the question of what our own attitude to
homosexuality should be.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21761
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse

Dishonest money dwindles away, but he who gathers money little by little makes
it grow. 
Proverbs 13:11

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21762
From: mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server)
Subject: Secret ceremonies (was Re: Mormon Temples)

shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker) writes:
>In article <May.11.02.38.41.1993.28297@athos.rutgers.edu> 
>mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server) writes:
> 
>>I don't necessarily object to the secrecy but I do question it, since I see 
>no 
>>Biblical reason why any aspect of Christian worship should involve secrecy.  
> 
>Early in Church history, the catechumens were dismissed prior to the 
>celebration 
>of the Eucharist.  It WAS secret, giving rise to the rumors that Christians
>were cannibals and all sorts of perverse claims.  The actions were considered
>too holy to be observed by non-Christians, as well as potentially dangerous
>for the individual Christian who might be identified.
> 
>Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com) [.sig deleted for brevity]

Larry -

Thanks for the reply, but this isn't quite the same thing.  Like I said before, 
I can understand why non-Christians would be denied *access* to holy 
ceremonies, but the ceremony itself (communion) was not secret.  In fact, all 
four gospels record the first "breaking of the bread" in some detail.  
Communion was a fellowship meal, and it was (and still should be, in my 
opinion) inappropriate to invite those who did not share in the fellowship of 
the Body of Christ.  The fact that unbelievers, denied access to these communal 
meals, began to imagine all sorts of secret and debased rituals during 
communion does not by any means imply that the early Christians were in fact 
hiding shameful things from the general public.  In fact, I think if you read 
some of the early church fathers, you will find that they were not at all 
bashful about describing what went on during communion.  That's why it seems 
funny to me when Mormons, who claim to be the only true restoration of 1st 
century Christianity, insist on hiding certain rituals on the grounds that they 
are "too sacred."

- Mark

[Actually, that's not quite the case.  John omits the central elements
of the Last Supper.  His Gospel is full of symbolism of bread and
wine.  But the actual story isn't there.  Some people think he has
omitted some of the details because they were not talked about in
public in his community.  There is also evidence that some aspects of
baptismal practice were kept secret. See Morton Smith's "Secret
Gospel" -- I don't agree with his lurid speculations on what the
secret practices actually were, but there does seem to be some
evidence that Mark omitted certain details because they were 
inappropriate for publication.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21763
From: u2i02@seq1.cc.keele.ac.uk (RJ Pomeroy)
Subject: Re: Satan kicked out of heaven: Biblical?

From article <May.14.02.11.36.1993.25219@athos.rutgers.edu>, by tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard):

> Hi Eddie, many people believe the battle described in Rev 12:7-12
> describes the casting out of Satan from heaven and his fall to the
> earth.
> Shalom,                             Len Howard


Also - check out Jude.  Plus, if you have a concordance handy, check
out all the references to 'stars'.  These are generally taken to mean
angels, I believe.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21764
From: jsledd@ssdc.sas.upenn.edu (James Sledd)
Subject: Re: Dreams and out of body incidents

In article <May.14.02.10.02.1993.25119@athos.rutgers.edu> alisonjw@spider.co.uk (Alison J Wyld) writes:
>From: alisonjw@spider.co.uk (Alison J Wyld)
>PS. Just to make it clear, I don't do ( and have never tried ) OOBEs.
>    I tend to think they are off limits for Christians.

WHY?

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21765
From: jrmo@volta.att.com
Subject: Re: What WAS the immaculate conception

In article <May.14.02.11.19.1993.25177@athos.rutgers.edu> seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson) writes:
>In article <May.9.05.39.52.1993.27456@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes:
>[referring to Mary]
>>She was immaculately conceived, and so never subject to Original Sin,
>>but also never committed a personal sin in her whole life.  This was
>>possible because of the special degree of grace granted to her by God.
>
>I have quite a problem with the idea that Mary never committed a sin.
>Was Mary fully human?  If it is possible for God to miraculously make 
>a person free of original sin, and free of committing sin their whole
>life, then what is the purpose of the Incarnation of Jesus?  Why can't
>God just repeat the miracle done for Mary to make all the rest of us
>sinless, without the need for repentance and salvation and all that?
>
>concept of Mary's sinlessness seems to me to be at odds with the
>rest of Christian doctrine as I understand it.

It's always a two-way street.  God gave her the grace to avoid sin,
thus when she was visited by Gabriel, she gave her fiat, her total
acceptance of God's will.  This fiat summarizes why Catholics regard 
her as the highest of all humans, that God chose her and that she
accepted.  Knowing this in advance, we extrapolate that she was
neither stained by nor subject to original sin.

God did create us all miraculously free to choose or not choose to sin.
"Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof and the grace of God to
command it."  This amount of grace was precisely determined by God
to be the amount required to do what God asked of her.  The grace
given to each of us is also enough, but we do not always choose
to accept it.  We also believe Jesus was fully human and never
sinned.  

God could have created a much better person than myself, one who
always chose the right thing, yet he created me instead, despite
my flaws.  He proves he loves me as I am, continually drawing me
towards perfection.  For whatever purpose he has for me, he has
confidence that I will accomplish it.  If I ask God to repeat his
miraculous creation of the mother of his son, where will that leave me?

Joe Moore

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21766
From: I25LG@cunyvm.bitnet
Subject: HAROLD CAMPING

Have any of you read Harold Camping's book "1994?"? It's about
biblical evidenc that points to September of 1994 as the probable time
of Christ's second coming It's a very informative book and a must read
for all Christians.  You can get i at your local bookstore for only
$14.95.

Peace!

[no! not again!  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21767
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Contradiction in Mormonism

There is a contradiction related to the moral issue of polygamy in the
Mormon writings.  In the book in the book of Mormon called the book of 
Jacob, Joseph Smith wrote that it was an abomination to God for 
David and Solomon to have many wives.  Later, when Joseph Smith wrote
the Doctrines and Covenants (possibly when polygamy was becoming an
issue in his personal life) he wrote that it was not an abomination for
David to have many wives.  How do Mormons answer this contradiction?

Link Hudson.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21768
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: the Imprecatory Psalms

Paul Fortmann submitted a sermon by Peter Hammond on PRAYING FOR
JUSTICE that spoke of the positive value of the Imprecatory
(Cursing) Psalms.

In this connection, I recommend to the membership the book
REFLECTIONS ON THE PSALMS, by C S Lewis, with special reference to
the chapter on "Cursing in the Psalms."

 Yours,
 James Kiefer

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21769
From: cctr114@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Rea)
Subject: Re: Portland earthquake

Bill Rea (cctr114@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz) wrote:
> His theology clashed with the theology of the
> local prophets. It was out of a very deep understanding of the Mosaic
> covenant and an actute awareness of international events that Jeremiah
> spoke his prophesies. The "judgement prophesies" were deeply loaded with
> theological meaning.

> In my opinion, both the Portland earthquake prophesy and the David Wilkerson
> "New York will burn" prophesy are froth and bubble compared to the majestic
> theological depths of the Jeremiah prophesies.

Perhaps one other thing I should have added is that Jeremiah's prophesies
about the coming destruction of Jerusalem would have been understood by
the people of that time to be a full frontal assault on their understanding
of their relationship with the Lord. Today the if the general populace 
hears "prophesies" like the Portland earthquake or New York will burn
ones, they are unlikely to see it in the context of their relationship
(or lack of it) with the Lord. They are far more likely to think that
they are just the result of the fevered imaginations of a religious nutter.
That is one reason why I am always deep;y suspicious of bald judgement
prophesies without any explanation of the reasons for the judgement. This
doesn't have to be long winded. To see a relatively modern example look
at Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural speech. The relevant section is
below. It is this type of spiritual insight which was missing in both
prophesies posted here.

--- Excerpt from Abraham Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural speech----

Both read the same Bible, and pray 
to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem 
strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing 
their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not
that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not he answered that of neither
has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. ''Woe unto the
world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to
that man by whom the offence cometh" If we shall suppose that American 
Slavery is one of those offences which, in the provdence of God, must needs come
but which, having  continued through  His appointed time, He now wills to remove
and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to
those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein an departure from
those divine attribute which the believers in a Living God always  ascribe 
to Him ? Fondly do we hope - fervently do we pray - that this mighty 
scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, 
until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of 
unrequited  toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn  with 
the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three 
thousand  years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, 
are true and righteous altogether"
  With malice toward none; with charity for all;  with firmness in the right, 
as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we 
are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have 
borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan - to do all which 
may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, 
and with all nations.


--
                                                                     ___
Bill Rea                                                            (o o)
-------------------------------------------------------------------w--U--w---
| Bill Rea, Computer Services Centre, | E-Mail   b.rea@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| University of Canterbury,           | or     cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| Christchurch, New Zealand           | Phone (03)-642-331 Fax (03)-642-999 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21770
From: cokely@nb.rockwell.com (Scott Cokely)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity

In <May.13.02.30.39.1993.1545@geneva.rutgers.edu> noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes) writes:

>In article <May.11.02.39.05.1993.28328@athos.rutgers.edu> carlson@ab24.larc.nasa.gov (Ann Carlson) writes:

>[bible verses ag./ used ag. homosexuality deleted]

>>Anyone who thinks being gay and Christianity are not compatible should 
>>check out Dignity, Integrity, More Light Presbyterian churches, Affirmation,
>>MCC churches, etc.  Meet some gay Christians, find out who they are, pray
>>with them, discuss scripture with them, and only *then* form your opinion.

