pat
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Stephen Hawking Tours JPL
Organization: Express Access Online Communications USA
Lines: 23
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.net
Keywords: JPL
In article <23APR199317325771@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
>     Using a model of Mars Observer, Albee spent several minutes
>describing the project and the spacecraft's features. In answer
>to a question from Hawking, Chahine described a proposed
>drag-free satellite, but confirmed that at this point, "it's only
>a concept." Chahine, who had met Hawking at Caltech about five
Too bad they didn't  give him a tour of the CGRO data?
I think he'd be fascinated by the Gamma ray bursters.  The mind of
hawking might even propose a mechanism.
SO what's a drag free satellite?   coated with WD-40?  carries an
aluminum-gold  set of grateful dead albums?   inquiring minds
want to know?
And why would MO  carry any features for being drag free?  I thought
aero-braking was a possible MO  experimental activity?
pat
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Subject: Re: Boom!  Whoosh......
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.
Lines: 19
In article <1r6mcgINNe87@gap.caltech.edu+ kwp@wag.caltech.edu (Kevin W. Plaxco) writes:
+In article <37147@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM+ wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson) writes:
+++
++Once inflated the substance was no longer
++needed since there is nothing to cause the balloon to collapse.
++This inflatable structure could suffer multiple holes with no
++disastrous deflation.
+
+preasure (and the internal preasure that was needed to maintain
+a spherical shape against this resistance) caused them to
+catastrophically deflated.  The large silvered shards
+
+The billboard should pop like a dime store balloon.
No, you're wrong about this. Give me some time to get my references.
--
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom.alphaCDC.COM)
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Level 5?
Organization: Express Access Online Communications USA
Lines: 11
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.net
WHile we are on the subject of the shuttle software.
what ever happened to the hypothesis  that the shuttle flight software
was a major factor in the loss of 51-L.  to wit,  that during the
wind shear event,  the Flight control software  indicated a series
of very violent engine movements that shocked and set upa harmonic
resonance  leading to an overstress of the struts.
pat
From: S901924@mailserv.cuhk.hk
Subject: Re: Gravity waves, was: Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise
Summary: Dong ....  Dong ....  Do I hear the death-knell of relativity?
Keywords: space, curvature, nothing, tesla
Nntp-Posting-Host: wksb14.csc.cuhk.hk
Organization: Computer Services Centre, C.U.H.K.
Distribution: World
Lines: 36
In article <C4M8E5.AuD@csn.org> et@teal.csn.org (Eric H. Taylor) writes:
>From: et@teal.csn.org (Eric H. Taylor)
>Subject: Re: Gravity waves, was: Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise
>Summary: Dong ....  Dong ....  Do I hear the death-knell of relativity?
>Keywords: space, curvature, nothing, tesla
>Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1993 20:18:04 GMT
>In article <C4KvJF.4qo@well.sf.ca.us> metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern) writes:
>>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>> Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:
>>>> "Existence" is undefined unless it is synonymous with "observable" in
>>>> physics.
>>> [crb] Dong ....  Dong ....  Dong ....  Do I hear the death-knell of
>>> string theory?
>>
>>     I agree.  You can add "dark matter" and quarks and a lot of other
>>unobservable, purely theoretical constructs in physics to that list,
>>including the omni-present "black holes."
>>
>>     Will Bruce argue that their existence can be inferred from theory
>>alone?  Then what about my original criticism, when I said "Curvature
>>can only exist relative to something non-curved"?  Bruce replied:
>>"'Existence' is undefined unless it is synonymous with 'observable' in
>>physics.  We cannot observe more than the four dimensions we know about."
>>At the moment I don't see a way to defend that statement and the
>>existence of these unobservable phenomena simultaneously.  -|Tom|-
>
>"I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have
>no properties."
>"Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the
>space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved,
>is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I,
>for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view." - Nikola Tesla
>
>----
> ET  "Tesla was 100 years ahead of his time. Perhaps now his time comes."
>----
From: palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they.
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 53
NNTP-Posting-Host: alumni.caltech.edu
prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>  What  evidence  indicates that Gamma Ray bursters are very far away?
>Given the enormous  power,  i was just wondering,  what if they are
>quantum  black holes or something  like that  fairly close by?
>Why would they have to be at  galactic ranges?
Gamma Ray Bursts (GRBs) are seen coming equally from all directions.
However, given the number of bright ones, there are too few faint
ones to be consistent with being equally dense for as far
as we can see--it is as if they are all contained within
a finite sphere (or a sphere with fuzzy edges) with us at the
center.  (These measurements are statistical, and you can
always hide a sufficiently small number of a different
type of GRB with a different origin in the data.  I am assuming
that there is only one population of GRBs).
The data indicates that we are less than 10% of the radius of the center
of the distribution.  The only things the Earth is at the exact center
of are the Solar system (at the scale of the Oort cloud of comets
way beyond Pluto) and the Universe.  Cosmological theories, placing
GRBs throughout the Universe, require supernova-type energies to
be released over a timescale of milliseconds.  Oort cloud models
tend to be silly, even by the standards of astrophysics.
If GRBs were Galactic (i.e. distributed through the Milky Way Galaxy)
you would expect them to be either concentrated in the plane of
the Galaxy (for a 'disk' population), or towards the Galactic center
(for a spherical 'halo' population).  We don't see this, so if they
are Galactic, they must be in a halo at least 250,000 light years in
radius, and we would probably start to see GRBs from the Andromeda
Galaxy (assuming that it has a similar halo.)  For comparison, the
Earth is 25,000 light-years from the center of the Galaxy.
>my own pet theory is that it's  Flying saucers  entering
>hyperspace :-)
The aren't concentrated in the known spacelanes, and we don't
see many coming from Zeta Reticuli and Tau Ceti.
>but the reason i am asking is that most everyone assumes  that they
>are  colliding nuetron stars  or  spinning black holes,  i just wondered
>if any mechanism could exist  and place them  closer in.
There are more than 130 GRB different models in the refereed literature.
Right now, the theorists have a sort of unofficial moratorium
on new models until new observational evidence comes in.
--
David M. Palmer		palmer@alumni.caltech.edu
palmer@tgrs.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: Pat.Hoage@f6507.n124.z1.fidonet.org (Pat Hoage)
Subject: army in space
Lines: 7
I just got out of the Army. Go signal corps or Intelligence;
photointelligence interpretation. If you go ADA you might get to play with
rockets but space will look pretty far away dug in the mud next to a grunt
protecting the foward troops from low flying objects. Good Luck
* Origin: *AmeriComm*, 214/373-7314. Dallas'Info Source. (1:124/6507)
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Jemison on Star Trek
Organization: Express Access Online Communications USA
Lines: 14
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.net
In article <1993Apr22.214735.22733@Princeton.EDU> phoenix.Princeton.EDU!carlosn (Carlos G. Niederstrasser) writes:
>A transporter operator!?!?  That better be one important transport.  Usually
>it is a nameless ensign who does the job.  For such a guest appearance I would
>have expected a more visible/meaningful role.
Christian  Slater, only gota  cameo on ST6,
and besides.
Maybe she can't act:-)
pat
From: byab314@chpc.utexas.edu (Srinivas Bettadpur)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.
Organization: Center for Space Research, University of Texas at Austin
Lines: 15
In article <1993Apr23.140649.1@rhea.arc.ab.ca> thacker@rhea.arc.ab.ca writes:
>In article <C5t05K.DB6@research.canon.oz.au>, enzo@research.canon.oz.au (Enzo Liguori) writes:
>
>> What about light pollution in observations? (I read somewhere else that
>> it might even be visible during the day, leave alone at night).
>
>No need to be depressed about this one.  Lights aren't on during the day
>so there shouldn't be any daytime light pollution.
Thanks for these surreal moments....
Srinivas
--
Srinivas Bettadpur        Internet : byab314@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu
P.O. Box 8520, Austin, Tx. 78713-8520, U.S.A.  Tel. (512) 471 4332
BITNET : byab314@uthermes
From: rlennip4@mach1.wlu.ca (robert lennips 9209 U)
Subject: Re: PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Lines: 2
Please get a REAL life.
From: cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu (Joe Cain)
Subject: Drag free satellites (was: Stephen Hawking Tours JPL)
Keywords: JPL
Organization: Florida State University Geology Dept.
Lines: 23
In article <1raee7$b8s@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>In article <23APR199317325771@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
>> In answer
>>to a question from Hawking, Chahine described a proposed
>>drag-free satellite, but confirmed that at this point, "it's only
>>a concept."
>
>SO what's a drag free satellite?   coated with WD-40?
I am puzzled by the term "concept." Drag free may already have
been flown. It was the idea behind putting up a spacecraft that would
more accurately respond to motions from the Earth's gravity field and
ignore drag. It was proposed many years ago and involved a ball
floating between sensors whose job it was to signal to little
adjustment jets to keep the ball away from them. The ball itself would
then be in a drag free condition and respond only to gravity
anisotropies, whereas the spacecraft itself would be continuously
adjusting its position to compensate for drag.
Joseph Cain		cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu
cain@fsu.bitnet		scri::cain
(904) 644-4014		FAX (904) 644-4214 or -0098
From: arthurc@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Arthur Chandler)
Subject: Russian Phobos Mission
Organization: California State University, Sacramento
Lines: 6
Did the Russian spacecraft(s) on the ill-fated Phobos mission a few
years ago send back any images of the Martian moon?  If so, does anyone know if
they're housed at an ftp site?
Thanks.
From: landis@stsci.edu (Robert Landis,S202,,)
Subject: Re: Space Debris
Reply-To: landis@stsci.edu
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore MD
Lines: 14
Another fish to check out is Richard Rast -- he works
for Lockheed Missiles, but is on-site at NASA Johnson.
Nick Johnson at Kaman Sciences in Colo. Spgs and his
friend, Darren McKnight at Kaman in Alexandria, VA.
Good luck.
R. Landis
"Behind every general is his wife.... and...
behind every Hillary is a Bill . ."
From: landis@stsci.edu (Robert Landis,S202,,)
Subject: Re: Soviet Space Book
Reply-To: landis@stsci.edu
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore MD
Lines: 9
What in blazes is going on with Wayne Matson and gang
down in Alabama?  I also heard an unconfirmed rumor that
Aerospace Ambassadors have disappeared.  Can anyone else
confirm??
++Rob Landis
STScI, Baltimore, MD
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 10
In article <23APR199317452695@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov> dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock) writes:
>  -  Man-Tended Capability (Griffin has not yet adopted non-sexist
>     language) ...
Glad to see Griffin is spending his time on engineering rather than on
ritual purification of the language.  Pity he got stuck with the turkey
rather than one of the sensible options.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 14
In article <1ralibINNc0f@cbl.umd.edu> mike@starburst.umd.edu (Michael F. Santangelo) writes:
>... The only thing
>that scares me is the part about simply strapping 3 SSME's and
>a nosecone on it and "just launching it."  I have this vision
>of something going terribly wrong with the launch resulting in the
>complete loss of the new modular space station (not just a peice of
>it as would be the case with staged in-orbit construction).
It doesn't make a whole lot of difference, actually, since they weren't
building spares of the station hardware anyway.  (Dumb.)  At least this
is only one launch to fail.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Level 5?
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 18
In article <1raejd$bf4@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>what ever happened to the hypothesis  that the shuttle flight software
>was a major factor in the loss of 51-L.  to wit,  that during the
>wind shear event,  the Flight control software  indicated a series
>of very violent engine movements that shocked and set upa harmonic
>resonance  leading to an overstress of the struts.
This sounds like another of Ali AbuTaha's 57 different "real causes" of
the Challenger accident.  As far as I know, there has never been the
slightest shred of evidence for a "harmonic resonance" having occurred.
The windshear-induced maneuvering probably *did* contribute to opening
up the leak path in the SRB joint again -- it seems to have sealed itself
after the puffs of smoke during liftoff -- but the existing explanation
of this and related events seems to account for the evidence adequately.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: dgempey@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (David Gordon Empey)
Subject: Re: PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
Lines: 22
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucscb.ucsc.edu
In <1993Apr23.165459.3323@coe.montana.edu> uphrrmk@gemini.oscs.montana.edu (Jack Coyote) writes:
>In sci.astro, dmcaloon@tuba.calpoly.edu (David McAloon) writes:
>[ a nearly perfect parody  -- needed more random CAPS]
>Thanks for the chuckle.  (I loved the bit about relevance to people starving
>in Somalia!)
>To those who've taken this seriously, READ THE NAME! (aloud)
Well, I thought it must have been a joke, but I don't get the
joke in the name. Read it aloud? David MACaloon. David MacALLoon.
David macalOON. I don't geddit.
-Dave Empey (speaking for himself)
>--
>Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week.  Enjoy the buffet!
From: maverick@wpi.WPI.EDU (T. Giaquinto)
Subject: General Information Request
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609-2280
Lines: 11
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu
I am looking for any information about the space program.
This includes NASA, the shuttles, history, anything!  I would like to
know if anyone could suggest books, periodicals, even ftp sites for a
novice who is interested in the space program.
Todd Giaquinto
maverick@wpi.WPI.EDU
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters.  Where are they?
From: belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu
Organization: Mankato State University
Nntp-Posting-Host: vax1.mankato.msus.edu
Lines: 67
In article <1radsr$att@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>   What  evidence  indicates that Gamma Ray bursters are very far away?
>
> Given the enormous  power,  i was just wondering,  what if they are
> quantum  black holes or something  like that  fairly close by?
>
> Why would they have to be at  galactic ranges?
>
> my own pet theory is that it's  Flying saucers  entering
> hyperspace :-)
>
> but the reason i am asking is that most everyone assumes  that they
> are  colliding nuetron stars  or  spinning black holes,  i just wondered
> if any mechanism could exist  and place them  closer in.
>
> pat
Well, lets see....I took a class on this last fall, and I have no
notes so I'll try to wing it...
Here's how I understand it. Remember from stellar evolution that
black holes and neutron stars(pulsars) are formed from high mass stars,
M(star)=1.4M(sun).  High mass stars live fast and burn hard, taking
appoximately 10^5-10^7 years before going nova, or supernova.  In this time,
they don't live long enough to get perturbed out of the galactic plane, so any
of these (if assumed to be the sources of GRB's) will be in the plane of the
galaxy.
Then we take the catalog of bursts that have been recieved from the
various satellites around the solar system, (Pioneer Venus has one, either
Pion. 10 or 11, GINGA, and of course BATSE) and we do distribution tests on our
catalog.  These tests all  show, that the bursts have an isotropic
distribution(evenly spread out in a radial direction), and they show signs of
homogeneity, i.e. they do not clump in any one direction.  So, unless we are
sampling the area inside the disk of the galaxy, we are sampling the UNIVERSE.
Not cool, if you want to figure out what the hell caused these things.  Now, I
suppose you are saying, "Well, we stil only may be sampling from inside the
disk."  Well, not necessarily.  Remember, we have what is more or less an
interplanetary network of burst detectors with a baseline that goes waaaay out
to beyond Pluto(pioneer 11), so we should be able, with all of our detectors de
tect some sort of difference in angle from satellite to satellite.  Here's an
analogy:  You see a plane overhead.  You measure the angle of the plane from
the origin of your arbitrary coordinate system.  One of your friends a mile
away sees the same plane, and measures the angle from the zero point of his
arbitrary system, which is the same as yours.  The two angles are different,
and you should be able to triangulate the position of your burst, and maybe
find a source.  To my knowledge, no one has been able to do this.