>also check out the episcopal church -- although by no means all
>episcopalians are sympathetic to homosexual men and women, there
>certainly is a fairly large percentage (in my experience) who are.  i
>am good friends with an episcopalian minister who is ordained and
>living in a monogamous homosexual relationship.  this in no way
>diminishes his ability to minister -- in fact he has a very
>significant ministry with the gay and lesbian association of his
>community, as well as a very significant aids ministry.

This may sound argumentative, but do the pro-homosexual crowd give the
same support to church members that are involved in incestuous relationships?
If we do a little substitution above, we get:

"although by no means all episcopalians are sympathetic to incestuous
men and women, there certainly is a fairly larget percentage (in my
experience) who are.  I am good friends with an episcopalian minister
who is ordained and living in a monogamous incestual relationship.  This
in no way diminishes his ability to minister -- in fact he has a very
significant ministry with the Incest association of his community..."

Do the same standards apply?  If not, why not?  And while we're in the
ballpark, what about bestiality?  I can't recall offhand if there are
any direct statements in the Bible regarding sex with animals; does that
activity have more or less a sanction?

Please avoid responses such as "you're taking this to extremes".  I would
guess that a disproportionate percentage of the inerrant Bible community
views homosexual acts with distaste in the same manner that society at
large views incest.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Cokely       | (714) 833-4760   scott.cokely@nb.rockwell.com		    
"They came for the Davidians, but I did not speak up because
 I was not a Davidian.  Then they came for me..."  Opinions expressed
are mine and do not represent those of Rockwell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


[ Obviously you can replace homosexuality in the above statement by
anything from murder to sleeping late.  That doesn't mean that the
same people would accept those substitutions.  The question is whether
the relationships involved do in fact form an appropriate vehicle to
represent Christ's relationship to humanity.  This is at least
*partly* an empirical question.  

In some cases types of human relationship have been rejected because
over time they always seem to lead to trouble.  I think that's the
case with slavery.  One can argue that in theory, if you follow Paul's
guidelines, it's possible to have Christian slaveholders.  But in
practice, over a period of time, most people came to the conclusion
that nobody can really have that degree of control over another and
not abuse it.  

The message you were responding to was asking you to look at the
results from Christian communities that endorse homosexuality.  (Note:
Christian homosexuals, not people you see on the news advocating some
extremist agenda).  You may not want to base your decision completely
on that kind of observation, but I would argue that it's at least
relevant.  You can't answer the request by asking why you shouldn't
look at the Incest association, because in fact there is no such
association.  If there were, it might be reasonable for you to look at
it too.  Of course that doesn't mean that the results of all such
examinations would necessarily come out the same way.  Part of why
there aren't groups pushing all possible relaxed standards is that
some of them do produce obviously bad results.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21771
From: mikeh@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (michael p.herlihy)
Subject: Re: Satan kicked out of heaven: Biblical?

In article <May.14.02.11.36.1993.25219@athos.rutgers.edu> tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard) writes:

>Hi Eddie, many people believe the battle described in Rev 12:7-12
>describes the casting out of Satan from heaven and his fall to the
>earth.
>Shalom,                             Len Howard

Luke 10:16-18

He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth
 me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the
 devils are subject unto us through thy name.

And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
-- 
If a prayer today is spoken, please offer it up for me
When the bridge to heaven is broken and you're lost on the wild wild seas
Lost on the wild wild sea

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21772
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Subject: Re: MAJOR VIEWS OF THE TRINITY

In article <May.14.02.12.04.1993.25393@athos.rutgers.edu>,
swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com (Stan Friesen) wrote:
> 
> Simply put, I do not see any way that a "Platonic essence" could have
> any *real* existance.  "Essence" in the Platonic sense does not have
> any referent as far as I can tell - it is just an imaginary concept
> invented to provide an explanation for things better explained in
> other ways.

You are quite confident that essences do not exist.  How do propose to
define beings?  Can a thing can be *one* without definition?  Can a being
have a definition and know essence?

What about properties?  Do beings have properties?  Does God have
properties?

Does numbers exist in reality as abstract entities or do we invent them?

> Thus, to me, the unity of God must be primary, and the triality must be
> secondary, must be modal or aspectual (relating to roles, or to modes
> of interaction), since otherwise there is no meaning to saying God is one.

See my post in alt.messianic about the possibilities of tri-theism from a
phiolosophical point of view.
 
=====================
Ted Kalivoda (tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu)
Institute of Higher Education
University of Georgia
Athens, GA

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21773
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse


   Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have
sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart.

IPeter 1:22

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21774
From: hardy@esdd460a.erim.org (Russ Hardy)
Subject: Mary and Idols


 I have been studying the Bible now for about a year.  I love it,
but I am not very familiar with the different denominations, or
traditions, or common beliefs of various christian groups.
I have heard various people (outside this news group)
describe *idols* such as power, money, material 
possessions etc.  These things are worshiped in some sense I 
suppose, but I never really gave idols much thought.  Until now...  

I have been reading the postings in this news group (which I 
just found a few days ago), and I have a question...  First, I'm
not trying to question anyone's belief or try to push my views
on anyone else (I haven't been at this long enough to have
any views other than I cannot get to heaven by being good,
I must understand that Christ bore my sins on the cross so that
I could be saved and I need to repent, i.e. realize that
every time I sin, I might as well stick a sharp stick in
Christ's side because He took the punishment for my sins,
when He died on the cross).

In my studies, Mary never really comes up.  I know who she is, 
but that's about it.  It seems to me that a statue of Mary 
could be considered an idol?  Do people pray to statues of Mary?

It sounds like educated christians (more educated than myself
I'm sure) believe Mary was sinless?  Wow...  I hoped to spend
the summer convincing myself (one way or the other) about
Tongues (I'm reading "Charismatic Chaos").  I guess I'll study
Tongues in parallel with reading this news group.  Any help you can 
give me will be appreciated.

    -------------------------------------------

[I don't think the issue is so much that people are more educated than
you (though it may well be that they are), as that they come from a
different tradition than yours.

This is a discussion between Catholics and Protestants.  Catholics
generally believe that Mary was sinless.  Protestants do not.  The
issue comes down to different sources of authority.  Protestants
generally limit themselves to the Bible as a source of doctrine.
Since this isn't in the Bible (except in passages that no one would
understand in this way if they didn't already believe it), Protestants
don't accept it.  Catholics see continuing revelation through the
Church, though they believe the results are consistent with the Bible.

I interpret your posting, not as a call for yet another argument about
whether the Catholic Marian devotions are idolatry (an argument I am
not prepared to see newed here), but as a sign of being interested in
learning about traditions other than your own.  Catholics are of
course a major one, but by no means the only one.  I generally
consider the major traditions to be Catholic, Orthodox, and
various subsets of Protestantism.  Within Protestantism, it's a matter
of how finely you want to cut things.  These days I think the major
division is between those who accept Biblical inerrancy and those
who don't.  There are also a number of major historical traditions,
but in recent decades distinctions are tending to blur.  I'd 
identify the major Protestant traditions as:

  Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican (they're sort of halfway between
  Catholic and Protestant), Wesleyan, Baptist, Holiness, Pentecostal,
  Church of Christ

But there are a number of others.  Historical distinctions tend not to
be so important among the liberal churches anymore, and I think
current trends in society and the Church are also tending to make
conservatives seen themselves as allies from a general "evangelical"
perspective.  But differences among these various traditions are still
quite marked.

I think the best introduction to these issues is to read a good book
on church history.  Anyone who wants to understand the church really
needs to understand how we got where we are now.  A church history
will normally show you where each of these traditions came from, and
give a feeling for their nature.  Unfortunately I'm away from my
library at the moment, so I don't have anything specific to recommend.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21775
From: CCJIM@vax.cns.muskingum.edu (Jimmy Buddenberg)
Subject: resume

I'm about to revise my resume and was wondering if I should put on there the
fact that I'm a Christian.  Give me some input on what you think.


-- 
Jimmy Buddenberg   (ccjim@vax.cns.muskingum.edu)
Student Systems Analyst
Muskingum College

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21776
From: Liz.Broadwell@netnews.upenn.edu (ebroadwe@mail.sas.upenn.edu)
Subject: Acta Sanctorum in English?

Does anyone know whether the _Acta Sanctorum_, the huge multi-volume collection
of Roman Catholic hagiography produced by the Bollandists, has ever been
translated into English?  I'm working on the _Vita S. Dympnae_ and would love
to be able to check my own translation against somebody else's.  

Email replies preferred, unless this query turns out to be of general interest.

--
Liz Broadwell (ebroadwe@mail.sas.upenn.edu)
Department of English                       *  Ad majorem Dei gloriam.
The University of Pennsylvania

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21777
From: rodger@zeisler.lonestar.org (Rodger B. Zeisler)
Subject: 05/28/93 PastorTalk


                        -= PASTORTALK =-

  A weekly dialogue with a local pastor on the news of the day

                      by Carl (Gene) Wilkes 

                       Startext: MC344578 
                     CompuServe: 70423,600
                       Internet: 70423.600@compuserve.com

                   -= THIS WEEK'S THOUGHTS =-

Last week the Supreme Court refused without comment to hear an
appeal by Rensselaer, IN, school officials desiring the
distribution of Bibles in their public schools (REL65, 5/21). A
lower court had banned the local Gideons, an international Bible-
distribution group, from passing out Bibles to fifth-graders. The
ACLU's Barry Lynn was quoted as saying that the court's action
protected the "religious neutrality of our public schools." He also
said that schools must serve students of "all faiths and none."
Schools were not to be a "bazaar where rival religious groups
compete for converts," according to Lynn.

Several Gideons, men who are responsible for putting Bibles in
hospitals and hotels, are members of our church. They tell of
similar stories where they are only allowed to distribute Bibles on
sidewalks around the schools, but cannot go inside the schools.
They tell of mild harassment by parents who do not want their
children receiving a Bible from a stranger. They are willing to
continue their work at a distance, but find the school's position
somewhat disheartening.

I understand rationally and logically the court's position. And, I
can see the sense of fairness for all groups. But, on the other
hand, when does "neutrality" become "nihilism?" When does plurality
turn into no position at all?

I see a couple of ironies here. One is that we can pass out condoms
but not Bibles in our schools. Think on that one for a moment.

The other is that while we are seeking "religious neutrality" in
our schools, countries like Russia--who, by the way, practiced
"religious neutrality" for the past seventy years--are making the 
Bible part of their public school curriculum. When I was in St.
Petersburg in March, the church we worked with had trained over 100
public school teachers to teach the Bible, and the government had
requested hundreds more! I recently heard a medical doctor who is
president of the Gideon chapter in Moscow tell how they are eagerly
invited to the University of Moscow to distribute Bibles to the
students and are given class time to explain its contents. I
remember seeing a photograph of this doctor holding a Bible and
speaking to the university students standing under a statue of
Lenin. Now, that's ironic!

I admit two things: 1) We are a pluralistic society, and all faiths
have equal footing. This is what our country was founded on. 2) To
allow every group on school grounds could create a bazaar-like
atmosphere. Each city must work to be inclusive of all religions
and provide a hearing for them. 3)--I know I said two--The vitality
of religious faith is not dependent upon whether or not the public
arena acknowledges it as valid.

However--and you knew this was coming--I believe, disallowing the
distribution of the Bible by law-abiding, caring adults in our
schools only signals once again our culture's movement away from a
singular base from which we as individuals and as a nation can make
moral and ethical decisions.

What do you think? 

                         -= MAIL BOX =-
(Let me know if you do not want me to print your letter or your
name.)

Good column [re: TIME coverstory about teen sexuality]; I agree
with moral education from home, but some homes don't have the kinds
of morals I want taught.  One family I worked with smoked dope as
their primary family activity.  Another acted like incest was OK.
Families, no matter where they are, are often a lot sicker than
we'd like to believe.

From: John Hightower, MC 407602

John,

I agree that the "home" ain't what it used to be, and some homes
are NOT the place to learn value-based sexuality. I still believe
that this is where the church can come into play. I know, those
families you speak of may not come to a church to seek information,
but the help does not need to be in a church building...I believe
that the youth from the families you mentioned will probably
disregard the value-free information at school, too.

(#) WRITER'S NOTE: The views of this column do not necessarily
reflect the views of members of or the church, Legacy Drive Baptist
Church, Plano, TX.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21778
From: mussack@austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Subject: What _do_ we feel?

I see a parallel between what I will stupidly call the "homosexual" 
issue and the "atheist" issue. Please take no offense at these
comparisons.

The homosexual "feels" things that I admit I do not "feel". 
He learns that these feelings are classified as homosexual feelings
and learns of a model of sexuality that seems to apply to
his feelings, which he then can fit with his experiences.
That is, this model gives him a sense of understanding his
situation. Models that do not match up with what he knows he
feels will be discarded. However, one wonders if once accepting
the idea of his being gay and deciding what exactly that
means he will analyze all his feelings and experiences based on 
the definition he has already accepted, which of course validates
his model.

If that was hard to understand now listen to my parallel.

The Christian "feels" things that an atheist claims he does not
feel. The Christian accepts the Christian theology as the true
description of what his feelings mean. Once accepting this
model he interprets his experiences with regards to this model
which of course validates his Christianity.

As a reminder, I am a Christian, a Catholic, I don't hate 
homosexuals or atheists, but am just trying to understand
them. I only compare them because they are both so foreign
to me. Am I as blind to the homosexual as the atheist seems
blind to me? Or am I as prejudiced against atheistic denial of
religious experience as the homosexual is prejudiced against 
attempts by society to deny his sexuality?

Or am I just out to lunch, again?

Chris Mussack

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21779
From: conan@durban.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe)
Subject: Re: St. Maria Goretti

After reading this story about St. Maria Goretti (posted two weeks
ago), I am a bit confused.  While it is clear that her daily
life is one of probity and sanctity, I am afraid I don't quite
understand the final episode of her life.  I am reading it 
correctly, she (and the Church apparently) felt that being raped
was a sin on _her_ part, one so perfidious that she would rather
die than commit it.  If this is the case I'm afraid that I 
disagree rather strongly.

Can anyone out there explain this one to me?

Yours in Christ,

David Cruz-Uribe, SFO

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21780
From: grant@cs.uct.ac.za (Grant Wyatt)
Subject: Re: Satan kicked out of heaven: Biblical?

In <May.14.02.11.36.1993.25219@athos.rutgers.edu> tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard) writes:
>>     I have a question about Satan.  I was taught a long time ago
>>that Satan was really an angel of God and was kicked out of heaven
>>because he challenged God's authority.  The problem is, I cannot
>>find this in the Bible.  Is it in the Bible?  If not, where did it
>>originate?
> 
[ref to Rev 12:7-12 deleted]

Also read Ezek 28:13-19.  This is a desctiption of Lucifer (later Satan)
and how beautiful He was, etc, etc

Grant
--
|     __o        __o    For God has not given us a spirit of fear, |
|  _ -\<,_     _`\<,_   but a spirit of love, of power and a sound |
| (_)|/-(_)   (*)/ (*)  mind.  2 Tim 1:7  Phone : +27 21 650 4057  |
\__________________________________________________________________/

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21781
From: lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Louie Crew)
Subject: Re: hate the sin...

wjhovi01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu (Bill Hovingh, LPTS Student) writes:

>scott@prism.gatech.edu (Scott Holt) writes:
>> "Hate the sin but love the sinner"...I've heard that quite a bit recently, 
>> often in the context of discussions about Christianity and homosexuality...
>> but the context really isn't that important. My question is whether that
>> statement is consistent with Christianity. I would think not.

>I'm very grateful for scott's reflections on this oft-quoted phrase.  Could
>someone please remind me of the Scriptural source for it?  (Rom. 12.9 doesn't
>count, kids.)  The manner in which this little piece of conventional wisdom is
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>applied has, in my experience, been uniformly hateful and destructive.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>billh

[underlining mine/Quean Lutibelle]


Yes, those who apply it hatefully would be better served if they if
they could alter the Bible to reflect their views:

Scene 1:  A well in Samaria:

Woman:  But I have no husband.
Jesus:  Yo!  Everybody!  Listen up!  Get your rocks ready!  We'll have
        some good biblical fun.  Here she is whispering to me that
        she doesn't have a husband, yet I know by my secret powers that
        she has had five of them!  (You know how these Samaritans are!
        And worse, she's living with a guy now that she's not even married
        to.  Now I believe in loving her, and if you'll just raise up
        those rocks like the bible allows and threaten her with a good
        stoning, she'll understand how much we hate the sin but love
        the sinner.   We must keep our priorities strait, lest folks
        2,000 years from now misunderstand me and believe I canceled
        all sin!

Scene 2:  Golgatha

2nd Thief:  You got a raw deal, man.  They didn't catch you doing anything
            wrong like they caught me.

Bleeding Jesus:  Now, son.  Let me be real clear.  You say you did something
            wrong, but are you repenting?  I need to be absolutely certain
            cause if you repent, I have a nice room for you in heaven,
            but if you think you might go thieving again, I have to
            cancel your reservation.  It is nice of you to have pity on
            me while I'm hanging here, but you must understand, this is
            all an act; I'm not really hurting.  I'm God, you see.  And
            the point of all this is to teach you to be perfect like me.
            If you think a simple kind remark to me in suffering is going
            to get you any favors, you'd better think twice!  But if you
            will just REPENT, you will become a Fundelical in Good 
            Standing.

From all such Bad News, you have delivered us, Good God!  Thank you!
Thank you!  Thank you!

Quean Lutibelle/Louie
 

-- 
  ==========================================================================
  Louie Crew, Academic Foundations Department, Rutgers University, NWK 07102
  lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu                                   201-485-4503
         If by snail, I prefer:  P. O. Box 30, Newark, NJ 07101

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21782
From: alisonjw@spider.co.uk (Alison J Wyld)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christiani

>He is hoping to pass a resolution that more or less states that we, the
>members of the church "Agree to Disagree" on the issue, admitting that
>both sides have honestly studied the Scriptures and had the Spirit lead
>them to different conclusions.  It worked last year when the abortion
>issue threatened to do more or less the same thing, and he is hopeful that
>the GA can foster a loving and caring attitude about people who disagree
>with their own view.
>
>--
>Cliff Slaughterbeck           | 
>
>people would not be willing to.  Note that the church was not willing
>to live with this kind of compromise with ordination of women.  The
>one thing that will definitely prevent a person from becoming a
>Presbyterian minister is if they indicate that they don't accept
>ordination of women.  The argument is that we can't have half the
>church not accepting the leaders of the other half.  Maybe people will
> --clh]

It might be interesting for folk to know that the Church of Scotland
(also a Presbyterian church)  managed to "agree to disagree" over
women's ordination for 25 years.  The reasoning was that congregations
are free to call whoever they wish, and that Ministers and Sessions
choose elders.  If a congregation did not wish to have a woman, they
were not obliged to, and if a Session did not wish to, they could not
be forced to.  (Note that the who issue of freedom to call on the part
of the Congregation is VERY important here - this year is the 150th
Annivarsary of the Disruption, where the church split on that very
issue, they didn't get back together for almost 80 years).