I should throw in why halo, and corona models don't work, also.  As I
said before, looking at the possible astrophysics of the bursts, (short
timescales, high energy) black holes, and pulsars exhibit much of this type of
behavior.  If this is the case, as I said before, these stars seem to be bound
to the disk of the galaxy, especially the most energetic of the these sources.
When you look at a simulated model, where the bursts are confined to the disk,
but you sample out to large distances, say 750 mpc, you should definitely see
not only an anisotropy towards you in all direction, but a clumping of sources
in the direction of the  galactic center.  As I said before, there is none of
these characteristics.
I think that's all of it...if someone needs clarification, or knows
something that I don't know, by all means correct me.  I had the honor of
taking the Bursts class with the person who has done the modeling of these
different distributions, so we pretty much kicked around every possible
distribution there was, and some VERY outrageous sources. Colliding pulsars,
black holes, pulsars that are slowing down...stuff like that.   It's a fun
field.
Complaints and corrections to: belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu or
post here.
-jeremy
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days
Organization: Express Access Online Communications USA
Lines: 23
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.net
Keywords: HST
SOmebody mentioned  a re-boost of HST during this mission,  meaning
that Weight is a very tight  margin on this  mission.
How will said re-boost be done?
Grapple, HST,  stow it in Cargo bay,  do OMS burn to high altitude,
unstow  HST,   repair  gyros,  costar install,  fix solar arrays,
then return to earth?
My guess is  why  bother with  usingthe shuttle to reboost?
why not  grapple,  do all said fixes,   bolt a small  liquid  fueled
thruster module  to  HST,   then let it make the re-boost.  it has to be
cheaper on mass then usingthe shuttle as a tug.   that way, now that
they are going to need at least 5  spacewalks,  then they can carry
an EDO pallet,  and  sit on station and even  maybe do the  solar array
tilt  motor  fix.
pat
From: oreilly@olivia.la.asu.edu (Tom O'Reilly)
Subject: Russian Phobos Mission
Organization: Mars Observer TES Project, ASU, Tempe AZ
Distribution: sci.space
Lines: 11
Yes, the Phobos mission did return some useful data including images of Phobos
itself. The best I've seen had a surface resolution of about 40 meters. By
the way, the new book entitled "Mars" (Kieffer et al, 1992, University of
Arizona Press) has a great chapter on spacecraft exploration of the planet.
The chapter is co-authored by V.I. Moroz of the Space Research Institute in
Moscow, and includes details never before published in the West. Don't
know of any ftp sites with images though.
Tom O'Reilly
Department of Geology
Arizona State University
From: C.H.A.Wong@bradford.ac.uk (CHA WONG)
Subject: How can you see the launch of the Space Shuttle ?
Organization: University of Bradford, UK
Lines: 28
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]
Sorry for asking a question that's not entirely based on the
technical aspects of space, but I couldn't find the
answer on the FAQs !
I'm currently in the UK, which makes seeing a Space Shuttle
launch a little difficult.....
However, I have been selected to be an exchange student
at Louisiana State Uni. from August, and I am absolutely
determined to get to see a Space Shuttle launch sometime
during the year at which I will be in America.
I hear there's a bit of a long mailing list, so if someone
can tell me how to get tickets and where to get them from, then
please E-mail me !
Thanks very much for your patience....
(And if anyone else wants to know, tell me and I'll summarize
for you - just to save all those poor people who have to
pay for their links !)
--
===============================    April is the cruellest month
Andrew Wong                    \   Mixing memory and desire
-----x-----                     \
E-mail:C.H.A.Wong@bradford.ac.uk \ T.S.Eliot - The Wasteland 1918
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 35
In article <1rd1g0$ckb@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>How will said re-boost be done?
>Grapple, HST,  stow it in Cargo bay,  do OMS burn to high altitude,
>unstow  HST,   repair  gyros,  costar install,  fix solar arrays,
>then return to earth?
Actually, the reboost will probably be done last, so that there is a fuel
reserve during the EVAs (in case they have to chase down an adrift
astronaut or something like that).  But yes, you've got the idea -- the
reboost is done by taking the whole shuttle up.
>My guess is  why  bother with  usingthe shuttle to reboost?
>why not  grapple,  do all said fixes,   bolt a small  liquid  fueled
>thruster module  to  HST,   then let it make the re-boost...
Somebody has to build that thruster module; it's not an off-the-shelf
item.  Nor is it a trivial piece of hardware, since it has to include
attitude control (HST's own is not strong enough to compensate for things
like thruster imbalance), guidance (there is no provision to feed gyro
data from HST's own gyros to an external device), and separation (you
don't want it left attached afterward, if only to avoid possible
contamination after the telescope lid is opened again).  You also get
to worry about whether the lid is going to open after the reboost is
done and HST is inaccessible to the shuttle (the lid stays closed for
the duration of all of this to prevent mirror contamination from
thrusters and the like).
The original plan was to use the Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle to do the
reboost.  The OMV was planned to be a sort of small space tug, well
suited to precisely this sort of job.  Unfortunately, it was costing
a lot to develop and the list of definitely-known applications was
relatively short, so it got cancelled.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Subject: Re:  PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST
From: alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz (Ross Smith)
Distribution: world
Organization: Muppet Labs
Lines: 27
In article <1993Apr22.213815.12288@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1993Apr22.130923.115397@zeus.calpoly.edu> dmcaloon@tuba.calpoly.edu (David McAloon) writes:
>
>> ETHER IMPLODES 2 EARTH CORE, IS GRAVITY!!!
>
>If not for the lack of extraneously capitalized words, I'd swear that
>McElwaine had changed his name and moved to Cal Poly.  I also find the
>choice of newsgroups 'interesting'.  Perhaps someone should tell this
>guy that 'sci.astro' doesn't stand for 'astrology'?
>
>It's truly frightening that posts like this are originating at what
>are ostensibly centers of higher learning in this country.  Small
>wonder that the rest of the world thinks we're all nuts and that we
>have the problems that we do.
>
>[In case you haven't gotten it yet, David, I don't think this was
>quite appropriate for a posting to 'sci' groups.]
Was that post for real? I thought it was a late April Fool joke. Some of it
seemed a bit over the top even by McElwaine/Abian/etc standards :-)
--
... Ross Smith (Wanganui, NZ) ............ alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz ...
"And crawling on the planet's face
Some insects called the human race
Lost in time and lost in space"      (RHPS)
From: eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.
Organization: Boeing AI Center, Huntsville, AL
Lines: 18
Re: Space billboards
Even easier to implement than writing messages on the Moon, once upon
a time a group of space activists I belonged to in Seattle considered
a "Goodyear Blimp in orbit".  The idea was to use a large structure
that could carry an array of lights like the Goodyear Blimp has.
Placed in a low Earth orbit of high inclination, it could eventually
be seen by almost everyone on Earth.  Only our collective disapproval
of cluttering up space with such a thing stopped us from pursuing
it.  It had quite feasible economics, which I will not post here
because I don't want to encourage the idea (if you want to do such
a thing, go figure it out for yourself).
Dani Eder
--
Dani Eder/Meridian Investment Company/(205)464-2697(w)/232-7467(h)/
Rt.1, Box 188-2, Athens AL 35611/Location: 34deg 37' N 86deg 43' W +100m alt.
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Drag free satellites (was: Stephen Hawking Tours JPL)
Organization: Express Access Online Communications USA
Lines: 8
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.net
Keywords: JPL
Joe,
your description sounds like one of the  gravity probe  spacecraft
ideas.
pat
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: How many read sci.space?
Organization: Express Access Online Communications USA
Lines: 9
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.net
In article <1993Apr22.184650.4833@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>isn't my real name, either.  I'm actually Elvis.  Or maybe a lemur; I
>sometimes have difficulty telling which is which.
definitely a lemur.
Elvis couldn't spell,  just listen to any of his songs.
pat
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Sunrise/ sunset times
Organization: Express Access Online Communications USA
Lines: 18
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.net
In article <1r6f3a$2ai@news.umbc.edu> rouben@math9.math.umbc.edu (Rouben Rostamian) writes:
>how the length of the daylight varies with the time of the year.
>Experiment with various choices of latitudes and tilt angles.
>Compare the behavior of the function at locations above and below
>the arctic circle.
If you want to have some fun.
Plug the basic formulas  into Lotus.
Use the spreadsheet auto re-calc,  and graphing functions
to produce  bar graphs  based on latitude,  tilt  and hours of day light avg.
pat
From: bill@xpresso.UUCP (Bill Vance)
Subject: TRUE "GLOBE", Who makes it?
Organization: (N.) To be organized.  But that's not important right now.....
Lines: 11
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]
It has been known for quite a while that the earth is actually more pear
shaped than globular/spherical.  Does anyone make a "globe" that is accurate
as to actual shape, landmass configuration/Long/Lat lines etc.?
Thanks in advance.
--
bill@xpresso.UUCP                   (Bill Vance),             Bothell, WA
rwing!xpresso!bill
You listen when I xpresso, I listen When uuxpresso.......:-)
From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org
Subject: Commercial Space News #22
X-Sender: newtout 0.08 Feb 23 1993
Lines: 666
COMMERCIAL SPACE NEWS/SPACE TECHNOLOGY INVESTOR NUMBER 22
This is number twenty-two in an irregular series on commercial
space activities.  The commentaries included are my thoughts on
these developments.
Sigh... as usual, I've gotten behind in getting this column
written.  I can only plead the exigency of the current dynamics in
the space biz.  This column is put together at lunch hour and after
the house quiets down at night, so data can quickly build up if
there's a lot of other stuff going on.  I've complied a lot of
information and happenings since the last column, so I'm going to
have to work to keep this one down to a readable length.  Have fun!
CONTENTS:
1- US COMMERCIAL SPACE SALES FLATTEN IN 1993
2- DELTA WINS TWO KEY LAUNCH CONTRACTS
3- COMMERCIAL REMOTE SENSING VENTURE GETS DOC "GO-AHEAD"
4- INVESTMENT FIRM CALLS GD'S SPACE BIZ "STILL A GOOD INVESTMENT"
5- ARIANE PREDICTS DIP IN LAUNCH DEMAND
6- NTSB INVESTIGATES PEGASUS LAUNCH OVER ABORTED ABORT
7- ANOTHER PEGASUS COMPETITOR IS ANNOUNCED
8- GEORGIA LAUNCH SITE DROPPED FROM PLANNING
9- SPAIN'S CAPRICORNIA LAUNCHER STILL PROCEEDING
10- PACASTRO SIGNS LAUNCH RESERVATION WITH SWEDISH SPACE CORP
11- CHINA AND TAIWAN JOINT SATELLITE VENTURE REPORTED
12- SOUTH KOREA ANNOUNCES NATIONAL MOVE INTO SPACE TECHNOLOGIES
13- SPACE TECHNOLOGY INDEXES THROUGH MARCH
FINAL NOTES
ARTICLES
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1- US COMMERCIAL SPACE SALES FLATTEN IN 1993
The US Department of Commerce projects US commercial space sales
will remain flat in 1993, with current data showing only a 2 percent
growth over 1992.  As published in "US Industrial Outlook 1993"
(which was released in January), revenues from the 1993 US space
business are currently projected to be about $4,890 M.
In contrast to previous years when US commercial space sales had
shown double digits growth rates, this year's projected results are
driven by the US satellite manufacturing industry, where sales are
projected to drop from 12 satellites worth $1,300 M in 1992 to 7
satellites worth $ 670 M in 1993.  The US Industrial Outlook also
projects U.S. commercial launchers faces flat demand in coming year,
and while predicting that 1993 revenues will increase 10 percent to
$450 M, future sales will be "adversely affected by the downward
revision in Department of Defense launch plans."
Offsetting flat launch revenues and satellite deliveries,
revenues for fixed and mobile satellite services are projected to
increase to $1,900 M, primarily driven by increased revenues from
broadcast and cable TV networks.  Similarly, remote sensing products
and sales are projected to increase to $250 M in 1993 (up 15%).
US COMMERCIAL SPACE REVENUES     1989  1990   1991 1992(r) 1993(e)
Commercial satellites             900 1,000  1,100  1,300     670
Satellite services                750   800  1,200  1,500   1,900
Fixed                          (700) (735)(1,115)(1,275) (1,520)
Mobile                          (50) ( 65)(   85)(  225) (  380)
Satellite ground equip            790   860  1,350  1,400   1,560
Mobile equipment                (40)  (85)  (280)  (352)    ???
Commercial launches               150   570    380    450     450
Remote sensing data and services  125   155    190    215     250
Private microgravity research lab  --    --     --     --      60
===== =====  ======  =====   =====
TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUES         2,715 3,385   4,220  4,815   4,890
(r) = revised data for 1992   (e) = estimated data for 1993
[Commentary: This is the first look at how the US commercial
space industry is expected to do in 1993.  In general, not a bad
report -- with most of the bad news concentrated in the satellite
manufacturing area.  There, changes of only a few satellites worth
$100 M or so apiece can substantially influence the annual
projection.  If we look forward over several years, this market
sector should retain strong sales as US firms have been very
successful in regaining international market share in the satellite
business.
Furthermore, sales of satellite ground equipment should go up in
the next revision of this data, expected to be released about mid-
year.  Data on mobile satellite ground equipment sales (including
such items as GPS receivers and portable satellite terminals)
appears to be missing from the January data set.  DoC usually
publishes a listing of  "Space Business Indicators" in mid-year, and
the next revision of commercial space revenues should be released
then.  I expect the revised revenues should easily top $5,000 M, if
the mobile satellite ground equipment are added back into the
numbers, and the year should show about a 10% overall market growth.
Looking beyond this year's data, future markets look quite
promising.  The DoC projects satellite service revenues could top
$3,000 M by 1995 if new mobile satellite services and direct
broadcasting are implemented as planned, and that mobile satellite
station sales are expected to continue to growth at 15-20 % per year
through the mid 1990's.  My numbers are somewhat more pessimistic
for near-term market growth, but I agree the trend should be for
substantial growth in US commercial space sales over at least the
next 5-10 years.  (My pessimism is due to more conservative
assumptions on market capture and growth in LEO communications and
satellite direct broadcasting services.  I don't believe all of the
current players in the yet-to-be-born LEO communications satellite
market and in the yet-to-be-proven direct broadcasting market will
be financial successes, nor that sales growth will be as explosive
as currently projected.)
It should also be noted this year's DoC data is the first
release to show revenues from privately funded microgravity research
facilities.  The $60 M shown in the Janurary data is primarily for
the Spacehab module, planned for launch in April on the Space
Shuttle, but also hidden in these numbers are the projected first
sales from the COMET orbital launch and recovery experiment module.]
2- DELTA WINS TWO KEY LAUNCH CONTRACTS
McDonnell Douglas Corporation, which builds and markets the Delta
launch vehicle has won two important launch contracts.  Motorola
Inc. announced in mid February that it had selected the Delta to
launch most of the satellites in the 66-satellite Iridium LEO
communications constellation, and in mid April, McDonnell Douglas
was awarded the USAF Medium Launch Vehicle III contract.
The launch services contract with Motorola for the Iridium
constellation launch is for at launch of least 45 Iridium
satellites.  Another 21 satellites have been contracted to be
launched by Khrunichev Enterprise in Russian on 3 Proton vehicle
launches.  These 45 satellites planned for the Delta will be
launched 5 at a time,  providing for at least 9 launches.
Additional satellites in the Iridium constellation, such as a
planned on-orbit spares, may also be launched on Delta.  Although
details of the launch services contract were reported to be
negotiation, and not yet final.