A couple of years ago on the 25 anniversary of the allowing of womens
ordination the position was changed - so that, in theory, all
ministers and elders must recognise that women can be ordained.  In
theory, a minister who refused to ordain a woman to his Session, or
refused to work with a woman minister in Presbytery, could be
disciplined.  In practice this has not happened, and I believe it is
unlikely to happen.  My personal view is that the new legislation was
a mistake, and that the permissive (but not prescriptive) legislation
worked very well.  

We are going to start going round the homosexual debate at next years
assembly.  At this years, a motion was put to ban the blessing of
same-sex couples (after an Edinburgh minister did so).  Our Panel on
Doctrine is currently looking at marriage, and will report next year -
the matter will be considered and debated then.

Hope this is interesting

Alison

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21783
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse

Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified; do not
be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go."

Joshua 1:9

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21784
From: marlatt@spot.Colorado.EDU (Stuart W. Marlatt)
Subject: Re: SOC.RELIGION.CHRISTIAN

In article <May.16.01.56.04.1993.6668@geneva.rutgers.edu> revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille) writes:
>Anni Dozier (dozier@utkux1.utk.edu) wrote:
>: After reading the posts on this newsgroup for the pasts 4 months, it 
>: has become apparent to me that this group is primarily active with 
>: Liberals, Catholics, New Agers', and Athiests.  Someone might think 
[...etc...]

>Since when did conservative, protestant, old-time religion believers get
>an exclusive francise to christianity?  Christianity is, and always has
>been, a diverse and contentious tradition, and this group reflects that
>diversity.  I, fo one, am not ready to concede to _any_ group- be they
>"liberal" or "conservative", catholic, protestant, or orthodox, charismatic
>or not- the right to claim that they have _the truth_, and everyone else
>is not "christian."

I am becoming increasingly convinced that most of us take Paul's illustration
about one body / many parts far too narrowly. It is easy to say that the one
body represents a particular sect of Christianity (generally our own), and
the parts are clearly the various offices of ministry. There is a place for
that. But having met people who are walking closeely with God in a wide
variety of doctine - Catholic, Protestant, liberal, conservative, Orthodox,
etc. - I am willing to encompass a wide spectrum of views within the
context of the 'body of Christ.' And I am equally sure that one day, after
we shug off this mortal coil, when we no longer see through a glass darkly
but see clearly, face to face, we will all be ashamed at some of the things
we held as truth. We ought all fellowship, worship, and serve where we are
called, and understand that where we are called may not be where everyone
else is called.

One of the fathers of the reformation (help me out - can't recall the name)
put it quite succiently:

	In essentials, unity.
	In nonessentials, liberty.
	In all things, charity.

While I agree with Lewis (Mere Christianity) that calling oneself a Christian
implies some basic, fundamental standards of belief if the word is to mean
anything at all, I think most of us define the bounds of essentials a bit
too broadly, deny the place for liberty in questionable issues near those
bounds, and ignore the requirements of charity all together. 

Me? I attend a Vineyard church, speak in tongues, am effectively an
inerrantist, though I'll grant some inaccuracy in translation, am moderately
pre-mill, and evangelical. But, I'm not ready to damn those who use icons,
say mass in latin, uphold the Virgin Mary (though I really don't believe
that she was sinless), vote on Church membership, or insist on baptism for
salvation. Of course, I think my doctine is pretty close to the truth -
why would I follow it if I believed something else was closer to the truth?
But my understanding of the reality of a walk with Christ is continually
evolving as I spend more and more time walking with Him, studying His word,
and fellowshiping with others in the (often extended) family. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I read, much of the night, and go south in the winter.                    
  --T.S. Eliot, The Waste Land                                            
..............................................................................
s.w. marlatt, <><  &  *(:-)               Prov. 25.2
University of Colorado:                   marlatt@spot.Colorado.edu  492-3939
National Center for Atmospheric Research: marlatt@neit.cgd.ucar.edu  497-1669
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21785
From: Rick_Granberry@pts.mot.com (Rick Granberry)
Subject: Re: Baptism requires Faith

In article  jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes:

> Catholics view the effects of Baptism slightly differently, and that's 
> one primary reason why they baptize babies.  They believe that Baptism 
> produces a change in the soul of the baby, quite independently of any 
> volitional act on the part of the baby.  This change in the baby's soul 
> gives the infant certain capabilities that he would not have 
> without Baptism.  Since the infant does not have the use of his 
> intellect and will yet, these new faculties are dormant.  But as the 
> child gets older, the gifts of Baptism come more and more into play. 

   I guess I would react rather strongly to this line of thinking carried 
out!  When you think "your army" is stronger than "mine", you would 
"righteously" take my children and baptize them, doing what you know is 
really "best" for them.
   You cannot possibly put this kind of action, nor the crusades into the 
context of the teachings of Jesus/God.  I think he advocated a different 
approach that was *by design* made to be appealing, to those called by him, 
not chosen by a church practice.
   It seems to me you have the cause and effect switched, the change comes 
and then you get baptized.


| "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." |
| "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."  |
| (proverbs 26:4&5)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21786
From: REXLEX@fnnews.fnal.gov
Subject: ARSENOKOITAI: #4

continuing part #4 (I think); used by permission,

THE SOURCE AND NT MEANING
OF ARSENOKOITAI, WITH IMPLICATIONS
FOR CHRISTIAN ETHICS AND MINISTRY

                                      James B. DeYoung

W. Petersen

     More recently Wright's understanding has itself been questioned from a
different direction.  In a brief 1986 study William Petersen found linguistic
confusion in using the English word "homosexuals" as the meaning of
arsenokoitai.[22]   He faulted Wright and English Bible translaions for
rendering it by "homosexuals" in I Cor 6:9 and I Tim 1:10.

     In a sense Petersen has coalesced Bailey, Boswell, and Scroggs into a
single assertion that reiterates, in effect, the position of Bailey.  He finds
"homosexuals" unacceptable as a translation because it is anachronistic.  "A
major disjunction" exists between contemporary thought and terminology and the
thought and terminolgy in Paul's time (187-88).

      What is this "disjunction"?  He bases it on historical and linguistic
facts.  Accordingly, ancient Greek and Roman society treated male sexuality as
polyvalent and characterized a person sexually only by his sexual acts. 
Virtually all forms of behavior, except transvestism, were acceptable. 
Christianity simply added the categories of "natural" and "unnatural" in
describing these actions.  Ancient society know nothing of the categories of
"homosexuals" and "heterosexuals," and assumed that, in the words of Dover
quoted approvingly by Petersen, "everyone responds at different times to both
homosexual and to heterosexual stimuli. . ." (188). [23]

      In contrast to this, modern usage virtually limits the term "homosexual"
to desire and propensity.  K.M. Benkert, who in 1869 coined the German term
equivalent to "homosexual," used it as referring to orientation, impluse or
affectional preference and having "nothing to do with sexual acts" (189).

     Petersen then proceeds to cite the "Supplement to the Oxford English
Dictionary,"  which defines "homosexual" only as a propensity or desire with no
mention of acts.  Petersen's point is that by using "homosexuals" for
arsenokoitai, one wrongfully reads a modern concept back into early history
"where no equivalent concept existed" (189).  Consequently the translation is
inaccurate because it "includes celibate homophiles,. . . . incorrectly exludes
heterosexuals who engage in homosexual acts . . . [and]incorrectly includes
female homosexuals" (19=89).  Prior to 1869 there was no "cognitive structure,
either inour society or in antiquity, within which the modern bifurcation of
humanity into 'homosexuals' and 'hetersosexuals' made sence" (189).

     The foregoing clarifies why Petersen feels that the translatio
"homosexual" is mistaken.  Yet is it possible that Petersen is the one
mistaken, on both historical and linguistic or philological grounds?  The next
phases of this paper will critically examine Petersen's position.

                        THE JUSTIFICATION FOR TRANSLATING
                          ARSENOKOITAI BY "HOMOSEXUALS"

Historical Grounds

     A refutation of the foregoing opposition to the traslation of arsenokoitai
by "homosexuals" begins with the historical and cultural evidence.  Since
virtually everyone acknowledges that the word does not appear before Paul's
usage, no historical settings earlier than his are available.  Yet much writing
reveals that ancient understanding of homosexuality prior to and contemporary
with Paul.  The goal is to discover wheither the ancient s conceived of
homosexuality, particularly homosexual orientation, in a way similar to
present-day concepts.  

     Peterson, Bailey, Boswell, and Scroggs claim that the homosexual
condition, desire, propensity, or inversion -whatever it is called- cannot be
part of the definition of the term.  They assert this either because the term
is limited to acts of particular kind (Boswell, active male prostitutes; 
Scroggs, pederasty) or because the homosexual condition was unknown in ancient
times (Bailey; Petersen).  The following discussion will show why neither of
these positions is legitimate.  Attention will be devoted to the latter postion
first with the former one being addressed below under "Linguistic Grounds."

     In regard to the latter position, one may rightfully ask, did not the
homosexual condition exist before 1869?  Is it only a modern phenomenon? Yet if
it is universal, as alleged today, it must have existed always including
ancient times, even though there is lack of sophistication in discussing it. 
Indeed, evidence show that the ancients, pre-Christian and Christian, not only
knew about the total spectrum of sexual behavior, including all forms of
same-sex activity (transvestism included), but also knoew about same-sex
orientation or condition.  Petersen admits (190 n. 10) that Plato in
"Symposium" (189d-192d) may be a "sole possible exception" to ancient
ingnorance of this condition.  He discounts this, however, believing that even
here "acts appear to be the deciding factor."  However, this is a very
significant exception, hardly worthy of being called "an exception," because of
the following additional evidence for a homosexual condition.

     THe "Symposium" of Plato gives some of the strongest evidence for
knowledge about the homosexual condition. [24]   Plato posits a third sex
comprised of a maile-female (androgynon ("man-woman"). Hence "original nature"
palai physis, consisted of three kinds of human beings.  Zeus sliced these
human beings in half, to weaken them so that they would not be a threat to the
gods.  Consequently each person seeks his or her other half, either one of the
opposite sex or one of the same sex.  Plato then quotes Aristophances:

    Each of us, then, is but a tally of a man, since every one shows like
    a flatfish the traces of having been sliced in two;  and each is ever
    searching for the tally that will fit him.  All the men who are sections
    of that composite sex that at first was called man-woman are 
    woman-courters;  our adulterers are mostly descended from that sex,
    whence likewise are derived our mancourting women and adulteresses.
    All the women who are sections of the woman have no great fancy for men:
    they are incllined rather to women, and of this stock are the she-minions.
    Men who are sections of the male pursue the masculine, and so long as 
    their boyhood lasts they show themselves to be sliced of the male by
    making griends with men and delighting to lie with them and to be
    clasped in men's embrasces;  these are the finest boys and striplings,
    for they have the most manly nature.  Some say they are shameless
    creatures, but falsely:  for their behavior is due not to shamelessness
    but to daring, manliness, and virility, since they are quick to welcome
    their like.  Sure evidence of this is the fact that on reaching maturity
    these alone prove in a public career to be men.  So when they come
    to man's estate they are boy-lovers, and have no natural interest in
    wiving and getting children but only do these things under stress of
    custom;  they are quite contented to live together unwedded all their days.
    A man of this sort is at any rate born to be a lover of boys or the 
    willing mate of a man, eagerly greeting his own kind.  Well, when
    one of them -whether he be a boy-lover or a lover of any other sort- 
    happens on his own particular half, the two of them are wondrously 
    thrilled with affection and intimacy and love, and are hardly to be 
    induced to leave each other's side for a single moment.  These are
    they who continue together throughout life, though they could not
    even say what they would have of one another (191d-192c) [25]

Should these two persons be offered the opportunity to be fused together for as
long as they live, or even in Hades, Aristophanes says that each "would
unreservedly deem that he had been offered just what he was yearning for all
the time:  (192e).

     Several observations about this text are in order.  Lesbianism is
contemplated, as will as male homosexuality (191e).  "Natural interest" (ton
noun physei), (192b) refelects modern concepts of propensity or inclination. 
The words, "born to be a lover of boys or the willing mate of a man: 
(paiderastes te kai philerastes gignetai), (192b) reflect the modern claims "to
be born this," i.e., as homosexual.  The idea of mutuallity ("the two of them
are wondrously thrilled with affection and intimacy and love," 192b) is
present.  Aristophanes even speaks of "mutual love ingrained in mankind
reassembling our early estate" (ho eros emphytos allelon tois anthropois kai
tes archaias physeos synagogeus, 191d). The concept of permanency ("These are
they who continue together throughout life," 102c) is also present.  Further
mention of and/or allusion to permanecy, mutality, "gay pride," pederasty,
homophobia, motive, desire, passion, and the nature of love and its works is
recognizable.

    Clearly the ancients thought of love (homosexual or other) apart from
actions.  THe speakers in the Symposium argue that motive in homosexuality is
crucial;  money, office, influence, etc. . . bring reproach (182e-183a, 184b). 
They mention the need to love the soul not the body (183e).  There are tow
kinds of love in the body (186b) and each has its "desire" and "passion"
(186b-d).  The speakers discuss the principles or "matters" of love (187c), the
desires of love (192c) and being "males by nature" (193c).  Noteworthy is the
speech of Socrates who devotes much attention to explaining how desire is
related to love and its objects (200a-201c).  Desire is felt for "what is not
provided or present; for something they have not or are not or lack."  This is
the object of desire and love.  Socrates clearly distinguishes between "what
sort of being is love" and the "works" of love (201e).  This ancient
philosopher could think of both realms -seaual acts as well as disposition of
being or nature.  His wors have significance for more than pederasty. [26]

     In summary, virtually every element in the modern discussion of love and
homosexuality is anticipated in the Symposium of Plato.  Petersen is in error
when he claims that the ancients could only think of homosexual acts, not
inclination or orientation.  Widespread evidence to the contray supports the
latter. [27]

     Biblical support for homosexuality inclination in the contexts where
homosexual acts are discribed adds to the case for the ancient distinction.  In
Rom 1:21-28 such phrases as "reasoning," "heart," "becoming foolish," "desires
of the heart." and "reprobate mind" prove Paul's concern for disposition and
inclination along with the "doing" or "working" of evil (also see vv. 29-32). 
Even the catologues of vices are introdiced (I Tim 1:8-10) or concluded (I Cor
6:9-11) by words describing what people "are" or "were," not what they "do." 
Habits betray what people are within, as also the Lord Jesus taught (cf. Matt.
23:28).  The inner condition is as important as the outer act; one gives rise
to the other (cf. Mt 5:27).

     Petersen errs regarding other particulars too.  Transvestism apparently
was accepted by the ancients.   It was practiced among Canaaniteds, Syrian,
people of Asia Minor, as well as Greeks, according to S.R. Driver. [28]  Only a
few moralist and Jewish writers are on record as condemning it.  For example,
Seneca (Moral Epistles 47.7-8) condemns homosexual exploitation that forces an
adult slave to dress, be beardless, and behave as a woman.  Philo also goes to
some length to describe the homosexuals of his day and their dressing as women
(The Special Laws III, 37-41;  see also his On the Virtues, 20-21, where he
justifies prohibition of cross-dressing).  Even the OT forbade the interchange
of clothing between the sexes  (Deut 22:5).

     Petersen is also wrong in attributing to Christianity the creating of the
"new labels" of "natural" and "unnatural" for sexual behavior.  These did not
begin with Paul (Rom 1:26-27) but go as far back as ancient Greece and even
non-Christian contemporaries used them.  Plato, the TEST.NAPH., Philo, Josephu,
Plutarch, and others used these words or related concepts. [29]

Linguistic Grounds

footnotes
___________________________
22  W.L. Petersen, "Can ARSENOKOITAI Be Translated by 'Homosexuals'? (I Cor
6:9; I Tim 1:10)"  VC 40 (1986): 187-91.
23 K.J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality (Cambridge, Harvard Univ, 1978) 1 n. 1.
24    We are conscious of the fact that Plato's writings may not reflect
Athenian society, or that the speakers in "Symposium" may not reflect Plato's
view.  However, it is assumed that they do, and with this agrees Dover
(Homosexuality 12) and other evidence cited below 
25 The translation is that of W.R.M. Lamb, Plato:  Symposioum LCL (Cambridge:
Harvard Univ, 1967) 141-143.  Note the reference to "adulteress."  If there is
a homosexual condition derived from birth or the genes, logically there must
also be an adulterous conditon derived from birth.
26 Elsewhere in the Symposium we are told that it is the heavenly love to love
the male and young men (181c) but this must not be love for boys too young; 
the latter should be outlawed (181d-e).  Such love of youths is to be permanent
(181d), lifelong and abiding (184a).  Where homosexual love is considered a
disgrace, such an attitude is due to encroachments of the rulers and to the
cowardice of the ruled (182d -an early charge of "homophobia"?).  In Athens it
was "more honorable to love openly than in secret" (182d -an ancient expression
of "coming out of the closet").  Mutality was present ("this compels lover and
beloved alike to feel a zealous concern for their own virtue," 184b).
    For Petersen to label the Symposium a "possible" exception to his position
is inadequate and misrepresentative.  It is a significant witness to Greek
society hundreds of years before the time of Christ.
27 Dover (Homosexuality 12, 60-68) finds homosexual desire and orientation in
Plato's works (Symposioum and Phaedrus) and elsewhere.  Philo writes of those
who "habituate themselves" to the practive of homosexual acts (The Special Laws
3.37-42; cf. De Vita Contemplativa 59-63).  Josephus says that homosexuality
had become a fixed habit for some (Against Apion 2.273-75)  Clement of
Alexandria on Matt. 19:12 writes the "some men, from birth, fhave a natural
aversion to a woman; and indeed those who are naturally so consitited do well
not to marry" (Miscellanies 3:1)  It is addressed in Novella 141 of Justinian's
Codex of laws (it referes to those "who have been consumed by this disease" as
in need of renouncing "there plague," as well as acts).  Pseudo Lucian (Erostes
48) and Achilles Tatius (Leucippe and Clitophon II.38) speak of it.  Finally
Thucydides 2.45.2 has: "Great is you glory if you fall not below the standard
which nature has set for your sex."
     Boswell (Christianity 81-87) cites poets (Juvenal, Ovid), witers
(Martial), statesmen (Cicero), and others who describe permanent, mutual
homosexual relationships, even marriages.  Even emperors could be either
gay-married (Nero) or exlusively gay (Hadrian), Boswell says.  Scroggs
(Homosexuality 28, 32-34) admits that both inversion and perversion must have
existed in the past.  He discusses possible references to adult mutual
homosexual and lesbian relationships, but dismisses them (130-44).
28  See specifics in S.R. Driver A critical and Exegetical Commentary on
Deuteronomy (Edinburgh:1895) 250.  He observes that the prohibition of
cross-dressing in Deut. 22:5 is not a "mere rule of conventional propriety." 
See also Dover, Homosexuality  73-76, 144.
29  Plato in his last work, in which he seeks to show how to have a virtuous
citizen, condemned pederasty and marriage between men as "against nature" (para
phosin)(Laws 636a-b;  636c;  836a-c; 838; 841d-e).  According to TEST.NAPH
3:4-5 the sodomites changed the "order of nature."  THe Jewish writers, Philo
(On Abraham 135-137) and Josephus (Ant. 1.322; 3.261, 275; Ag. Ap. 2.199;
2.273, 275) label sexual deviation as "against nature."  Finally,, first
century moralist such as Plutarch (Dianlogue on Love 751c-e; 752b-c) spoke of
homosexuality as "against nature."  Christians clearly did not invent the
labels "natural" and "unnatural".  See J.B. De Young, "The Meaning of 'Nature'
in Romans 1 and Its Implications for Biblical Prosecriptions of Homosexual
Behavior" JETS 31/4 (Dec 1988):429-41.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21787
From: wagner@grace.math.uh.edu (David Wagner)
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin

"Alan" == E Alan Idler <aidler@sol.uvic.ca> writes:

Alan> 2.  We can also analyze to whom the Lord is addressing: "Marvel
Alan> not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again" (John 3:7).
Alan> Here Jesus is clearly directing his remarks to Nicodemus -- a
Alan> ruler of the Jews (not a child).