The USAF MLV contract also went to MDC, bidding a variant of
their Delta II launcher.  This contract is only initially worth $7.5
million, but establishes a set of launch options for up to 36
launches, encompassing launches from 1996 through 2002.  These
launches will deploy the next generation of the USAF's Global
Positioning System Block IIR navigation satellites, plus other
programs.  First option for to meet the USAF launch options is
expected to be exercised this year, after which the USAF is expected
to request launches of up to 6 Deltas per year for at least 6 years.
Under this contract the USAF can also request "launch on demand"
services from MDC for the 1996-2002 time period, with a launch to
occur within 40 days of the request.
[Commentary:  If these two contracts are fulfilled, they should
provide an excellent business base for MDC's Delta launch program
through the turn of the century.  Combined, these two contracts have
a potential for about 45 launches, worth about $2,200 M to MDC, and
sustaining a core business base of $300-400 M/year.  Other contracts
for international and commercial payloads, as well as for NASA
Medium ELV-class payloads, will add to this business base -- keeping
MDC as a viable commerical launch company.
However, it should be noted there are risk elements in these
contracts.  Motorola's Iridium LEO communications constellation has
not yet received a US Federal Communications Commission license for
operation in the U.S., nor has Motorola lined up all the financing
and financial partners for the Iridium venture.  Without these
approvals or financial backing there will be no Iridium launches.
But, hopefully, these uncertainties will be settled this year.
Similarly, the USAF MLV III program has been the target of
several Congressional actions which have slowed the production of
the GPS Block IIR satellites and deleted the funding for the MLV III
program in favor of the USAF NLS/"Spacelifter" program.  At this
time, while it appears the MLV III contract will be executed, future
funding for the MLV III and other USAF commercial launch contracts
is being reconsidered as part of national space launch strategy
reviews.  Some opinions expressed from within the Administration and
Congress propose cancellation of all "ELV upgrade" programs
(including the MLV programs) in favor of the proposed "Spacelifter"
program.  Such opinions may have some weight in this year's budget
deliberations, particularly as DoD funds will be more difficult to
find in the shrinking US Defense budget.]
3- COMMERCIAL REMOTE SENSING VENTURE GETS DOC "GO-AHEAD"
The first commercial license to operate a remote sensing
satellite was approved in early February by the US Department of
Commerce's Office of Space Commerce.  A license was granted to
WorldView Imaging Corporation of Oakland, California to build and
operate a pair of LEO imaging satellites to provide multi-spectral
images of the Earth.
[Commentary:  There has been little data released on this venture
by WorldView and the DoC, other than the announcement of the
operating and construction license.  This was reported to be at the
request of WorldView.  Most industry speculation identifies this new
venture as a "Star Wars" spinoff, using SDI-type technology to
provide digital Earth sensing data, and heavily integrated into
digital GIS databases for remote sensing/GIS users.  Most probable
customers for this service include exploration geologists,
agricultural planners, and urban planners.
It is noteworthy this is the first commercial venture under the
1992 Land Remote Sensing Policy Act.  The Act, as passed last
November, provides that remote sensing data gathered from private remote
sensing craft may be sold to users at differing prices.  Prior to
this act, remote sensing data from all satellites had to be sold to
all users at the same prices, and private remote sensing ventures
would have had to sell at the government-set Landsat data prices.
There are rumors of several other potential commercial remote
sensing ventures working their way through the system at different
stages of development.  I think the large Landsat and SPOT satellite
systems will provide the majority of the satellite remote sensing
data market for the next decade or so.  In contrast to these large,
government-sponsored remote sensing systems, smaller market ventures
such as WorldView and others can exploit market niches and use
innovative technology, and I believe, can find profitability on the
margin.  I predict there may be some very interesting ventures
appearing in the next year or so.]
4- INVESTMENT FIRM CALLS GD'S SPACE BIZ "STILL A GOOD INVESTMENT"
Wall Street investment house Morgan Stanley thinks General
Dynamic's Space Systems Division could still be a moneymaker,
despite having failed in the last 3 Atlas launches.  In a recent
analyst's report Morgan Stanley said "We are more than ever
convinced that if the company can return the Atlas to its historical
95%-plus success rate, this will become a highly profitable, cash-
generating unit."  Based upon discussions with GD's corporate
management, Morgan Stanley projects that if the Atlas problems are
cleared up the unit could see $70 M in earnings per year by 1995 and
$100 M per year by 2000.  This is based upon GD's projection of
capturing about 10 Atlas launches per year on the world market.
[Commentary:  Three failures in a row of their launch system has
hurt General Dynamic's Space Systems Division.  Since GD has
restructured to only keep a very few profitable core businesses,
many market pundits have been speculating GD's space business might
be next to be sold.  The Morgan Stanley report indicates GD's Space
Systems Division has some potential as a moneymaker, despite current
problems -- if they can get their act together.  Sales are projected
to be about $560 M in 1993, which will probably generate a loss of
about $25 M.  If GD can capture their projected share of the space
launch market, and if they have managed to clean up the reliability
of their Atlas launchers, then they could generate healthy profits
from those sales.  But until they demonstrate the Atlas Centaur
program is back on track, this division will continue to show
substantial losses.
In response to the sell-off rumors, in my opinion, this operation
is not a really good candidate for takeover and quick profitability.
To do such a takeover, the current set corporate and divisional
management would be replaced with another set from outside the firm.
In GD SSD's case, to get the division back on track, the management
team will have to concentrate hard on the technical problems with
the Atlas Centaur, as well as in selling Atlas services.  This would
indicate only another firm with experience in rocket launch
operations could find such talent in-house, and be able to convince
customers to buy their launch services.  Optimally, the firm would
have substantial liquid rocket experience, and experience in
marketing space technology internationally as well.  Candidates for
this might be TRW, Rockwell, Lockheed, and Martin, and possibly
McDonnell Douglas and Boeing.  But most of those firms have cash
flow problems (MDC), have had a substantial business contraction
(Boeing and MDC), are involved with other launch firms (Lockheed),
or have taken on substantial debt (Martin).  And coming up with the
$700-1500 M purchase price for the division is a big chunk of
change for any company.]
5 - ARIANE PREDICTS DIP IN LAUNCH DEMAND
Arianespace, the operator of the Ariane launch system, is
projecting a dip in launch demand in the late 1990's.  In early
February, Arianespace released their annual market survey, which
detailed their projection of the space transportation market for the
next decade.
Over short run, Arianespace expects to retain their dominant
position and sustain a majority share of the launch market.  Of 54
international and commercial launches planned through 1995, Ariane
holds contracts for 31, General Dynamics' Atlas vehicle holds 14
contracts, McDonnell Douglas' Delta holds 7, and Great Wall's Long
March vehicle holds 2 launch contracts.
Three-quarters of future launch contracts for which Ariane can
compete are projected to come from communications satellites with
the remaining 25% split between weather, Earth observation, and
scientific satellites.  Most of the future telecommunications demand
growth is predicted to come from the Asia/Pacific region.
Arianespace expects the current market consolidation of
individual satellite operators into regional or national groups will
continue, with these groups investing in heavier satellites with
larger communications payloads carrying more transponders.
Arianespace predicts the average mass of telecommunications
satellites should increase by 20 % over today's average level, to
about 3000 kg in GEO.
Demand for commercial launch services is expected to remain
strong over the next three years, but in the second half of the
decade, Arianespace predicts demand will decrease.  Arianespace
bases this prediction upon a matching of satellite transponder
demand and supply,  particularly as new data compression techniques
appear to could double or triple transponder capacity using existing
or near-term transponders.
One of the significant possible changes in the market was
identified as the arrival of new launch vehicles, including Russian
launch systems.  But Arianespace predicts that in the long term,
investors purchasing launch services are looking for the best trade
off between launch service quality and price, and that Russian and
other new launch services will have to prove out their capabilities
and service quality, and their market penetration will be minimal.
[Commentary:  Ariane releases their market surveys annually, and
I reported on their prior market survey in a past issue of CSN/STI.
Comparing the two surveys, there aren't outstanding differences in
the numbers.   The most notable change is the consideration of new
data compression techniques, reducing the demand for new physical
transponders on orbit.
I note that in contrast to some predictions, demand for space-
based communications transponders appears to be remain strong. While
fiber optic lines are making substantial inroads into the
established point-to-point telecommunications markets, growing
demand for telecommunications services world wide and for point-to-
multipoint broadcast services have prevented a decrease in space
transponder demand.  Fiberoptic cables provide a higher capability
service, but only from established point A to established point B.
To establish a fiberoptic link it is necessary to install cable
between the points, and while there are improved network solutions,
installing a large network of distributed fiberoptic links can cost
millions or billions of dollars.
For broadcast services where there is not an existing ground
network structure, satellites still offer the most cost effective
solution.  And if new services are required into a new region, it is
cheaper to install a small satellite link costing only a few tens of
thousands of dollars and tie into the existing global satellite
network.  This allows rapid growth of new satellite services, and
has kept demand high.  The replacement market for fiberoptics is
growing as well, since as demand grows between the points serviced,
it becomes cost effective to later install a fiberoptic link to
handle the increase in traffic.
Since the telecommunications and data transfer markets are still
growing rapidly, satellite market projections remain rosy.  But
satellites are also getting longer orbital lifetimes.  Current
generation satellites are now getting guarantees of at 15 years of
on-orbit service or more, in contrast to 10 years of service from
last generation's satellites.  This has cut back some of the launch
demand, as satellite owners are rescheduling replacement satellite
launches over longer intervals.
And as last note; Arianespace didn't flag it this year, but it
looks like the space transportation market will be rather over-
supplied by existing launch systems in the near term.  The annual
commercial launch demand is for about 15-20 medium sized satellites
per year.  From the supply side, Ariane is capable of launching up
to about a dozen medium sized satellites a year, Delta is capable of
about 9-12 per year, Atlas is capable of 6-12, Long March 4-8,
Japan's H-Vehicle 2-4, Russia's Proton capable of 8, and other
systems such as Zenit and Soyuz another 10-20 medium launches per
year.  That's a lot of capability for a small market.
We can only expect the competition to intensify for commercial
launches.]
6- NTSB INVESTIGATES PEGASUS LAUNCH OVER ABORTED ABORT
The 9 Feb Pegasus launch by Orbital Sciences Corporation has
spawned an investigation over an apparent violation of range safety
rules.  A valid abort order from a NASA range safety officer to halt
the mission was overridden and the Pegasus was launched in violation
of range safety rules.
In the last few minutes of the Pegasus launch countdown, one of
two abort command receivers aboard the Pegasus failed.  Such a failure
typically scrubs a launch,and a NASA range safety officer at
Wallops Island, VA issued a mission abort order about a minute
before the scheduled Pegasus launch.  Somehow this command was
overridden by the OSC launch team or the message was lost in the
communications channels, and the Pegasus was launched despite the
valid abort call.
Fortunately, the Pegasus functioned as expected, and the abort
command receiver was not needed.  But this incident did spark an
investigation since a valid abort order was given under agreed-to
launch constraint rules, and was not obeyed.
Leading the investigation is the National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB) with support from NASA, OSC, and the Air Force.  This
investigation marks the first time NTSB has taken the lead on an
incident involving a space launch.  According to the NTSB, their
investigation will take about 6 months, and is primarily looking at
lines of authority, communications links and safety procedures used
in the launch.
[Commentary: This is the first time that the NTSB has led an
investigation into a space launch.  Their leadership was requested
by the Department of Commerce's Office of Commercial Space
Transportation, who had licensed the commercial launch.
At the time of writing this column, some of the initial
investigations have been concluded, and some of the results are
starting to leak out into the trade press.  Apparently, 3 or four
different communications channels were in use during the test. After
the abort destruct receiver stopped responding, the NASA test
director and range controller in the Mission Control room at Wallops
Island gave abort orders about a minute before the launch.
According to the mission rules, this should have stopped the launch.
Somehow, the OSC test conductor ordered the abort reversed, and the
NASA communicator on the net relayed that order to the B-52 carrying
the Pegasus at about 22 seconds before launch.  Differing
explainations of exactly how this happened are proposed -- with the
best set being that clear lines of communications and clear
definition of the responsibilities of the mission control team, and
understanding of the mission rules were not established before the
launch.
As we see more and more commercial launches, more of these
procedural issues are going to crop up and will have to be resolved.
This case is interesting because it is the first time the NTSB has
been called in to investigate a commercial launch problem (as they
do with commercial aircraft problems).
I think this problem will turn out to be primarily problems with
procedures and communications, and will be cleared up with issuance
of guidelines on how launch communications should be set up and how
specific lines of authority should be delineated.]
7- ANOTHER PEGASUS COMPETITOR IS ANNOUNCED
Tsniimach Enterprise in Russia announced it is marketing a new
small space launch system, based upon converted ICBM components.
Two versions of the launcher are being marketed: the "Aerokosmos"
winged vehicle launched like the OSC Pegasus, and the "Severkosmos",
launched from a mobile ground transporter.  The Aerokosmos is
projected to deliver 900 kg to a 200 km circular orbit or 580 kg to
an 800 km circular orbit, and the Severkosmos to be capable of 430
kg to 200 km orbits and 225 kg to 800 km.  Also proposed to be used
with these launch systems is a LEO data relay system called
'Sineva'.  Tsniimach Enterprise is described as a ex-military
establishment, focusing on aerodynamics and thermal protection of
spacecraft and which has participated in the development of the
Buran shuttle system,  They are located near the NPO Energia
facility in Kaliningrad, outside of Moscow.
[Commentary: There's very little released information on this new
venture.  My suspicion is it is another Russian enterprise looking
for hard currency and trying to capitalize upon their in-house
knowledge of ex-Soviet launch systems.  It adds to the list of numerous
commercial space startups announced from the ex-Soviet Union.
This one's a little different in that they are offering variants
of ex-Soviet ICBMs, but I can't identify any key customers being
targeted or substantial financial backing.]
8- GEORGIA LAUNCH SITE DROPPED FROM PLANNING
In late January, Georgia Tech Research Institute released the
results of a preliminary study on the feasibility of a commercial
rocket launching site in Camden County, Georgia at the old Kingsland
Missile Test Launching Site on the Atlantic coast.  The preliminary
study recommended the site not be pursued as a commercial launch
site, stating reopening the site was not feasible due to projected
low investment returns, plus environmental and other geographic
considerations.  However, the report did say the site might be ideal
for other aerospace uses, and recommended other potential uses.
[Commentary:  This should put the nails in the coffin of the
Kingsland Commercial Launch Site.  While other sites are still
proceeding with commercial launch site development plans, Kingsland
found without a key customer to act as anchor tenant, and if
substantial infrastructure had to be put in, then the expected
returns were too low to justify the cost of development.
This might point out some key discriminators in judging the
feasibility of a commercial launch site.  These include:
- Is there an identified key customer to provide core usage
sufficient to recover setup costs?
- Is there a market advantage of using the site?
- Can existing infrastructure be used or modified at the site?
- Can financing be found at low enough cost to support the
investment?
Other commercial launch site ventures -- including those at
Woomera, Poker Flat, Cape York, White Sands, Alabama Off-Shore
Platform, Hawaii, and Vandenberg have to also be judged against
these criteria.  In my opinion, some of these ventures are flying
on hope and speculation, and not on sound financial grounds.]