Yes, but Jesus also made a very general and doctrinal statement
in the same conversation:

"Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit."
(John 3:6)

Clearly infants are not born of the spirit.  Thus, without baptism
they are unspiritual.  They are not born with the image of God, but in
Adam's fallen image (cf. Gen 5:3).  They have no righteousness of
their own, just as adults have no righteousness of their own.  There
is only the imputed righteousness of Christ, which believers receive
through faith.

Alan> 3.  We can ask ourselves why the Lord would even introduce the
Alan> concept of spiritual re-birth through baptism if newborn babies
Alan> weren't free from sin?

Your point is a little obscure here, but I think you are saying
that Christ used the "innocence" of newborn babes as a metaphor
for spiritual re-birth.  But this is not what he did.
If you look at the text, he did not speak
of spiritual re-birth but of spiritual birth.  We are
born of the Spirit once, not twice or several times.
We are also born of the flesh once.  The Lord makes it
clear that these are separate and different events.
It is true that other Scriptures refer to spiritual
birth as re-birth because it is a second birth
(for example, Titus 3:5).  But it is not a second
*spiritual* birth.

The only thing the two births have in common is the concept of birth,
which is used as a symbol of `new life' -- not of innocence.  When an
infant is born (or conceived) a new life is begun--but it is neither
innocent nor righteous.  Similarly when that same individual is
baptized, or perhaps when they believe prior to baptism, they begin a
new life in Christ (Romans 6:3, Colossians 2:12, Titus 3:5, Ephesians
2:5).  Then the believer has God's assurance of the forgiveness of
their sins, and of Christ's imputed righteousness.

For references, see 
	The Augsburg Confession Article II, Original Sin, 
	The Apology to the Augsburg Confession, 
		Article II, Original Sin, 
	the Formula of Concord, Article I, Original Sin, and 
	Luther's Large Catechism, Part 4, Baptism.  

For something more recent, see "Baptized into God's Family: The
Doctrine of Infant Baptism" by Andrew Das, available from Northwestern
Publishing House.  Andrew is a graduate of Concordia Lutheran
Seminary, St. Louis, and is now pursuing doctoral studies at Yale
Divinity School.

David Wagner			"But mad reason rushes forth
a confessional Lutheran		and, because Baptism is not
				dazzling like the works we do,
				regards it as worthless."
				--Martin Luther, Large Catechism
				--Part 4, Baptism

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21788
From: ldiel@dante.nmsu.edu (Leisa Diel)
Subject: Info needed


  Ok, let me see if I can get all this out concisely.  I am on an
information gathering venture regarding the various expressions of
Christianity/churches there are.  
        My husband and I come from very different, but completely
Christian backgrounds.  I was a Lutheran when I met him and he was a
born and raised Church of Christ member.  At first I agreed with a lot
of what the C of C was about, I wanted to move from the liturgical
based Lutheran church to something a little more Biblical based.
However over the last year, I've been regretting changing to the
Church of Christ for a number of reasons - for one thing I am not a
fundamentalist and believe that a few things in the Bible are
socio-cultural in nature and don't relate to the Christian doctrine.
One of my sorest spots is the role of women.  I believe that through
Mary and other women, Chris validated women as worthy disciples - but
in the C of C the writings of Paul are taken without exception and I
am told that I am not an equal partner in my marriage but the lesser
member, I am to submit to my husband in all things (if I hear that
verse one more time....) and I am not to take an active role in
anything which might be construed as putting me in authority over men
(ie leading prayers, conducting Bible studies etc).   The last straw
was when the Elders at our church came down on one of our college
groups because it was all-women and they wanted a man to lead the
study.
Also my husband and I really resent the way everyone at our church
feels that if you aren't a conservative republican - you aren't a REAL
Christian (I got told that nobody who voted for Clinton should call
themselves a Christian).  Hence we are subjected during the service to
long prayers calling for things we flatly dont agree with.  We are
also don't agree with the C of C's dread of any new "movement" being
led by the young people.

So, we have been church hunting with NO success.  I want a reasonably
biblical based church where women are viewed as whole people no matter
what their calling ( C of C really looked down on career women).
Christopher is looking for a church with deeply rooted religious
convictions, with adult baptism and a church where the members still
bring their Bibles to service.

We are so confused here and we're drifting around trying to find a
place where we both feel loved and can express our faith honestly and
without reservation.  If anyone can point us in a direction we'd be
thrilled!
I'm afraid that it will be very hard for me to go back to C of C and
even harder for me to stay churchless for long.

any responses would be welcome


the diel family

[I would think somewhere in the Baptist spectrum you might find what
you're looking for.  However the issue is probably more one of the
flavor of the specific local churches in your area than the
denomination -- Baptists cover quite a spectrum.  Adult baptism sort
of narrows your choices on the more liberal end of the spectrum.
Historically that's been associated with movements that have the
character you're trying to avoid.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21789
From: revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality

Bryan Whitsell (whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu) wrote:
: Recently an e-mail to me mentioned:

: (Technically, the messengers aren't even human so
: it *can't* be a case of "homosexuality" -- even of rape.) [...]

: The Jude reference to Sodom is also meaningful only in the context of
: the Sodomites' "lust" for the "other flesh" of angels.  Again,
: application to homosexual behavior in general, or to the position of
: gay Christians is largeely specious.
: ***
: Are angels "flesh"? No. I feel that this is saying that it was because
: of their lust after other men, who are flesh( or of this world).

: what are other opinons on this? I haven't heard much about this verse  
: at all.

Bo Reike in the Anchor Bible volume on _James, Peter, and Jude_ points
out that all the examples given in this section of Jude are distinguishing
the elect from _apostates_, not just the wicked in general.  Hence, those
who were delivered from Egypt, but did not follow Moses (and, by extension,
God); the apostate angels; and Sodom and Gomorrah.  Quoting Reike:

	"Fornication may here, as often in the New Testament,
	refer to idolatry, while "flesh" (as in I Pet 1:24) 
	denotes human society and its violent attempts at self-
	exaltation.  Sodom and Gommorrah represent the leaders
	of apostasy, and the surrounding cities correspond to
	their followers." [p. 199]


There is no inherent reason to read this verse (7) as literally referring
to actual sexual lust for "alien flesh".  Nor is it inherently necessary
to understand it as referring to homosexuality, outside of the circular
reasoning that has already concluded that the sin of Sodom is the sin
of homosexuality.  The only place that the sin of Sodom is specified, and
not merely inferred, is in Ezekiel 16:49 "This was the guilt of your sister
Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease,
bit did not aid the poor and needy.  They were haughty, and did abominable
things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.

For the same reason (overliteralizing the text) your correspondent's
suggestion that the reason the passage doesn't deal with homosexuality
is because the guests were angels and not men is just silly.  There 
are much more solid reasons for pointing out the irrelevance of the
Sodom passages for dealing with homosexuality per se.

revdak@netcom.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21790
From: lieuwen@allegra.att.com (Dan Lieuwen)
Subject: Re: Christian Reformed

The Christian Reformed Church does not allow people to belong to lodges,
the Reformed Church in America does.  The conservatives in both churches
are very similar, as are the "progressives".  The RCA currently ordains
women; the CRC is fighting over the issue.

A significant fraction of both churches live in western Michigan.  (FYI,
I went to the CRC school Calvin College.)
Dan

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21791
From: scott@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Scott Roleson)
Subject: Who is Ram Das??

Who is Ram Das?

According to his brochures, he is a.k.a. Richard Alpert, PhD, and is
somehow associated with the:

  Seva Foundation
  8 N. San Pedro Road
  San Rafael, CA  94903

and the:
  Hanuman Foundation 
  524 San Anselmo Ave #203
  San Anselmo, CA  94960

He speaks publically on such topics as "Consciousness & Current
Events," and has written some books and recorded some tapes on 
similar subjects.  

Why do I care?  My wife wants to go to one of his lectures.  When
I asked why, she said Ram Das was "the greatest spiritual leader
of our time!"

Several years ago my wife got involved with a religious cult, and
we went through 9 months of hell that almost ended our marriage 
before she quit.  Let's just say I'm concerned about this Ram Das
and her interest, especially so with the recent religious cult
events from Texas.  I need information - solid and real - so I 
know what I'm dealing with.

If you have any information about Ram Das or the organizations 
shown above, I would be very interested in your correspondence.
Please reply via e-mail to me at:  scott%hpsdde@SDD.HP.COM

Thank you!