9- SPAIN'S CAPRICORNIA LAUNCHER STILL PROCEEDING
In one of his last official acts, former President Bush
authorized space technology transfer for several joint space
ventures between US and other firms.  One of these was a proposed
use of US technology by Spain to build a small booster.  With that
regulatory impediment removed, the 3-stage Capricornia launch
vehicle will start development later this year, planning for a first
launch in the 1995/96 time period.  The Capricornia is described as
a small 3-stage all solid booster designed to put 250-500 Kg into
LEO.  Several launch sites are being examined for the system,
including 2 on the Iberian peninsula and 1 on the Canary Islands.
Originated by INTA in Spain, the project reports it has $ 30 M in
development funding, and will use technology from Argentina's Condor
launch vehicle as well as from the US.
[Commentary:  Several firms have identified a market opportunity
in providing a small launcher for the European market.  Small
payloads from European firms or organizations currently use either
Ariane piggyback launches or the US/Italian Scout launcher.
However, Ariane piggyback opportunities are limited, and the Scout
program is being phased out (accompanied by some disarray in the
Italian government and space industry regarding any follow-on
system).
This has left an apparent niche for a new European small launch
system.  Surprisingly enough, ESA has not supported development of
such a system within the current space funding structure.  Studies
have been performed by British Aerospace, Aerospatiale, Deutsche
Aerospace, and Italian organizations, but with the exception of the
Swedish/PacAstro system (reported below), I have not been able to
find any other European development work with even a rumor of
funding for hardware.
Also of interest is the linking of the Capricornia to the
Argentinian Condor launcher.  There have been some interesting
rumors surfacing out of Argentina over the past year about a space
launcher/IRBM program funded under the military junta which ruled
the country in the 1970's and early 1980's.
What is known is in Feb 1992, the Argentinian Air Force formally
transferred control of the Condor 2 missile program to the new
civilian Argentinian national space agency (Comison Nacional de
Atividades Espaciales - CNAE).  The Condor 2 program was described
as originating in 1983, expanding upon the smaller Condor 1 rocket
program in collaboration with Egypt and with support of German
firms.  The Condor 2 was also reportedly funded indirectly by Iraq
in the mid-1980's.  Fairly large solid rocket motors were built and
tested, but Argentinan development of a suitable guidance package
lagged that of the propulsion system.
It should be noted CNAE is planning to launch its first
scientific satellite in late 1994.  The US$ 9 M, 181 Kg, SAC-B
satellite will study the Earth's upper atmosphere and includes
cooperative experiments from Italy and the US. No launch vehicle has
yet been selected, but OSC's Pegasus and the Russian Burlak Air
launched rocket are reported to be strong contenders for this
contract.]
10- PACASTRO SIGNS LAUNCH RESERVATION WITH SWEDISH SPACE CORP
PacAstro, a small launch firm in Herndon, Virginia announced in
late February it had received a $6 M launch reservation contract
from the Swedish Space Corp to launch a satellite on PacAstro's PA-2
launch vehicle.   This will be performed as part of the Polar
Satellite Service (PSS), a joint Norwegian Space Center/ Swedish
Space Corp. program to upgrade the Andoya Rocket Range in Norway and
offering small satellite launches into the polar regions.  According
to PacAstro, PSS is also performing an $8 M upgrade of the Andoya
launch facilities, including a new integration facility and a fully-
enclosed vertical assembly building for small launch vehicles like
the PacAstro PA-2.  PacAstro has been chosen as "the main
alternative rocket supplier" for the small satellite launch service
to be offered by PSS from Andoya.  The date of the launch of the
Swedish satellite was not specified.
[Commentary:  PacAstro has been trying to line up customers and
funding for their launch vehicle for some time now.  The PA-2 is a
small, two stage rocket fueled by RP-1 and Liquid Oxygen.  From
PacAstro's literature, the engines designed for the PA-series
rockets are built of "off the shelf" components based upon the Lunar
MOdule Descent Engines built by TRW, and are capable of putting a
225 Kg satellite into a 750 km circular polar orbit.
PacAstro is trying to arrange construction financing for its
first three PA-2 vehicles, with a first launch planned for 1995, and
2 orbital launches planned for 1996.  My records show PacAstro hired
TRW to provide marketing support and systems design,  with primary
engineering to be done by AeroAstro, a small satellite builder
closely associated with PacAstro (headquartered in the same
building).  The Swedish Space Corporation would supply engineering,
launch operations, vehicle subsystems, and marketing support.
Sumitomo Corp. of Tokyo, is a first round investor and sits on the
board of directors.
PacAstro has gotten a first round financial package of at least
$550 K  (Some sources place this of high as $1 M), but has been
searching for about a year for the additional $20-30 M needed to
design, build and launch their first set of vehicles.
The launch reservation from SSC can possibly be used to help
bring some investors on board, but by my estimate, they will need
much more than the single $6 M sale to put their venture into real
hardware.]
11- CHINA AND TAIWAN JOINT SATELLITE VENTURE REPORTED
In early March, it was reported a joint satellite communications
venture between a Taiwanese and mainland Chinese was in the works.
As reported in the Taipei press, China Development Corp. (CDC),
headquartered in Taiwam and with links to the ruling Nationalist
Party, is planning to set up a joint venture in Hong Kong with China
Great Wall Industry Corp. with the objective of launching a regional
communications satellite. CDC would cover about 10% of the satellite
system cost (US $10 M) in exchange for rights to 10% of the
satellite's communications channels.
[Commentary:  This announcement came close on the heels of the
release of Taiwanese plans for space development (released in mid
January).   In those plans, the National Space Program Office of
Taiwan will launch 3 satellites, starting with ROCSAT-1, a 400 Kg
scientific spacecraft, planned for launch in 1997.  Two additional
satellites are planned, both communications satellites.   TRW has
been helping Taiwan plan this program, budgeted at T$13.6 B (US $530
M) through 2006.
I haven't been able to establish any relationship between this
venture and those of the NSPOT, but there might be a connection.
While Taiwan has the financing to pursue several ventures, the
current Taiwanese telecommunications market might not support two
separate sastellite ventures.
The reported name for the Tiawanese/Chinese system is "Asiasat-
2", but I don't thinks this has any relationship with the existing
Hong Kong-based "Asiasat" program involving Chinese, Hong Kong, and
other Asian investors, other than using it as an organizational
model.  There are some obvious advantages to pursuing such a joing
venture -- it could provide excellent first-hand experience to
Taiwan for a very low cost, which then can be used in later
satellite ventures.  But there are internal political issues between
Taiwanese and Chinese ventures, but putting any joint venture
through a  Hong Kong intermediary corporation might allow it to
proceed.
In any case, the East Asian satellite market is lighting up with
substantially growth projected in space services and revenues.  This
is just another indicator to add to the list.]
12- SOUTH KOREA ANNOUNCES NATIONAL MOVE INTO SPACE TECHNOLOGIES
South Korea's Trade, Industry and Resources Ministry recently
announced plans to invest US$22 B in research and development and
another US$17 B into manufacturing and research facilities for
advanced aerospace technologies.  Space technologies have been
specifically targeted as part of this program, beginning with
manufacture and launch of an advanced multi-purpose satellite by
1997.  The objective of this investment is to raise South Korea's
aerospace technology to the level of the world's top 10 countries by
2000.
[Commentary: South Korea has been quietly working to develop its
national aerospace industry, specifically including space
activities. I'm noting this as a flag that potential new players are
coming into the commercial space market.
As part of their national effort, 2 national telecommunications
satellites for Korea Telecom will be launched in April and Oct 1995
on Delta. Designated Koreasat 1 and 2, the platforms will provide
television and telephone service throughout the Korean Peninsula,
southwestern Japan and portions of China bordering North Korea.
South Korea launched its first small satellite piggyback on
Ariane in Aug 1992, called Uribyol-1 (Our Star) and costing about US
$8.8 M.  Uribyol-2 is planned for piggyback launch in October of
this year, again on Ariane, and will be entirely "made in Korea."
Uribyol-3, projected for a 1995 launch, will be an environment-
monitoring micro-satellite.
This satellite may be the precursor to a series of small Earth
observation satellites,  The KEOS (Korean Earth Observation System)
project, which has been submitted for approval to the South Korean
government, would use two or three 300-kg spacecraft equipped with
optical and microwave sensors.
South Korean press reports claim there is also a parallel
military effort to establish the capabilities for building and
launching small military satellites by 2001.  Supposedly a
government panel had been established to oversee such an effort,
funded at US $ 500 M between 1993 and 2001, in anticipation of an
expected pullout of U.S. intelligence-gathering systems from the
Korean peninsula.
In conjunction with all of these reported efforts, South Korean
is also pursuing production work either as off-sets to existing
aerospace technology contracts (for example, McDonnell Douglas is
offsetting production of some Delta parts to South Korean firms as
part of the Koreasat launch contracts), or for production of
consumer space items (among other products, South Korea exports
satellite receiver television setups to Japan, and Samsung has
announced teaming for production of OSC's Orbcomm user terminals.).
This looks like a very aggressive push into space technologies.
Considering that East Asia is currently the fastest growing sector
for commercial space services (primarily for telecommunications), a
South Korean push into space technologies may change the composition
of commercial space market there over the next decade.]
13- SPACE TECHNOLOGY INDEXES THROUGH MARCH
As announced in the last CSN/STI, each issue will give the
results of stock indexes and portfolios regarding space stocks and
investments.  The table below summarizes results to the end of
March.  The Space Technology Index did quite a bit better than the
market as a whole, as represented by the S&P 500 index.  Since 90+%
of the values included in the index are US firms, this represents a
general increase in the market value of space-related firms.  The
increase in the first quarter is more than in all of 1992 -- which
is a very promising sign, although future months may reverse this
trend. The Commercial Space Technology Index has also done quite
well, but the Pure Play portfolio -- consisting of stocks of firms
which are pure plays in space technologies -- has also surpassed its
results in all of 1993.  We'll keep an eye on these ....
INDEX RESULTS THROUGH MARCH
Beginning  Beginning      1 Jan 93 to
1992       1993           31 Mar 1993
-------    --------       --------
S&P 500                 416        436  (+4.7%)   452  (+3.7%)
Space Tech Index        267        304 (+13.6%)   373 (+22.7%)
Comm'l Space Tech Index 167        194 (+16.3%)   222 (+14.2%)
Space Tech Pure Plays   147        169 (+15.4%)   197 (+16.2%)
FINAL NOTES -
What?  This column's already full?  And I still have bunches of
commercial space developments to report on.  As I said at the start
of this, column there's been a lot of interesting happenings - but
I'll have to put them into the next issue.
Looking ahead, I've got several articles in the works on new
happenings with Iridium and the LEO communications satellite market,
more news on international launchers appearing (and disappearing) on
the market, new international commercial space ventures,  and other
interesting developments.
And as always, I hope you folks find this stuff useful and
interesting -- Any and all comments are welcome.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wales Larrison                          Space Technology Investor
"Felicitas multos habet amicos"             P.O. Box 2452
Seal Beach, CA 90740-1452
From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org
Subject: Space Advertising (2 of 2)
X-Sender: newtout 0.08 Feb 23 1993
Lines: 82
Two developments have brought these type of activities back to
the forefront in 1993.  First, in February, the Russians deployed a
20-m reflector from a Progress vehicle after it had departed from
the Mir Space Station.  While this "Banner" reflector was blank,
NPO Energia was very active in reporting that future  Banner
reflectors will be available to advertisers, who could use a space-
based video of their logo or ad printed on the Banner in a TV
commercial, as filmed from the Mir.
The second development, has been that Space Marketing Inc, the
same company responsible for merchandising space on the Conestoga
booster and COMET spacecraft, is now pushing the "Environmental
Billboard".  As laid out by SMI Chief Engineer Dr Ron Humble of the
University of Colorado Space Laboratory and Preston Carter of the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the "Environmental
Billboard" is a large inflatable outer support structure of up to
804x1609 meters.  Advertising is carried by a mylar reflective area,
deployed by the inflatable 'frame'.
To help sell the concept, the spacecraft responsible for
maintaining the billboard on orbit will carry "ozone reading
sensors" to "continuously monitor the condition of the Earth's
delicate protective ozone layer," according to Mike Lawson, head of
SMI. Furthermore, the inflatable billboard has reached its minimum
exposure of 30 days it will be released to re-enter the Earth's
atmosphere. According to IMI, "as the biodegradable material burns,
it will release ozone-building components that will literally
replenish the ozone layer." The remaining spacecraft will monitor
the atmosphere for another year before it, too, re-enters and burns
up and "adds to the ozone supply."
This would not be a cheap advertisement, costing at least several
millions of dollars (exact costs were not available).  But SMI
estimates that market exposure would be 3-5X that of the people who
watched the SuperBowl, where a 30-second advertising 'unit' cost
$600,000.  Since SMI is located in Atlanta, Georgia, it is being
promoted as being available in time for the opening of the 1996
Summer Olympics in Atlanta.
But back to Brian's questions:
>And does anyone have any more details other than what was in the WN
>news blip?  How serious is this project?  Is this just in the "wild
>idea" stage or does it have real funding?
See above. As for serious -- if they can get $15-20 M or so (my
estimate of $5-10 for development costs and a flight unit, plus
$10-15 M for a launch), then it's probably real.  They are claiming to
tailor the orbit to overfly specific locations at specific times for
optimum advertising impact so they probably can't piggy back upon
someone else's planned launch and will have to buy a dedicated
launch.  That's a $10-15 M cost they need to raise, right there.
And there will probably be some legal challenges to this as
well.  Note there is one potential legal challenge to SMI on the use
of launch vehicle advertising already.  While I don't think the
legal challenges would win out (and yes, I am an amateur astronomer,
and no, I don't really like the idea of this additional light
pollution, but I know of no prohibition of it...),  the legal
challenges and court fights would probably remove any positive
aspects of the advertising.  I can imagine several ways to make the
advertisers look like louts for doing this -- which would change
positive market exposure to negative market exposure, and negate the
space advertising advantage.  (Would you spend $15 M to look like an
idiot?)
(And light pollution might not be too bad -- if it's in a low
enough orbit, and it relies upon reflected light only, it would
only be visible for a short time just after local dusk and before
dawn.  For maximum market exposure, you want to have it visible just
after dusk --minimizing impact on astronomy, since that's the time
of worse seeing due to day/night thermal turbulence.  It might still
be a problem, but perhaps there are ways to mitigate this...)
As for having real funding -- none that I can identify.  There
were about 60 expressions of interest made on the Conestoga
advertising opportunity, but that included curious folks and was for
only a $500,000 commitment.  I haven't heard of any serious funding
for this, but I'm sure they are shopping the venture around looking
for some money in order to flesh out the concept some more.  But I
am confident there are no firm or paying customers at this time.
And if anybody wants to cross-post this to sci.astro, please be
my guest.  I don't have posting privileges to that area (or at least
I don't THINK I do...).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wales Larrison                            Space Technology Investor
--- Maximus 2.01wb
From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org
Subject: Space Advertising (1 of 2)
X-Sender: newtout 0.08 Feb 23 1993
Lines: 81
Brian Yamauchi asks: [Regarding orbital billboards...]
>And does anyone have any more details other than what was in the WN
>news blip?  How serious is this project?  Is this just in the "wild
>idea" stage or does it have real funding?