  -- Scott Roleson

[The dictionary of cults that I use classifies this as "new age", with
a basically Hindu orientation.  The headquarters is (or was when this
was written) at that Lama Foundation, which they identify as a "New
Age Commune" in San Cristobel, New Mexico.  For information you might
read Alpert's books, which they list as "Be Here Now" (an
autobiography), "The Only Dance There is", and "Grist for the Mill".
It is dealt with briefly in a citation given as "Larson, New Book, pp
339-41". I assume this is Bob Larson, "Larson's New Book of Cults".
I'd warn you however that the whole approach to the "new age" is
controversial.  Sources such as the reference book I used, as well as
Bob Larson, believe in a Satanic new age conspiracy, which some regard
as hysterical.  However at the very least, it seems clear that this is
not a Christian group.  --clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21792
From: crackle!dabbott@munnari.oz.au (NAME)
Subject: "Why I am not Bertrand Russell" (2nd request)

Could the guy who wrote the article "Why I am not Bertrand Russell"
resend me a copy?

Sorry, I accidently deleted my copy and forgot your name.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21793
From: cs89mcd@brunel.ac.uk (Michael C Davis)
Subject: Leadership Magazine article

I'm looking for the following article:

	``The War Within: an Anatomy of Lust''
	Leadership 3 (1985), pp 30-48

I've looked in the libraries of 3 UK Bible Colleges, but none of them subscribe
to the Magazine (its a US publication, btw). If anyone has access to this
article and would be willing to post me a photocopy (I presume that copyright
restrictions will allow this?), please e-mail me. Thanks,
-- 
Michael Davis (cs89mcd@brunel.ac.uk)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21794
From: maridai@athos.rutgers.edu
Subject: Traveling Fatima (was Re: Consecration and Anniversary)

Hello.
I just like to share this rosary and other prayer propagation
practice we do in my country.  I am not sure if it is going on
also here in the US or any other country.  In all these 4 1/2
yrs. I've been here in Illinois, USA, I have not encountered
it.  May I just call it "Traveling Fatima" since I don't know
of an exact translation of what we call it in my native language.

For certain regions in a district in a town or city, an image/
statue of our Lady of Fatima is moved from one home (originating
from owner) to another.  This will stay with that family for
one (1) week and this family is required to pray the rosary and
other prayers (prayer sheets accompany the image) to our Lady
of Fatima.  The move will be like a simple procession of folks
picking up the image from its current 'home' after 'departing'
prayers and proceeds to move it to the next home which has the
prior notification about the move.  There will be the 'receiving'
prayers at the next home to welcome our Lady of Fatima image
there.  It does not have to be that only members of the family
in that home who must pray to the image.  They may invite others
(or others/friends can invite themselves in ;^)) to participate
during prayer time in that 'new' home everyday for one week.
This image is moved from one family to the next within the
bounded region of that district, until it goes back to the owner
of the image.

This is probably going on around there (Philippines) right now
(or somebody correct me when exactly since I forgot) and every
year, this is part of our devotion to our Lady of Fatima.

It has been easy to facilitate this back home because it is more
likely that your next door neighbor is a Catholic and the image
then is just moved next door.

I am thinking of starting something like it in the village where
my sister and her family lives.  Most of our friends and neighbors
there are Catholics and practicing ones.

I'd like to know if there are any state/community laws that this 
practice will violate, whatsoever, before I go for it.  Thank you 
for any comments or help about this matter.





-- 
-Marida (maridai@ecs.comm.mot.com)

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21795
From: atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez)
Subject: Dialogue with conservatives wanted


  Are there any members of conservative, religious, politically active groups
(such as the Christian Coalition) out there?  I come from a very liberal 
background, and I'd like to talk to some conservative people out there in a 
public forum (such as this one.)  I frankly can't understand the rationale or
Christian basis for much of the conservative position, and I'd like to try and
learn more about this movement--after all, we're part of the same church.  Is
anyone interested in explaining a bit about the conservative viewpoint?
  Thanks.

Alan Terlep				"If your children knew just how
Oakland University, Rochester, MI	   lame you were, they'd murder
atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu		      you in your sleep."
Rushing in where angels fear to tread.			      --Frank Zappa

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21796
From: norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak)
Subject: 'Latin' mailing list

From the June newsletter of the Latin Liturgy Association:

There is a new e-mail discussion group: LATIN-L, a forum for people
interested in classical Latin, medieval Latin, Neo-Latin; the languages of
choice are Latin (of course) and whatever vulgar languages you feel
comfortable using.  Please be prepared to translate on request.  The field
is open -- name your topic!  In order to subscribe, BITNET users should
send an interactive message of the form "TELL LISTSERV@PSUVM SUB LATIN-L
[your name]".  INTERNET users should send a message (without a subject
line) to the address LISTSERV@PSUVM.PSU.EDU.  The message should read "SUB
LATIN-L [your name]".  Once subscribed, one may participate by sending
messages to LATIN-L@PSUVM or LATIN-L@PSUVM.PSU.EDU.

---
Richard Aquinas Chonak, norris@mit.edu
orbis unus orans

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21797
From: norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak)
Subject: Re: hate the sin...

In article <May.16.01.56.47.1993.6695@geneva.rutgers.edu>, wjhovi01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu (Bill Hovingh, LPTS Student) writes:
|> scott@prism.gatech.edu (Scott Holt) writes:
|> > "Hate the sin but love the sinner" [...] My question is whether that
|> > statement is consistent with Christianity. I would think not.
|> 
|> I'm very grateful for scott's reflections on this oft-quoted phrase.  Could
|> someone please remind me of the Scriptural source for it? 

It's not scriptural, but comes from the patristic age, I think:
something about "amare errantem, interficere errorem", which sounds
more like "love the errant, slay the error".  No doubt someone else 
will know in particular who minted the phrase.  If I had to guess, I'd
blame :-)  St Augustine, who seems to have had a gift for aphorism.

-- 
Richard Aquinas Chonak, norris@mit.edu
Sometimes, it's necessary to _act_ as if you believed.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21798
From: Mike.Hahn@p57.f714.n7102.z5.fidonet.org (Mike Hahn)
Subject: Translations

Alison J Wyld wrote to All:

 AJW> Does anyone know of an English language edition that does not show the
 AJW> verse (or even chapter) numbers.

[...]

 clh> [The original NEB put verse numbers only in the margin   [...]

Kenneth Wuest's expanded translation of the New Testament does the same - it puts the range of verse numbers next to the top of each paragraph. Being an expanded translation it is quite verbose though - more suitable for detailed study than for quick reading.

Mike

--- GoldED 2.41
--  
INTERNET: Mike.Hahn@p57.f714.n7102.z5.fidonet.org
via:  THE CATALYST BBS in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
       (catpe.alt.za)   +27-41-34-2859, V32bis & HST.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21799
From: Mike.Hahn@p57.f714.n7102.z5.fidonet.org (Mike Hahn)
Subject: The doctrine of Original Sin

Stephen A. Creps writes to All:

[...]

 SAC> Also, we know that
 SAC> the Bible says that _everyone_ must be baptized to enter Heaven.

Where exactly does it say that?

 SAC> _Everyone_ includes infants, unless there is other Scripture to the
 SAC> contrary, i.e. an exception.  Since there is no exception listed in the
 SAC> Bible, we must assume (to be on the safe side) that the Bible means what
 SAC> it says, that _everyone_ must be baptized to enter Heaven.

I think we do see an exception in the case of Cornelius and his
household, mentioned in Acts. Of course, they were baptised, but only
after "God showed that He accepted them by giving them the Holy
Spirit". This means they were already acceptable to God before their
baptism, and had they suddenly died they would have gone to heaven.

In case that seems far-fetched - an ancestor of mine was a missionary
who worked among the Hereros in Namibia. Some of the tribesmen were
jealous of Christianity, and they poisoned the first convert before he
could be baptised. Surely he still went to heaven? I'm inclined to
agree with a comment recorded at the time: "It is not the neglect of
baptism, but its contempt, that condemns."

Mike
--  
INTERNET: Mike.Hahn@p57.f714.n7102.z5.fidonet.org
via:  THE CATALYST BBS in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
       (catpe.alt.za)   +27-41-34-2859, V32bis & HST.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21800
From: revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille)
Subject: Re: Is this ethical?

Just a quick comment.  As a baptist clergyperson, I find the idea
of such a "baptism" (if the news report is in fact accurate, and
they seldom are regarding religion) offensive.  The pastor here seems
to have a most unbaptist view of baptism- one that seems to demand the
ceremony even when comprehension and choice are absent.

We do baptize converts, but no one who has been deceived into hearing
the word is likely to be a convert.  If in fact the grace of God might
work in such a situation, there is no harm done in waiting a day or
two.

Baptist believe in regenerate membership.  Did this church include these
half-baked (at best) converts into their church fellowship? Or do they
somehow feel there is some validity in dunking them and turning them loose?

This kind of "evangelism" is certainly not baptist, and probably not
very christian, either.

revdak@netcom.com

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21801
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: SOC.RELIGION.CHRISTIAN

In article <May.16.01.56.14.1993.6674@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
sfp@lemur.cit.cornell.edu (Sheila Patterson) wrote:
> As for the atheists/agnostics who read this list: if you aren't
> christian and if you have no intention of ever becoming one why on
> earth do you waste your time and mine by participating on a christian
> discussion list ?

I don't think we should draw borders around newsgroups, christians
are free to read and post entries on the atheist newsgroups, and 
muslims are free to so so in other groups as well.