Well, I had been collecting data for next edition of the
Commercial Space News/Space Technology Investor... To summarize:
SPACE ADVERTISING
First, advertising on space vehicles is not new -- it is very
common practice to put the cooperating organization's logos on the
space launch vehicle.  For example, the latest GPS launcher had the
(very prominent) logos on its side of
- McDonnell Douglas (the Delta launcher)
- Rockwell International (who built the GPS satellite)
- USAF (who paid for the satellite and launch), and
- the GPS/Navstar program office
This has not been considered "paid advertising" but rather
"public relations", since the restrictions have been such that only
organizations involved in the launch could put their logos on the
side, and there was no money exchanged for this.  [However, putting
a 10' high logo on the side of the launch vehicle facing the cameras
is "advertising" as much as it is "public relations", in my
opinion.]  [And by the way, I note that the DC-X test vehicle has
rather prominent McDonnell-Douglas and SDIO logos on the side...]
There have been several studies looking at the revenue potentials
for use of space vehicles for advertising, or placing large
advertising signs in orbit.  On the shuttle, for example, I know of
several serious studies in the early and mid 1980's which looked at
putting logos on the external tank, or on the sides of the payload
bay.  These ventures would be different than "public relations", in
that the logos or displays would not be restricted to the firms
participating on that flight, and would involve payment of sums for
the right to fly the logos in a prominent organization.  (For
example, painting the ET to look like a Pepsi can, or putting a
Disneyworld logo on the inside of the payload bay where the cameras
would scan past it.)
ADVERTS ON LAUNCH VEHICLES
The first paid advertising was done on a Soviet launcher in about
1990, when several non-involved foreign organizations were allowed
to pay to put their logos on a Proton launch.  (An Italian shoe
company was one of the first advertisers, I remember.)  Similarly,
Soviet cosmonauts on Mir made a paid advertisement for the last
Olympic games, and have gleefully shown banners and other items from
participating firms and organizations.  Mars candy bars, for
example, got a plug from orbit as a sponsor of the launch of the
British visiting cosmonaut to Mir.
Now US firms are starting to put paid advertisements on launch
vehicles.  The upcoming Conestoga launch (in June) putting the COMET
recoverable payload capsule into orbit will have paid advertisements
on the side, for Arnold Schwarzenegger's upcoming movie "The Last
Action Hero".  Besides the usual logos of the participating
organizations, Columbia pictures has paid $500,000 to put ads on the
main fuselage of the mission's Conestoga rocket, its booster
rockets, and on the COMET payload, which will orbit the Earth for
one month.  A concept for this advertising display was published in
Space News magazine a couple of months ago.
(As a side note: Robert Lorsch, an advertising executive, is
talking about suing NASA.  He charges NASA with appropriating an idea he
created with the space agency in 1981 to form corporate advertising
sponsorships on NASA spacecraft as a way to get funding for the
space program.  Lorsch contends that in selling advertising space on
the upcoming COMET, NASA violated an agreement that it "would not use
his idea without him being the exclusive representative for NASA and
receiving compensation."   This is being disputed, since the launch
is a "commercial launch" and NASA is receiving none of the
advertising revenues, but the funding for the COMET program is
coming from NASA.)
ORBITAL "BILLBOARDS"
Orbital "billboards" have been the staple of science fiction for
some time.  Arthur C. Clarke wrote about one example, and Robert
Heinlein described another in "The Man Who Sold the Moon".  Several
different potential projects have been developed, although none have
been implemented, but the most real prior to 1993 being the "Eiffel
II" project, which would have placed a large inflatable sculpture in
orbit to celebrate the French Republic's Bi-centennial.
(cont)
--- Maximus 2.01wb
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: TRUE "GLOBE", Who makes it?
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 12
In article <bill.047m@xpresso.UUCP> bill@xpresso.UUCP (Bill Vance) writes:
>It has been known for quite a while that the earth is actually more pear
>shaped than globular/spherical.  Does anyone make a "globe" that is accurate
>as to actual shape, landmass configuration/Long/Lat lines etc.?
I don't think you're going to be able to see the differences from a sphere
unless they are greatly exaggerated.  Even the equatorial bulge is only
about 1 part in 300 -- you'd never notice a 1mm error in a 30cm globe --
and the other deviations from spherical shape are much smaller.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: $1bil space race ideas/moon base on the cheap.
Article-I.D.: aurora.1993Apr25.150437.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Lines: 28
Nntp-Posting-Host: acad3.alaska.edu
That is an idea.. The most efficient moon habitat..
also the idea of how to get the people off the moon once the prize was won..
Also the idea of how to rescue someone who is "dying" on the moon.
Maybe have a area where they can all "see" each other, and can help each other
if something happens..
I liek the idea of one prize for the first moon landing and return, by a
non-governmental body..
Also the idea of then having a moon habitat race..
I know we need to do somthing to get people involved..
Eccentric millionaire/billionaire would be nice.. We see how old Ross feels
about it.. After all it would be a great promotional thing and a way to show he
does care about commericalization and the people.. Will try to broach the
subject to him..
Moonbase on the cheap is a good idea.. NASA and friends seem to take to much
time and give us to expensive stuff that of late does not work (hubble and
such). Basically what is the difference between a $1mil peice of junk and a
multi $1mil piece of junk.. I know junk..
==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: 30826
Article-I.D.: aurora.1993Apr25.151108.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Lines: 14
Nntp-Posting-Host: acad3.alaska.edu
I like option C of the new space station design..
It needs some work, but it is simple and elegant..
Its about time someone got into simple construction versus overly complex...
Basically just strap some rockets and a nose cone on the habitat and go for
it..
Might be an idea for a Moon/Mars base to..
Where is Captain Eugenia(sp) when you need it (reference to russian heavy
lifter, I think).
==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Jemison on Star Trek (Better Ideas)
Article-I.D.: aurora.1993Apr25.154449.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Lines: 31
Nntp-Posting-Host: acad3.alaska.edu
In article <1rbp6q$oai@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
> In article <1993Apr22.214735.22733@Princeton.EDU> phoenix.Princeton.EDU!carlosn (Carlos G. Niederstrasser) writes:
>>A transporter operator!?!?  That better be one important transport.  Usually
>>it is a nameless ensign who does the job.  For such a guest appearance I would
>>have expected a more visible/meaningful role.
>
>
> Christian  Slater, only gota  cameo on ST6,
>
> and besides.
>
> Maybe she can't act:-)
>
> pat
>
Better idea for use of NASA Shuttle Astronauts and Crew is have them be found
lost in space after a accident with a worm hole or other space/time glitch..
Maybe age Jemison a few years (makeup and such) and have her as the only
survivour of a failed shuttle mission that got lost..
Heh of late, they way they have been having shuttle problems in the media,
anything can happen..
Imagine a Astronaut/Crew member to find themselves in the 24th Century as the
object of interest of an alien civilization, maybe rescued or helped by the ST
Enterprise...  I know Vegr and such was okay, but this could be better..
==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Jemison on Star Trek (Better Ideas)
Organization: Express Access Online Communications USA
Lines: 11
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.net
In article <1993Apr25.154449.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
|
|Better idea for use of NASA Shuttle Astronauts and Crew is have them be found
|lost in space after a accident with a worm hole or other space/time glitch..
|
|Maybe age Jemison a few years (makeup and such) and have her as the only
>survivour of a failed shuttle mission that got lost..
Of course that asumes the mission was able to launch :-)
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters.  WHere  are they.
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
Lines: 56
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: prb@access.digex.com's message of 23 Apr 1993 23:58:19 -0400
In article <1radsr$att@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
What  evidence  indicates that Gamma Ray bursters are very far away?
Their distribution is very isotropic and the intensity distribution,
crudely speaking, indicates we're seeing an edge to the distribution.
Given the enormous  power,  i was just wondering,  what if they are
quantum  black holes or something  like that  fairly close by?
Why would they have to be at  galactic ranges?
Now, in the good old days before GRO data, it was thought the
gamma bursters were neutron stars in the galaxy, it was expected that
GRO would confirm this by either showing they were a local population
(within a few hundred light years) or that they were in the galactic
halo. (Mechanism was not known but several plausible ones existed)
(also to be fair it was noted that the _brightest_ burster was
probably in the LMC, suggesting theorists might be wrong back then...)
As the Sun is not at the center of the galaxy a halo
population should show anisotropy (a local disk population is
ruled out completely at this stage) - to avoid the anisotropy you
have to push the halo out, the energy then gets large, the mechanism
of getting NS out that far becomes questionable, and we should start
to see for example the Andromeda's bursters.
The data is consistent with either a Oort cloud distribution
(but only just) - but no one can think of a plausible source with
the right spectrum. Or, it can be a cosmological distances (hence
isotropy) and the edge is "the edge of the Universe" ;-)
If at cosmological distances you need very high energy (to detect)
and a very compact source (for spectrum), ergo a neutron star
colliding with another neutron star or black hole. Even then getting
the spectrum is very hard, but conceivable.
If we know anything about physics at that level,
the bursters are not due to quantum black holes or cosmic
strings, wrong spectrum for one thing.
The situation is further complicated by recent claims that
there are two classes of sources ;-)  [in the colliding NS
they'd actually probably fit relatively easily into the
NS-NS and NS-BH collision scenarios respectively]
my own pet theory is that it's  Flying saucers  entering
hyperspace :-)
but the reason i am asking is that most everyone assumes  that they
are  colliding nuetron stars  or  spinning black holes,  i just wondered
if any mechanism could exist  and place them  closer in.
If you can think of one, remember to invite me to Stockholm...
*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  The laws of gravity are very,very strict			*
*  And you're just bending them for your own benefit - B.B. 1988*
From: tom@igc.apc.org
Subject: computer cult
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1469100033:000:2451
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!tom    Apr 24 09:26:00 1993
Lines: 59
From: <tom>
Subject: computer cult
From scott Fri Apr 23 16:31:21 1993
Received: by igc.apc.org (4.1/Revision: 1.77 )
id AA16121; Fri, 23 Apr 93 16:31:09 PDT
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 93 16:31:09 PDT
Message-Id: <9304232331.AA16121@igc.apc.org>
From: Scott Weikart <scott>
Sender: scott
To: cdplist
Subject: Next stand-off?
Status: R
Redwood City, CA (API) -- A tense stand-off entered its third week
today as authorities reported no progress in negotiations with
charismatic cult leader Steve Jobs.
Negotiators are uncertain of the situation inside the compound, but
some reports suggest that half of the hundreds of followers inside
have been terminated.  Others claim to be staying of their own free
will, but Jobs' persuasive manner makes this hard to confirm.
In conversations with authorities, Jobs has given conflicting
information on how heavily prepared the group is for war with the
industry.  At times, he has claimed to "have hardware which will blow
anything else away", while more recently he claims they have stopped
manufacturing their own.
Agents from the ATF (Apple-Taligent Forces) believe that the group is
equipped with serious hardware, including 486-caliber pieces and
possibly Canon equipment.
The siege has attracted a variety of spectators, from the curious to
other cultists.  Some have offered to intercede in negotiations,
including a young man who will identify himself only as "Bill" and
claims to be the "MS-iah".
Former members of the cult, some only recently deprogrammed, speak
hesitantly of their former lives, including being forced to work
20-hour days, and subsisting on Jolt and Twinkies.  There were
frequent lectures in which they were indoctrinated into a theory of
"interpersonal computing" which rejects traditional roles.
Late-night vigils on Chesapeake Drive are taking their toll on
federal marshals.  Loud rock and roll, mostly Talking Heads, blares
throughout the night.  Some fear that Jobs will fulfill his own
apocalyptic prophecies, a worry reinforced when the loudspeakers
carry Jobs' own speeches -- typically beginning with a chilling "I
want to welcome you to the 'Next World' ".
- - --
Roland J. Schemers III              |            Networking Systems
Systems Programmer                  |            G16 Redwood Hall (415) 723-6740
Distributed Computing Group         |            Stanford, CA 94305-4122
Stanford University                 |            schemers@Slapshot.Stanford.EDU
From: apryan@vax1.tcd.ie
Subject: Order MOORE's book to restore Great Telescope
Lines: 41
Nntp-Posting-Host: vax1.tcd.ie
Organization: Trinity College Dublin
Lines: 41
Several people have enquired about the availability of the book about the
Great 72" reflector built at Birr Castle, Ireland in 1845 which remained the
largest in the world until the the start of the 20th century.
"The Astronomy of Birr Castle" was written by Patrick Moore who now sits on
the committee which is going to restore the telescope. (The remains are on
public display all year round - the massive support walls, the 60 foot long
tube, and other bits and pieces). This book is the definitivie history of
how one man, the Third Earl of Rosse, pulled off the most impressive
technical achievement, perhaps ever, in the history of the telescope, and
the discoveries made with the instrument.
Patrick Moore is donating all proceeds from the book's sale to help restore
the telescope. Astronomy Ireland is making the book available world wide by
mail order. It's a fascinating read and by ordering a copy you bring the day
when we can all look through it once again that little bit nearer.
=====ORDERING INFORMATION=====
"The Astronomy of Birr Castle" Dr. Patrick Moore, xii, 90pp, 208mm x 145mm.
Price:
U.S.: US$4.95 + US$2.95 post & packing (add $3.50 airmail)
U.K. (pounds sterling): 3.50 + 1.50 post & packing
EUROPE (pounds sterling): 3.50 + 2.00 post and packing
REST OF WORLD: as per U.S. but funds payable in US$ only.
PAYMENT:
Make all payments to "Astronomy Ireland".
CREDIT CARD: MASTERCARD/VISA/EUROCARD/ACCESS accepted by email or snail
mail: give card number, name & address, expiration date, and total amount.
Payments otherwise must be by money order or bank draft.
Send to our permanent address: P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland.
You can also subscribe to "Astronomy & Space" at the same time. See below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Ryan, "Astronomy & Space", new International magazine, available from:
Astronomy Ireland, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland.
6 issues (one year sub.): UK 10.00 pounds, US$20 surface (add US$8 airmail).
ACCESS/VISA/MASTERCARD accepted (give number, expiration date, name&address).
(WORLD'S LARGEST ASTRO. SOC. per capita - unless you know better? 0.033%)
Tel: 0891-88-1950 (UK/N.Ireland) 1550-111-442 (Eire). Cost up to 48p per min
From: ruca@pinkie.saber-si.pt (Rui Sousa)
Subject: Re: Potential World-Bearing Stars?
In-Reply-To: dan@visix.com's message of Mon, 12 Apr 1993 19:52:23 GMT
Lines: 17
Organization: SABER - Sistemas de Informacao, Lda.
In article <C5Dz7C.J0E@visix.com> dan@visix.com (Daniel Appelquist) writes:
I'm on a fact-finding mission, trying to find out if there exists a list of
potentially world-bearing stars within 100 light years of the Sun...
Is anyone currently working on this sort of thing?  Thanks...
Dan
--
In principle, any star resembling the Sun (mass, luminosity) might have planets
located in a suitable orbit. There several within 100 ly of the sun. They are
single stars, for double or multiple systems might be troublesome. There's a
list located at ames.arc.nasa.gov somewhere in pub/SPACE. I think it is called
stars.dat. By the way, what kind of project, if I may know?
Rui
--
*** Infinity is at hand!                               Rui Sousa
*** If yours is big enough, grab it!                   ruca@saber-si.pt
All opinions expressed here are strictly my own
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.
Organization: Express Access Online Communications USA
Lines: 20
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.net
In article <C5y4t7.9w3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins) writes:
>It is so typical that the rights of the minority are extinguished by the
>wants of the majority, no matter how ridiculous those wants might be.
George.
It's called a democracy.  The majority rules.  sorry.
If ytou don't like it, I suggest you modify the constitution to include
a constitutional right to Dark Skies.   The theory of government
here is that the majority rules,  except in the nature of fundamental
civil rights.   If you really are annoyed,   get some legislation
to create a dark sky zone,  where in all light emissions are protected
in the zone.  Kind of like the national radio quiet zone.  Did you
know about that?  near teh Radio telescope  observatory in West virginia,
they have a 90?????? mile EMCON zone.  Theoretically they can prevent
you from running light AC motors, like air conditioners and Vacuums.
In practice, they use it mostly to  control  large radio users.
pat
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Space Advertising (2 of 2)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 24
Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>the "Environmental
>Billboard" is a large inflatable outer support structure of up to
>804x1609 meters.  Advertising is carried by a mylar reflective area,
>deployed by the inflatable 'frame'.
>   To help sell the concept, the spacecraft responsible for
>maintaining the billboard on orbit will carry "ozone reading
>sensors" to "continuously monitor the condition of the Earth's
>delicate protective ozone layer," according to Mike Lawson, head of
>SMI. Furthermore, the inflatable billboard has reached its minimum
>exposure of 30 days it will be released to re-enter the Earth's
>atmosphere. According to IMI, "as the biodegradable material burns,
>it will release ozone-building components that will literally
>replenish the ozone layer."
^^^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^
Can we assume that this guy studied advertising and not chemistry?  Granted
it probably a great advertising gimic, but it doesn't sound at all practical.
--
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
"Find a way or make one."
-attributed to Hannibal
From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Subject: Space Station Redesign (30826) Option C
Article-I.D.: aurora.1993Apr25.214653.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Lines: 22
Nntp-Posting-Host: acad3.alaska.edu
In article <1993Apr25.151108.1@aurora.alaska.edu>, nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
> I like option C of the new space station design..
> It needs some work, but it is simple and elegant..
>
> Its about time someone got into simple construction versus overly complex...
>
> Basically just strap some rockets and a nose cone on the habitat and go for
> it..
>
> Might be an idea for a Moon/Mars base to..
>
> Where is Captain Eugenia(sp) when you need it (reference to russian heavy
> lifter, I think).
> ==
> Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked
>
>
>
>
This is a report, I got the subject messed up..
From: gene@theporch.raider.net (Gene Wright)
Subject: NASA Special Publications for Voyager Mission?
Organization: The MacInteresteds of Nashville, Tn.
Lines: 12
I have two books, both NASA Special Publications, on the Voyager
Missions. One is titled "Voyages to Jupiter" the other "Voyage to Saturn"
These were excellent books put together after the encounters with each
planet.
The question is: Did NASA ever put together a similar book for either the
Uranus encounter or Neptune? If so, what SP number is it and where can it
be obtained? If not, why didn't they?
--
gene@theporch.raider.net (Gene Wright)
theporch.raider.net  615/297-7951 The MacInteresteds of Nashville
From: bon@lte.e-technik.uni-erlangen.de (Uwe Bonnes)
Subject: Re: Sunrise/ sunset times
Organization: LTE, University of Erlangen, Germany
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: aladin.e-technik.uni-erlangen.de
Lines: 15
In article <1993Apr21.141824.23536@cbis.ece.drexel.edu>, jpw@cbis.ece.drexel.edu (Joseph Wetstein) asked:
|>
|> Hello. I am looking for a program (or algorithm) that can be used
|> to compute sunrise and sunset times.
|>
|> I would appreciate any advice.
|>
|> Joe Wetstein
|> jpw@coe.drexel.edu
To compute this, and many other astronomical things, go and get (x)ephem written
by Elwood C. Downey. It is e.g. on export.lcs.mit.edu
Uwe Bonnes  bon@lte.e-technik.uni-erlangen.de
From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.
Reply-To: nicho@vnet.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: UReply 3.1
X-X-From: nicho@vnet.ibm.com
<C5y4t7.9w3@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Lines: 9
In <C5y4t7.9w3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> George F. Krumins writes:
>It is so typical that the rights of the minority are extinguished by the
>wants of the majority, no matter how ridiculous those wants might be.
Umm, perhaps you could explain what 'rights' we are talking about
here ..
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni
From: Mark.Prado@p2.f349.n109.z1.permanet.org (Mark Prado)
Subject: Conference on Manned Lunar Exploration.  May 7  Crystal City
Lines: 25
Reply address: mark.prado@permanet.org
> From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
>
> In article <1993Apr19.230236.18227@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>,
> daviss@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (S.F. Davis) writes:
> > |> AW&ST  had a brief blurb on a Manned Lunar Exploration
> confernce> |> May 7th  at Crystal City Virginia, under the
> auspices of AIAA.
>
> Thanks for typing that in, Steven.
>
> I hope you decide to go, Pat.  The Net can use some eyes
> and ears there...
I plan to go.  It's about 30 minutes away from my home.
I can report on some of it (from my perspective ...)
Anyone else on sci.space going to be there?  If so, send me
netmail.  Maybe we can plan to cross paths briefly...
I'll maintain a list of who's going.
mark.prado@permanet.org
* Origin: Just send it to bill.clinton@permanet.org
(1:109/349.2)
From: HoffmanE@space1.spacenet.jhuapl.edu (Hoffman, Eric J.)
Subject: Re: Drag free satellites
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Lines: 37
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
In article <1raee7$b8s@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>In article <23APR199317325771@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
(Ron Baalke) writes:
>> In answer
>>to a question from Hawking, Chahine described a proposed
>>drag-free satellite, but confirmed that at this point, "it's only
>>a concept."
>
>SO what's a drag free satellite?   coated with WD-40?
TRIAD, the first drag-free satellite, was designed and built by the
Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory and launched 2 Sept 1972.  The
satellite was in three sections separated by two booms.  The central section
housed the DISCOS Disturbance Compensation System, which consisted of a proof
mass of special non-magnetic alloy housed within a spherical cavity.  The
proof mass flew a true gravitational orbit, free from drag and radiation
pressure.  Teflon microthrusters kept the body of the satellite centered
around the proof mass, thereby flying the entire satellite drag free.
TRIAD was one of the APL-designed Navy Navigation Satellites.  The
2nd-generation operational navigation satellites flying today (NOVA) use a
single-axis version of DISCOS.  TRIAD was also the sixth APL satellite to be
powered by an RTG (APL flew the first nuclear power supply in space, in 1961).
Further info on TRIAD, DISCOS, etc. can be found in "Spacecraft Design
Innovations in the APL Space Department," Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest,
Vol. 13, No. 1 (1992).
--Eric Hoffman
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. Where are they?
<1993Apr24.221344.1@vax1.mankato.msus.edu>
Lines: 8
If all of these things have been detected in space, has anyone
looked into possible problems with the detectors?
That is, is there some mechanism (cosmic rays, whatever) that
could cause the dector to _think_ it was seeing one of these
things?
Graydon
From: stephens@geod.emr.ca (Dave Stephenson)
Subject: Re: Space Advertising (2 of 2)
Nntp-Posting-Host: ngis.geod.emr.ca
Organization: Dept. of Energy, Mines, and Resources, Ottawa
Lines: 15
As for SF and advertising in space. There is a romantic episode
in Mead's "The Big Ball of Wax" where the lovers are watching
the constellation Pepsi Cola rising over the horizon and noting
the some 'stars' had slipped cause the Teamsters were on strike.
This was the inspiration for my article on orbiting a formation
of space mirrors published in Spaceflight in 1986. As the reviews
said: this seems technically feasible, and could be commercially viable
but is it aesthetically desirable?  These days the only aesthetics
that count are the ones you can count!
--
Dave Stephenson
Geological Survey of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Internet: stephens@geod.emr.ca
From: pef1@quads.uchicago.edu (it's enrico palazzo!)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters. Where are they?
Reply-To: pef1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 36
> = From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
> If all of these things have been detected in space, has anyone
> looked into possible problems with the detectors?
> That is, is there some mechanism (cosmic rays, whatever) that
> could cause the dector to _think_ it was seeing one of these
> things?
> Graydon
That would not explain why widely separated detectors, such as on Ulysses
and PVO and Ginga et al., would see a burst at the same time(*).  In fact, be-
fore BATSE, having this widely separated "Interplanetary Network" was the
only sure way to locate a random burst.  With only one detector, one cannot
locate a burst (except to say "It's somewhere in the field of view.").  With
two detectors, one can use the time that the burst is seen in each detector
to narrow the location to a thin annulus on the sky.  With three detectors,
one gets intersecting annuli, giving two possible locations.  If one of these
locations is impossible (because, say, the Earth blocked that part of the
sky), voila, you have an error box.
BATSE, by having 8 detectors of its own, can do its own location determination,
but only to within about 3 degrees (would someone at GSFC, like David, like
to comment on the current state of location determination?).  Having inde-
pendent sightings by other detectors helps drive down the uncertainty.
You did touch on something that you didn't mean to, though.  Some believe
(in a reference that I have somewhere) that absorption-like features seen
in a fraction of GRBs can actually be caused by the detector.  It would be
a mean, nasty God, though, that would have a NaI crystal act like a 10^12 Gauss
neutron star...but this is getting too far afield.
Peter
peterf@oddjob.uchicago.edu
From: Wingert@vnet.IBM.COM (Bret Wingert)
Subject: Re: Level 5?
Organization: IBM, Federal Systems Co. Software Services
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: UReply 3.1
<1993Apr23.124759.1@fnalf.fnal.gov>
Lines: 29
In <1993Apr23.124759.1@fnalf.fnal.gov> Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey writes:
>In article <19930422.121236.246@almaden.ibm.com>, Wingert@vnet.IBM.COM (Bret Wingert) writes:
>> 3. The Onboard Flight Software project was rated "Level 5" by a NASA team.
>>    This group generates 20-40 KSLOCs of verified code per year for NASA.
>
>Will someone tell an ignorant physicist where the term "Level 5" comes
>from? It sounds like the RISKS Digest  equivalent of Large, Extra
>Large, Jumbo... Or maybe it's like "Defcon 5..."
>
>I gather it means that Shuttle software was developed with extreme
>care to have reliablility and safety, and almost everything else in
>the computing world is Level 1, or cheesy dime-store software.  Not
>surprising.  But who is it that invents this standard, and how come
>everyone but me seems to be familiar with it?
Level 5 refers to the Carnegie-Mellon Software Engineering Institute's
Capability Maturity Model.  This model rates software development
org's from1-5.  with 1 being Chaotic and 5 being Optimizing.  DoD is
beginning to use this rating system as a discriminator in contracts.  I
have more data on thifrom 1 page to 1000.  I have a 20-30 page
presentation that summarizes it wethat I could FAX to you if you're
interested...
Bret Wingert
Wingert@VNET.IBM.COM
(713)-282-7534
FAX: (713)-282-8077
From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr)
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters.  WHere  are they.
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 12
NNTP-Posting-Host: achates.mit.edu
If gamma ray bursters are extragalactic, would absorption from the
galaxy be expected?  How transparent is the galactic core to gamma
rays?
How much energy does a burster put out?  I know energy depends on
distance, which is unknown.  An answer of the form _X_ ergs per
megaparsec^2 is OK.
--
John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu)
From: kjenks@jsc.nasa.gov (Ken Jenks [NASA])
Subject: Re: Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4
Organization: NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Lines: 40
kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (Hey, that's me!) wrote:
: I have 19 (2 MB worth!) uuencode'd GIF images contain charts outlining
: one of the many alternative Space Station designs being considered in
: Crystal City.  [...]
I just posted the GIF files out for anonymous FTP on server ics.uci.edu.
You can retrieve them from:
ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode01.gif
ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode02.gif
ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode03.gif
ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode04.gif
ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode05.gif
ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode06.gif
ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode07.gif
ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode08.gif
ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode09.gif
ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode10.gif
ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode11.gif
ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode12.gif
ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode13.gif
ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode14.gif
ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode15.gif
ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode16.gif
ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode17.gif
ics.uci.edu:incoming/geodeA.gif
ics.uci.edu:incoming/geodeB.gif
The last two are scanned color photos; the others are scanned briefing
charts.
These will be deleted by the ics.uci.edu system manager in a few days,
so now's the time to grab them if you're interested.  Sorry it took
me so long to get these out, but I was trying for the Ames server,
but it's out of space.
-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov  (713) 483-4368
"The earth is the cradle of humanity, but mankind will not stay in
the cradle forever." -- Konstantin Tsiolkvosky
From: zellner@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: HST Servicing Mission
Lines: 19
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Distribution: world,na
In article <1rd1g0$ckb@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>
>
> SOmebody mentioned  a re-boost of HST during this mission,  meaning
> that Weight is a very tight  margin on this  mission.
>
I haven't heard any hint of a re-boost, or that any is needed.
>
> why not  grapple,  do all said fixes,   bolt a small  liquid  fueled
> thruster module  to  HST,   then let it make the re-boost.  it has to be
> cheaper on mass then usingthe shuttle as a tug.
Nasty, dirty combustion products!  People have gone to monumental efforts to
keep HST clean.  We certainly aren't going to bolt any thrusters to it.
Ben
From: n4hy@harder.ccr-p.ida.org (Bob McGwier)
Subject: Re: What counntries do space surveillance?
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research
Lines: 13
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: harder.ccr-p.ida.org
In-reply-to: thomsonal@cpva.saic.com's message of 23 Apr 93 20:17:25 GMT
I can tell you that when AMSAT launched some birds along a Spot satellite
(French), that during installation of some instruments on Spot 2, there
heavily armed legionaires who had a `take no prisoners' look on there faces.
Spot satellites are completely capable of doing some very good on orbit
surveillance.
BMc
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert W. McGwier                  | n4hy@ccr-p.ida.org
Center for Communications Research | Interests: amateur radio, astronomy,golf
Princeton, N.J. 08520              | Asst Scoutmaster Troop 5700, Hightstown
From: gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 59
nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls) writes:
>In <C5y4t7.9w3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> George F. Krumins writes:
>>It is so typical that the rights of the minority are extinguished by the
>>wants of the majority, no matter how ridiculous those wants might be.
> Umm, perhaps you could explain what 'rights' we are talking about
>here ..
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
>nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
>nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni
I was suggesting that the minority of professional and amateur astronomers
have the right to a dark, uncluttered night sky.
Let me give you an example.  When you watch TV, they have commercials to pay
for the programming.  You accept that as part of watching.  If you don't like
it, you can turn it off.  If you want to view the night sky, and there is a
floating billboard out there, you can't turn it off.  It's the same
reasoning that limits billboards in scenic areas.
Pat writes:
George.
It's called a democracy.  The majority rules.  sorry.
If ytou don't like it, I suggest you modify the constitution to include
a constitutional right to Dark Skies.   The theory of government
here is that the majority rules,  except in the nature of fundamental
civil rights.
I say:
Any reasonably in-depth perusal of American history will show
you that many WASPs have continued the practices of prejudice,
discrimination, and violence against others of different
races, religions, and beliefs, despite the law.
Pat says:
If you really are annoyed,   get some legislation
to create a dark sky zone,  where in all light emissions are protected
in the zone.  Kind of like the national radio quiet zone.  Did you
know about that?  near teh Radio telescope  observatory in West virginia,
they have a 90?????? mile EMCON zone.  Theoretically they can prevent
you from running light AC motors, like air conditioners and Vacuums.
In practice, they use it mostly to  control  large radio users.
I say:
What I'm objecting to here is a floating billboard that, presumably,
would move around in the sky.  I, for one, am against legislating
at all.  I just wish that people had a bit of common courtesy, and
would consider how their greed for money impacts the more ethereal and
aesthetic values that make us human.  This includes the need for wild
and unspoiled things, including the night sky.