It's up to each individual to define their time schedule concerning 
postings. The problems we all have noticed on various newsgroups
is the evangelistical method of telling that 'I am right, and you are
wrong'. This is true of both theists and atheists.

Hopefully a more constructive dialogue between the groups 
would help concerning assumptions and colorization of views.

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21802
From: seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson)
Subject: Re: Mary's assumption

In article <May.14.02.11.24.1993.25195@athos.rutgers.edu> David.Bernard@central.sun.com writes:
[ in response to a question about why Jesus' parents would be sanctified 
beyond normal humanity]
>
>When Elizabeth greeted Mary, Elizabeth said something to the effect that
>Mary, out of all women, was blessed.  If so, it appears that this
>exactly places Mary beyond the sanctification of normal humanity.

I would think that simply being pregnant with the incarnation of the 
Almighty God would be enough to make Mary blessed among all women, whether
or not she had special spiritual attributes.  I find that the more special
Mary needs to be, the less human Jesus gets.

==
Seanna Watson   Bell-Northern Research,       | Pray that at the end of living,
(seanna@bnr.ca) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada       | Of philosophies and creeds,
                                              | God will find his people busy
Opinion, what opinions? Oh *these* opinions.  | Planting trees and sowing seeds.
No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.          |
I knew I'd left them somewhere.               |  --Fred Kaan

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21803
From: seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson)
Subject: Re: SOC.RELIGION.CHRISTIAN

In article <May.16.01.56.14.1993.6674@geneva.rutgers.edu> sfp@lemur.cit.cornell.edu (Sheila Patterson) writes:
>
>As for the atheists/agnostics who read this list: if you aren't
>christian and if you have no intention of ever becoming one why on
>earth do you waste your time and mine by participating on a christian
>discussion list ?
>
I find this remark to be awfully arrogant.  I would venture to 
say that there are many people who are Christians now, who at one
point in their lives had no intention of ever becoming a Christian.
I was certainly one such person.  I am quite thankful that there 
were Christians who were willing to continue to talk to me, despite
the appearance that it might have been a waste of their time and 
mine.  (I even married one of them.)

"...Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks
you to give a reason for the hope that you have.  But do this 
with gentleness and respect..."
(1 Peter 3:15)
==
Seanna Watson   Bell-Northern Research,       | Pray that at the end of living,
(seanna@bnr.ca) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada       | Of philosophies and creeds,
                                              | God will find his people busy
Opinion, what opinions? Oh *these* opinions.  | Planting trees and sowing seeds.
No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.          |
I knew I'd left them somewhere.               |  --Fred Kaan

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21804
From: RBNMTM@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com
Subject: Re: Immaculate Conception (was Re: What WAS the immaculate

You forgot one thing "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of
God".
Mark

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21805
From: torsina@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (Who???????)
Subject: Islam = Satanic ???

Dear fellow Christians,  

	I had a dinner last night with a bible study group which      
I am in. We had a discussion about the difference between Christianity
and Islam. And I was shocked to hear that our bible study teacher
said that Mohammad was indeed a prophet but of Satan. I said, "What??"
I did not believe that, because I have some moslem friends who are
so kind and  nice, even sometimes I feel I wish I could be like them
(in my point of view, they don't sin as much as I do). How come if they
were under Satan, they could have such personalities. 

To tell you the truth, I don't know much about Islam.
But I know that they believe in God, they believe in the day of
judgement.
	
	Now I'm  asking you what your opinions about Islam and 
its teaching. 

IMPORTANT : I do not want to discuss whether they are saved or not.
	    I do not want to discuss about politic related to Islam.

P.S: I post this in bit.listserv.christia, soc.religion.christian,
     and bit.listserv.catholic.


In Christ, our Lord,                           Smile.........
					       Jesus loves you.......
	Tabut Torsina
	TORSINA@ENUXHB.EAS.ASU.EDU	   

[Let me start by saying that this is not the right newsgroup for a
discussion of Islam, since there's a group for that.  But I suspect
the point your teacher was making was not specifically about Islam.
Indeed it's going to be impossible to see what he was getting at
within your groundrules, since the question of whether non-Christians
are saved is at the heart of it.

The classic Christian view, which I think most people believed until
the last century or so, was that Christianity (and of course Judaism)
was the only religion founded by God, and that all other religions
worshipped false gods, and came from Satan.  This is more or less a
corollary of another traditional view that no one but Christians (and
possibly Jews) will be saved.  This need not mean that there's no
truth in any other religion, nor that all of their members are
intentionally Satanic.  After all, in order to be an effective snare,
Satanic alternatives would have to be attractive.  Thus they might
contain all kinds of truth, wisdom and spiritual insights.  They would
be missing only one thing -- knowledge of salvation through Christ.
If this is the background of your teacher's remarks -- and I suspect
it is -- that means that a discussion of Islam is not necessarily
relevant.  The point is not that there's anything intrinsically wrong
with it.  It may teach a fine code of behavior, and its practitioners
may all be wonderful people.  But if salvation requires being a
follower of Christ, it could still be a Satanic invention.

This is a reasonable deduction from the classic Protestant position.
Christianity says that salvation isn't a matter of being kind and
nice.  Those are good things, and we should encourage them.  But no
one is able to do them enough to be saved.  Salvation requires Christ.
(Please forgive me for doing this in Protestant terms.  There's a
Catholic equivalent to this that has similar implications, but in
different terms.)  A religion may be quite attractive in all visible
ways.  But if it doesn't have Christ, it's like a diet that consists
of food that looks wonderful, tastes great, but is missing some
essential food element so that you end up dying.

Let me be clear that I am not specifically advocating this position.
What I'm trying to do is (as usual) to clarify issues.  Indeed it is
now relatively uncommon for Christians to believe that all other
religions are Satanic.  Most Christians regard such beliefs as an
unfortunate vestige of the past.  This is part of a general move
within Christianity in the last century or so to a non-judgemental
God.  Christians now find it hard to believe that God would allow
anybody other than a really rotten person to end up in hell, and they
find it hard to envision that real malignant spiritual forces are at
work in the world doing things like creating superficially attractive
alternatives to Christianity.  Whether there is actually a sound basis
for the shift is a decision that people need to make for themselves.

--clh]

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21806
From: mayo@CS.UTK.EDU (Wallace Mayo)
Subject: Re: Consecration of Russia

I will remind this list that I have a booklet on Fatima I will send to any
one who wants it.  It is "Our Lady of Fatima's Peace Plan from Heaven".
It is 30 pages in length and includes the Fatima story.  If you want one
or more, let me know.

Wallace Mayo
mayo@cs.utk.edu

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21807
From: mmiller1@ATTMAIL.COM (Mike Miller)
Subject: Re: Consecration and Anniversary

Not to change the subject, but how was Fr. Gobbi allowed at Notre Dame?  Notre
Dame is an anti Catholic University.  Was this allowed to show that the
crackpots at Notre Dame believe in freedom of speech?  I am glad that they did
allow him to speak.

Mike

Newsgroup: soc.religion.christian
Document_id: 21808
From: CCCAMPER%MIZZOU1.BITNET@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU (Elizabeth Stevens)
Subject: The easy way out....


  Easy vs. Hard .....Easy on who?

I had a rare very personal talk with my mother last year.  She said
that when she and my father were raising we four children, they
did not try to raise us in this world as strictly as they were raised
in their Norwegian Lutheran community. They felt that we would be
alienated from them and it would create problems.
  In other words, my parent did the very tolerant, loving thing. They
raised us without conflict, without what we saw as unreasonable
demands and were always accepting, no matter what the circumstances.
  What happened was that I grew up believing in situation ethics and
never absolutes. I believed in a loving God, and my concept of God
never involved justice or punishment, nor was there any concept that
I may someday be held responsible for the things that offended
Him...sins that the "world" told me were OK.
  My parents are very good, honest and moral people. They raised
four extremely honest children. Yet, before coming to a more
complete knowledge of God (which includes the knowledge of justice
and punishment)I committed what I now believe to be many, many
grave sins. I lived with a partner outside of marriage, was married
and divorced ( only after physical abuse and no apparent hope for
change...but I shouldn't have married to person in the first place )
and more....
  My parents felt they were doing the loving,kind thing by allowing
us to be who we were, by not imposing their standards on us, and by
accepting unquestioningly everything we did without judgement or
counsel.
  Today, it is absolutely appalling for me to look back on what they
*did* accept without a word. It takes courages to dare to help souls
because you must speak up and say what is unpopular and
difficult and what people do not want to hear. You must be able
to say what is hard, and say it as Christ would, with love and
compassion. It involves risk....perhaps someone you love may not
want to hear and will stay away from you.
  This life is "but dust". As long as the comfort of this life
is our highest priority, we will fail God and fail those
with whom we come in contact.
  I wonder how many who engage in sex outside of marriage, who
support the "right" to abortion, who engage in homosexuality,
or who commit any of the range of sins that are plentiful in
this time have ever heard from a quiet, thoughtful, loving
friend that these things are *wrong*. No one ever told me that
what I was doing was wrong, and I saw multitudes around me
living the same way I was and they seemed like good, decent
people. (wouldn't kick dogs or beat the elderly or babies..)
It is more difficult for sinners without a genuine prayer
life to hear the Holy Spirit than it is to hear a loving friend.
Think about this the next time the Holy Spirit tells you that
a friend is in error, but you don't want to "cause trouble".
Righteous prayers is great power, but don't forget that we are
we are Christ's lips and hands on earth. Don't be afraid to
simply voice Truth when the situation calls for it. Say a
fervent prayer and ask the Holy Spirit for Love and guidance.
In more ways than we may realize, we *are* our brother's
keeper.

In Jesus and Mary,
Elizabeth