George
--
|  George Krumins                     /^\        The Serpent and the Rainbow  |
|  gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu       <^^. .^^>                                  |
|  Pufferish Observatory           <_ (o) _>                                  |
|                                     \_/                                     |
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Lines: 22
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
In article <pgf.735606045@srl02.cacs.usl.edu>, pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes...
>Jeff.Cook@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM (Jeff Cook) writes:
>....
>>people in primitive tribes out in the middle of nowhere as they look up
>>and see a can of Budweiser flying across the sky... :-D
>
>Seen that movie already. Or one just like it.
>Come to think of it, they might send someone on
>a quest to get rid of the dang thing...
Actually, the idea, like most good ideas, comes from Jules Verne, not
_The Gods Must Be Crazy._  In one of his lesser known books (I can't
remember which one right now), the protagonists are in a balloon gondola,
travelling over Africa on their way around the world in the balloon, when
one of them drops a fob watch.  They then speculate about the reaction
of the natives to finding such a thing, dropped straight down from heaven.
But the notion is not pursued further than that.
-Scott
--------------------                          New .sig under construction
Scott I. Chase                                     Please be patient
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV                                   Thank you
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: I want that Billion
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Lines: 37
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: queen.eng.umd.edu
In article <C5x86o.8p4@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1r6rn3INNn96@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>>You'd need to launch HLVs to send up large amounts of stuff.  Do you know
>>of a private Titan pad?
>
>You'd need to launch HLVs to send up large amounts of stuff *if* you assume
>no new launcher development.  If you assume new launcher development, with
>lower costs as a specific objective, then you probably don't want to
>build something HLV-sized anyway.
>
>Nobody who is interested in launching things cheaply will buy Titans.  It
>doesn't take many Titan pricetags to pay for a laser launcher or a large
>gas gun or a development program for a Big Dumb Booster, all of which
>would have far better cost-effectiveness.
Henry, I made the assumption that he who gets there firstest with the mostest
wins.
Ohhh, you want to put in FINE PRINT which says "Thou shall do wonderous R&D
rather than use off-the-shelf hardware"? Sorry, didn't see that in my copy.
Most of the Pournellesque proposals run along the lines of <some dollar
amount> reward for <some simple goal>.
You go ahead and do your development, I'll buy off the shelf at higher cost (or
even Russian; but I also assume that there'd be some "Buy US" provos in there)
and be camped out in the Moon while you are launching and assembling little
itty-bitty payloads in LEO with your laser or gas gun.  And working out the
bugs of assembly & integration in LEO.
Oh, hey, could I get a couple of CanadARMs tuned for the lunar environment?  I
wanna do some teleoperated prospecting while I'm up there...
Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
-- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
From: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Subject: Re: Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts.
Reply-To: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp
Lines: 13
In-reply-to: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
In article <1r6aqr$dnv@access.digex.net>, prb@access (Pat) writes:
>Voyager  has the unusual  luck to be on a stable trajectory out of the
>solar system.   All it's doing is collecting  fields  data,  and routinely
>squirting it down.  One of the mariners is also in stable
>solar orbit,  and still providing similiar  solar data.
There are no Mariner craft from which we are still receiving data.  I believe
you are referring to one or more of Pioneers 6 through 9 (launched from
December 1965 through November 1968), which were put into solar orbits to study
interplanetary space.  I recall reading that at least one of them was still
functioning 25 years after launch.
--
Chris Jones    clj@ksr.com
From: PPORTH@hq.nasa.gov ("Tricia Porth (202")
Subject: Remote Sensing Data
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Mmdf-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Lines: 137
=================================================================
I am posting this for someone else.  Please respond to the
address listed below.  Please also excuse the duplication as this
message has been crossposted.  Thanks!
=================================================================
REQUEST FOR IDEAS FOR APPLICATIONS OF REMOTE SENSING DATABASES
VIA THE INTERNET
NASA is planning to expand the domain of users of its Earth and space science
data.  This effort will:
o   Use the evolving infrastructure of the U.S. Global Change Research
Program including the Mission To Planet Earth (MTPE) and the Earth
Observing System Data and Information System (EOSDIS) Programs.
o   Use the Internet, particularly the High Performance Computing and
Communications Program's NREN (National Research and Education
Network), as a means of providing access to and distribution of
science data and images and value added products.
o   Provide broad access to and utilization of remotely sensed images in
cooperation with other agencies (especially NOAA, EPA, DOE, DEd,
DOI/USGS, and USDA).
o   Support remote sensing image and data users and development
communities.
The user and development communities to be included (but not limited to) as
part of this effort are educators, commercial application developers (e.g.,
television weather forecasters), librarians, publishers, agriculture
specialists, transportation, forestry, state and local government planners, and
aqua business.
This program will be initiated in 1994.  Your assistance is requested to
identify potential applications of remote sensing images and data.  We would
like your ideas for potential application areas to assist with development of
the Implementation Plan.
PLEASE NOTE: THIS IS NOT A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS.
We are seeking your ideas in these areas:
(1)  Potential commercial use of remote sensing data and images;
(2)  Potential noncommercial use of remote sensing data and images in
education (especially levels K-12) and other noncommercial areas;
(3)  Types of on-line capabilities and protocols to make the data more
accessible;
(4)  Additional points of contacts for ideas; and
(5)  Addresses and names  from whom to request proposals.
For your convenience, a standard format for responses is included below.  Feel
free to amend it as necessary.  Either e-mail or fax your responses to us by
May 5, 1993.
E-MAIL:   On Internet "rsdwg@orion.ossa.hq.nasa.gov"  ASCII  - No binary
attachments please
FAX:   Ernie Lucier, c/o RSDWG, NASA HQ, FAX 202-358-3098
Survey responses in the following formats may also be placed in the FTP
directory ~ftp/pub/RSDWG on orion.nasa.gov.  Please indicate the format.
Acceptable formats are: Word for Windows 2.X, Macintosh Word 4.X and 5.X, and
RTF.
----------------------------RESPONSE FORMAT--------------------------
REQUEST FOR IDEAS FOR APPLICATIONS OF REMOTE SENSING DATABASES VIA THE INTERNET
(1)  Potential commercial use of remote sensing data and images  (if possible,
identify the relevant types of data or science products, user tools, and
standards).
(2)  Uses of remote sensing data and images in education (especially levels
K-12) and other noncommercial areas (if possible, identify the relevant types
of data or science products, user tools, and standards).
(3)  Types of on-line capabilities and protocols to make the data and images
more accessible (if possible, identify relevant types of formats, standards,
and user tools)
(4)  Additional suggested persons or organizations that may be resources for
further ideas on applications areas.  Please include: Name, Organization,
Address and Telephone Number.
(5)  Organizations, mailing lists (electronic and paper), periodicals, etc. to
whom a solicitation for proposals should be sent when developed.  Please
include: Name, Organization, Address and Telephone Number.
(6)  We would benefit from knowing why users that know about NASA remote
sensing data do not use the data.  Is it because they do not have ties to NASA
investigators, or high cost, lack of accessibility, incompatible data formats,
poor area of interest coverage, inadequate spatial or spectral resolution, ...?
(7)  In case we have questions, please send us your name, address, phone number
(and e-mail address if you have one).  If you don't wish to send us this
information, feel free to respond to the survey anonymously.  Thank you for
your assistance.
From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Subject: LARSONIAN Astronomy and Physics
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire
Lines: 552
LARSONIAN Astronomy and Physics
Orthodox physicists, astronomers, and astrophysicists
CLAIM to be looking for a "Unified Field Theory" in which all
of the forces of the universe can be explained with a single
set of laws or equations.  But they have been systematically
IGNORING or SUPPRESSING an excellent one for 30 years!
The late Physicist Dewey B. Larson's comprehensive
GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, which he
calls the "Reciprocal System", is built on two fundamental
postulates about the physical and mathematical natures of
space and time:
(1) "The physical universe is composed ENTIRELY of ONE
component, MOTION, existing in THREE dimensions, in DISCRETE
UNITS, and in two RECIPROCAL forms, SPACE and TIME."
(2) "The physical universe conforms to the relations of
ORDINARY COMMUTATIVE mathematics, its magnitudes are
ABSOLUTE, and its geometry is EUCLIDEAN."
From these two postulates, Larson developed a COMPLETE
Theoretical Universe, using various combinations of
translational, vibrational, rotational, and vibrational-
rotational MOTIONS, the concepts of IN-ward and OUT-ward
SCALAR MOTIONS, and speeds in relation to the Speed of Light
(which Larson called "UNIT VELOCITY" and "THE NATURAL
DATUM").
At each step in the development, Larson was able to
MATCH objects in his Theoretical Universe with objects in the
REAL physical universe, (photons, sub-atomic particles
[INCOMPLETE ATOMS], charges, atoms, molecules, globular star
clusters, galaxies, binary star systems, solar systems, white
dwarf stars, pulsars, quasars, ETC.), even objects NOT YET
DISCOVERED THEN (such as EXPLODING GALAXIES, and GAMMA-RAY
BURSTS).
And applying his Theory to his NEW model of the atom,
Larson was able to precisely and accurately CALCULATE inter-
atomic distances in crystals and molecules, compressibility
and thermal expansion of solids, and other properties of
matter.
All of this is described in good detail, with-OUT fancy
complex mathematics, in his books.
BOOKS of Dewey B. Larson
The following is a complete list of the late Physicist
Dewey B. Larson's books about his comprehensive GENERAL
UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe.  Some of the early
books are out of print now, but still available through
inter-library loan.
"The Structure of the Physical Universe" (1959)
"The Case AGAINST the Nuclear Atom" (1963)
"Beyond Newton" (1964)
"New Light on Space and Time" (1965)
"Quasars and Pulsars" (1971)
"NOTHING BUT MOTION" (1979)
[A $9.50 SUBSTITUTE for the $8.3 BILLION "Super
Collider".]
[The last four chapters EXPLAIN chemical bonding.]
"The Neglected Facts of Science" (1982)
"THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" (1984)
[FINAL SOLUTIONS to most ALL astrophysical
mysteries.]
"BASIC PROPERTIES OF MATTER" (1988)
All but the last of these books were published by North
Pacific Publishers, P.O. Box 13255, Portland, OR  97213, and
should be available via inter-library loan if your local
university or public library doesn't have each of them.
Several of them, INCLUDING the last one, are available
from: The International Society of Unified Science (ISUS),
1680 E. Atkin Ave., Salt Lake City, Utah  84106.  This is the
organization that was started to promote Larson's Theory.
They have other related publications, including the quarterly
journal "RECIPROCITY".
Physicist Dewey B. Larson's Background
Physicist Dewey B. Larson was a retired Engineer
(Chemical or Electrical).  He was about 91 years old when he
died in May 1989.  He had a Bachelor of Science Degree in
Engineering Science from Oregon State University.  He
developed his comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the
physical universe while trying to develop a way to COMPUTE
chemical properties based only on the elements used.
Larson's lack of a fancy "PH.D." degree might be one
reason that orthodox physicists are ignoring him, but it is
NOT A VALID REASON.  Sometimes it takes a relative outsider
to CLEARLY SEE THE FOREST THROUGH THE TREES.  At the same
time, it is clear from his books that he also knew ORTHODOX
physics and astronomy as well as ANY physicist or astronomer,
well enough to point out all their CONTRADICTIONS, AD HOC
ASSUMPTIONS, PRINCIPLES OF IMPOTENCE, IN-CONSISTENCIES, ETC..
Larson did NOT have the funds, etc. to experimentally
test his Theory.  And it was NOT necessary for him to do so.
He simply compared the various parts of his Theory with OTHER
researchers' experimental and observational data.  And in
many cases, HIS explanation FIT BETTER.
A SELF-CONSISTENT Theory is MUCH MORE than the ORTHODOX
physicists and astronomers have!  They CLAIM to be looking
for a "unified field theory" that works, but have been
IGNORING one for over 30 years now!
"Modern physics" does NOT explain the physical universe
so well.  Some parts of some of Larson's books are FULL of
quotations of leading orthodox physicists and astronomers who
agree.  And remember that "epicycles", "crystal spheres",
"geocentricity", "flat earth theory", etc., ALSO once SEEMED
to explain it well, but were later proved CONCEPTUALLY WRONG.
Prof. Frank H. Meyer, Professor Emeritus of UW-Superior,
was/is a STRONG PROPONENT of Larson's Theory, and was (or
still is) President of Larson's organization, "THE
INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF UNIFIED SCIENCE", and Editor of
their quarterly Journal "RECIPROCITY".  He moved to
Minneapolis after retiring.
"Super Collider" BOONDOGGLE!
I am AGAINST contruction of the "Superconducting Super
Collider", in Texas or anywhere else.  It would be a GROSS
WASTE of money, and contribute almost NOTHING of "scientific"
value.
Most physicists don't realize it, but, according to the
comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the late Physicist
Dewey B. Larson, as described in his books, the strange GOOFY
particles ("mesons", "hyperons", ALLEGED "quarks", etc.)
which they are finding in EXISTING colliders (Fermi Lab,
Cern, etc.) are really just ATOMS of ANTI-MATTER, which are
CREATED by the high-energy colliding beams, and which quickly
disintegrate like cosmic rays because they are incompatible
with their environment.
A larger and more expensive collider will ONLY create a
few more elements of anti-matter that the physicists have not
seen there before, and the physicists will be EVEN MORE
CONFUSED THAN THEY ARE NOW!
Are a few more types of anti-matter atoms worth the $8.3
BILLION cost?!!  Don't we have much more important uses for
this WASTED money?!
Another thing to consider is that the primary proposed
location in Texas has a serious and growing problem with some
kind of "fire ants" eating the insulation off underground
cables.  How much POISONING of the ground and ground water
with insecticides will be required to keep the ants out of
the "Supercollider"?!
Naming the "Super Collider" after Ronald Reagon, as
proposed, is TOTALLY ABSURD!  If it is built, it should be
named after a leading particle PHYSICIST.
LARSONIAN Anti-Matter
In Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the
physical universe, anti-matter is NOT a simple case of
opposite charges of the same types of particles.  It has more
to do with the rates of vibrations and rotations of the
photons of which they are made, in relation to the
vibrational and rotational equivalents of the speed of light,
which Larson calls "Unit Velocity" and the "Natural Datum".
In Larson's Theory, a positron is actually a particle of
MATTER, NOT anti-matter.  When a positron and electron meet,
the rotational vibrations (charges) and rotations of their
respective photons (of which they are made) neutralize each
other.
In Larson's Theory, the ANTI-MATTER half of the physical
universe has THREE dimensions of TIME, and ONLY ONE dimension
of space, and exists in a RECIPROCAL RELATIONSHIP to our
MATERIAL half.
LARSONIAN Relativity
The perihelion point in the orbit of the planet Mercury
has been observed and precisely measured to ADVANCE at the
rate of 574 seconds of arc per century.  531 seconds of this
advance are attributed via calculations to gravitational
perturbations from the other planets (Venus, Earth, Jupiter,
etc.).  The remaining 43 seconds of arc are being used to
help "prove" Einstein's "General Theory of Relativity".
But the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson achieved results
CLOSER to the 43 seconds than "General Relativity" can, by
INSTEAD using "SPECIAL Relativity".  In one or more of his
books, he applied the LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION on the HIGH
ORBITAL SPEED of Mercury.
Larson TOTALLY REJECTED "General Relativity" as another
MATHEMATICAL FANTASY.  He also REJECTED most of "Special
Relativity", including the parts about "mass increases" near
the speed of light, and the use of the Lorentz Transform on
doppler shifts, (Those quasars with red-shifts greater than
1.000 REALLY ARE MOVING FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT,
although most of that motion is away from us IN TIME.).
In Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the
physical universe, there are THREE dimensions of time instead
of only one.  But two of those dimensions can NOT be measured
from our material half of the physical universe.  The one
dimension that we CAN measure is the CLOCK time.  At low
relative speeds, the values of the other two dimensions are
NEGLIGIBLE; but at high speeds, they become significant, and
the Lorentz Transformation must be used as a FUDGE FACTOR.
[Larson often used the term "COORDINATE TIME" when writing
about this.]
In regard to "mass increases", it has been PROVEN in
atomic accelerators that acceleration drops toward zero near
the speed of light.  But the formula for acceleration is
ACCELERATION = FORCE / MASS, (a = F/m).  Orthodox physicists
are IGNORING the THIRD FACTOR: FORCE.  In Larson's Theory,
mass STAYS CONSTANT and FORCE drops toward zero.  FORCE is
actually a MOTION, or COMBINATIONS of MOTIONS, or RELATIONS
BETWEEN MOTIONS, including INward and OUTward SCALAR MOTIONS.
The expansion of the universe, for example, is an OUTward
SCALAR motion inherent in the universe and NOT a result of
the so-called "Big Bang" (which is yet another MATHEMATICAL
FANTASY).
THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION
I wish to recommend to EVERYONE the book "THE UNIVERSE
OF MOTION", by Dewey B. Larson, 1984, North Pacific
Publishers, (P.O. Box 13255, Portland, Oregon  97213), 456
pages, indexed, hardcover.
It contains the Astrophysical portions of a GENERAL
UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe developed by that
author, an UNrecognized GENIUS, more than thirty years ago.
It contains FINAL SOLUTIONS to most ALL Astrophysical
mysteries, including the FORMATION of galaxies, binary and
multiple star systems, and solar systems, the TRUE ORIGIN of
the "3-degree" background radiation, cosmic rays, and gamma-
ray bursts, and the TRUE NATURE of quasars, pulsars, white
dwarfs, exploding galaxies, etc..
It contains what astronomers and astrophysicists are ALL
looking for, if they are ready to seriously consider it with
OPEN MINDS!
The following is an example of his Theory's success:
In his first book in 1959, "THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHYSICAL
UNIVERSE", Larson predicted the existence of EXPLODING
GALAXIES, several years BEFORE astronomers started finding
them.  They are a NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE of Larson's
comprehensive Theory.  And when QUASARS were discovered, he
had an immediate related explanation for them also.
GAMMA-RAY BURSTS
Astro-physicists and astronomers are still scratching
their heads about the mysterious GAMMA-RAY BURSTS.  They were
originally thought to originate from "neutron stars" in the
disc of our galaxy.  But the new Gamma Ray Telescope now in
Earth orbit has been detecting them in all directions
uniformly, and their source locations in space do NOT
correspond to any known objects, (except for a few cases of
directional coincidence).
Gamma-ray bursts are a NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE of the
GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe developed by
the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson.  According to page 386 of
his book "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION", published in 1984, the
gamma-ray bursts are coming from SUPERNOVA EXPLOSIONS in the
ANTI-MATTER HALF of the physical universe, which Larson calls
the "Cosmic Sector".  Because of the relationship between the
anti-matter and material halves of the physical universe, and
the way they are connected together, the gamma-ray bursts can
pop into our material half anywhere in space, seemingly at
random.  (This is WHY the source locations of the bursts do
not correspond with known objects, and come from all
directions uniformly.)
I wonder how close to us in space a source location
would have to be for a gamma-ray burst to kill all or most
life on Earth!  There would be NO WAY to predict one, NOR to
stop it!
Perhaps some of the MASS EXTINCTIONS of the past, which
are now being blamed on impacts of comets and asteroids, were
actually caused by nearby GAMMA-RAY BURSTS!
LARSONIAN Binary Star Formation
About half of all the stars in the galaxy in the
vicinity of the sun are binary or double.  But orthodox
astronomers and astrophysicists still have no satisfactory
theory about how they form or why there are so many of them.
But binary star systems are actually a LIKELY
CONSEQUENCE of the comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of
the physical universe developed by the late Physicist Dewey
B. Larson.
I will try to summarize Larsons explanation, which is
detailed in Chapter 7 of his book "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION"
and in some of his other books.
First of all, according to Larson, stars do NOT generate
energy by "fusion".  A small fraction comes from slow
gravitational collapse.  The rest results from the COMPLETE
ANNIHILATION of HEAVY elements (heavier than IRON).  Each
element has a DESTRUCTIVE TEMPERATURE LIMIT.  The heavier the
element is, the lower is this limit.  A star's internal
temperature increases as it grows in mass via accretion and
absorption of the decay products of cosmic rays, gradually
reaching the destructive temperature limit of lighter and
lighter elements.
When the internal temperature of the star reaches the
destructive temperature limit of IRON, there is a Type I
SUPERNOVA EXPLOSION!  This is because there is SO MUCH iron
present; and that is related to the structure of iron atoms
and the atom building process, which Larson explains in some
of his books [better than I can].
When the star explodes, the lighter material on the
outer portion of the star is blown outward in space at less
than the speed of light.  The heavier material in the center
portion of the star was already bouncing around at close to
the speed of light, because of the high temperature.  The
explosion pushes that material OVER the speed of light, and
it expands OUTWARD IN TIME, which is equivalent to INWARD IN
SPACE, and it often actually DISAPPEARS for a while.
Over long periods of time, both masses start to fall
back gravitationally.  The material that had been blown
outward in space now starts to form a RED GIANT star.  The
material that had been blown OUTWARD IN TIME starts to form a
WHITE DWARF star.  BOTH stars then start moving back toward
the "MAIN SEQUENCE" from opposite directions on the H-R
Diagram.
The chances of the two masses falling back into the
exact same location in space, making a single lone star
again, are near zero.  They will instead form a BINARY
system, orbiting each other.
According to Larson, a white dwarf star has an INVERSE
DENSITY GRADIENT (is densest at its SURFACE), because the
material at its center is most widely dispersed (blown
outward) in time.   This ELIMINATES the need to resort to
MATHEMATICAL FANTASIES about "degenerate matter", "neutron
stars", "black holes", etc..
LARSONIAN Solar System Formation
If the mass of the heavy material at the center of the
exploding star is relatively SMALL, then, instead of a single
white dwarf star, there will be SEVERAL "mini" white dwarf
stars (revolving around the red giant star, but probably
still too far away in three-dimensional TIME to be affected
by its heat, etc.).  These will become PLANETS!
In Chapter 7 of THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION, Larson used all
this information, and other principles of his comprehensive
GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, to derive
his own version of Bode's Law.
"Black Hole" FANTASY!
I heard that physicist Stephen W. Hawking recently
completed a theoretical mathematical analysis of TWO "black
holes" merging together into a SINGLE "black hole", and
concluded that the new "black hole" would have MORE MASS than
the sum of the two original "black holes".
Such a result should be recognized by EVERYone as a RED
FLAG, causing widespread DOUBT about the whole IDEA of "black
holes", etc.!
After reading Physicist Dewey B. Larson's books about
his comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical
universe, especially his book "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION", it is
clear to me that "black holes" are NOTHING more than
MATHEMATICAL FANTASIES!  The strange object at Cygnus X-1 is
just an unusually massive WHITE DWARF STAR, NOT the "black
hole" that orthodox astronomers and physicists so badly want
to "prove" their theory.
By the way, I do NOT understand why so much publicity is
being given to physicist Stephen Hawking.  The physicists and
astronomers seem to be acting as if Hawking's severe physical
problem somehow makes him "wiser".  It does NOT!
I wish the same attention had been given to Physicist
Dewey B. Larson while he was still alive.  Widespread
publicity and attention should NOW be given to Larson's
Theory, books, and organization (The International Society of
Unified Science).
ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PROPULSION
I heard of that concept many years ago, in connection
with UFO's and unorthodox inventors, but I never was able to
find out how or why they work, or how they are constructed.
I found a possible clue about why they might work on
pages 112-113 of the book "BASIC PROPERTIES OF MATTER", by
the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson, which describes part of
Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical
universe.  I quote one paragraph:
"As indicated in the preceding chapter, the development
of the theory of the universe of motion arrives at a totally
different concept of the nature of electrical resistance.
The electrons, we find, are derived from the environment.  It
was brought out in Volume I [Larson's book "NOTHING BUT
MOTION"] that there are physical processes in operation which
produce electrons in substantial quantities, and that,
although the motions that constitute these electrons are, in
many cases, absorbed by atomic structures, the opportunities
for utilizing this type of motion in such structures are
limited.  It follows that there is always a large excess of
free electrons in the material sector [material half] of the
universe, most of which are uncharged.  In this uncharged
state the electrons cannot move with respect to extension
space, because they are inherently rotating units of space,
and the relation of space to space is not motion.  In open
space, therefore, each uncharged electron remains permanently
in the same location with respect to the natural reference
system, in the manner of a photon.  In the context of the
stationary spatial reference system the uncharged electron,
like the photon, is carried outward at the speed of light by
the progression of the natural reference system.  All
material aggregates are thus exposed to a flux of electrons
similar to the continual bombardment by photons of radiation.
Meanwhile there are other processes, to be discussed later,
whereby electrons are returned to the environment.  The
electron population of a material aggregate such as the earth
therefore stabilizes at an equilibrium level."
Note that in Larson's Theory, UNcharged electrons are
also massLESS, and are basically photons of light of a
particular frequency (above the "unit" frequency) spinning
around one axis at a particular rate (below the "unit" rate).
("Unit velocity" is the speed of light, and there are
vibrational and rotational equivalents to the speed of light,
according to Larson's Theory.)  [I might have the "above" and
"below" labels mixed up.]
Larson is saying that outer space is filled with mass-
LESS UN-charged electrons flying around at the speed of
light!
If this is true, then the ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PROPULSION
fields of spacecraft might be able to interact with these
electrons, or other particles in space, perhaps GIVING them a
charge (and mass) and shooting them toward the rear to
achieve propulsion. (In Larson's Theory, an electrical charge
is a one-dimensional rotational vibration of a particular
frequency (above the "unit" frequency) superimposed on the
rotation of the particle.)
The paragraph quoted above might also give a clue to
confused meteorologists about how and why lightning is
generated in clouds.
SUPPRESSION of LARSONIAN Physics
The comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical
universe developed by the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson has
been available for more than 30 YEARS, published in 1959 in
his first book "THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE".
It is TOTALLY UN-SCIENTIFIC for Hawking, Wheeler, Sagan,
and the other SACRED PRIESTS of the RELIGION they call
"science" (or "physics", or "astronomy", etc.), as well as
the "scientific" literature and the "education" systems, to
TOTALLY IGNORE Larson's Theory has they have.
Larson's Theory has excellent explanations for many
things now puzzling orthodox physicists and astronomers, such
as gamma-ray bursts and the nature of quasars.
Larson's Theory deserves to be HONESTLY and OPENLY
discussed in the physics, chemistry, and astronomy journals,
in the U.S. and elsewhere.  And at least the basic principles
of Larson's Theory should be included in all related courses
at UW-EC, UW-Madison, Cambridge, Cornell University, and
elsewhere, so that students are not kept in the dark about a
worthy alternative to the DOGMA they are being fed.
For more information, answers to your questions, etc.,
please consult my CITED SOURCES (especially Larson's BOOKS).
UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
IMPORTANT partial summary is ENCOURAGED.
Robert E. McElwaine
B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
From: robink@hparc0.aus.hp.com (Robin Kenny)
Subject: Re: Boom!  Whoosh......
Organization: HP Australasian Response Centre (Melbourne)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8.5]
Lines: 26
David Fuzzy Wells (wdwells@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
: I love the idea of an inflatable 1-mile long sign.... It will be a
: really neat thing to see it explode when a bolt  (or even better, a
: Westford Needle!) comes crashing into it at 10 clicks a sec.
: <BOOM!>  Whooooooooshhhhhh......  <sputter, sputter>
: <okay, PRETEND it would make a sound!>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Just a thought... (let's pretend it IS INFLATED and PRESSURIZED) wouldn't
there be a large static electricity build up around the puncture?
If the metalization is behind a clear sandwich (ie. insulated) then the
deflating balloon would generate electrical interference - "noise"
By the way, any serious high velocity impact would simply cut a "Bugs
Bunny" hole through the wall, highly unlikely to "BOOM", and the fabric
would almost certainly be ripstop.
Regards,  Robin Kenny - a private and personal opinion, not in any way
endorsed, authorised or known by my employers.
______________________________________________________________________
What the heck would I know about Space? I'm stuck at the
bottom of this huge gravity well!
From: higgins@fnala.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Subject: NASA Ames server (was Re: Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4)
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Lines: 14
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnala.fnal.gov
In article <1993Apr26.152722.19887@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, kjenks@jsc.nasa.gov (Ken Jenks [NASA]) writes:
> I just posted the GIF files out for anonymous FTP on server ics.uci.edu.
[...]
> Sorry it took
> me so long to get these out, but I was trying for the Ames server,
> but it's out of space.
How ironic.
Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | "Treat your password like
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | your toothbrush.  Don't let
Bitnet:           HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  | anybody else use it--
Internet:       HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  | and get a new one every
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | six months."  --Cliff Stoll
From: tholen@newton.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: Command Loss Timer (Re: Galileo Update - 04/22/93)
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Hawaii
Lines: 23
Alan Carter writes:
>> 3.  On April 19, a NO-OP command was sent to reset the command loss timer to
>> 264 hours, its planned value during this mission phase.
> This activity is regularly reported in Ron's interesting posts. Could
> someone explain what the Command Loss Timer is?
The name is rather descriptive.  It's a command to the spacecraft that tells
it "If you don't hear from Earth after 264 hours, assume something is wrong
with your (the spacecraft) attitude, and go into a preprogrammed search mode
in an attempt to reacquire the signal from Earth."
The spacecraft and Earth are not in constant communication with each other.
Earth monitors the telemetry from the spacecraft, and if everything is fine,
there's no reason to send it any new information.  But from the spacecraft's
point of view, no information from Earth could mean either everything is
fine, or that the spacecraft has lost signal acquisition.  Just how long
should the spacecraft wait before it decides that something is wrong and
begins to take corrective action?  That "how long" is the command loss timer.
During relatively inactive cruise phases, the command loss timer can be set
to rather long values.  In this case, Earth is telling Galileo "expect to
hear back from us sometime within the next 264 hours".
From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Bursters.  WHere  are they.
Organization:  Wright State University
Lines: 16
I assume that can only be guessed at by the assumed energy of the
event and the 1/r^2 law.  So, if the 1/r^2 law is incorrect (assume
some unknown material [dark matter??] inhibits Gamma Ray propagation),
could it be possible that we are actually seeing much less energetic
events happening much closer to us?  The even distribution could
be caused by the characteristic propagation distance of gamma rays
being shorter then 1/2 the thickness of the disk of the galaxy.
Just some idle babbling,
--
Jim Batka  | Work Email:  BATKAJ@CCMAIL.DAYTON.SAIC.COM | Elvis is
| Home Email:  JBATKA@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU      |   DEAD!
64 years is 33,661,440 minutes ...
and a minute is a LONG time!  - Beatles:  _ Yellow Submarine_
From: khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida)
Subject: Re: Life on Mars???
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 25
NNTP-Posting-Host: hsc.usc.edu
In article <1993Apr26.184507.10511@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>I know it's only wishful thinking, with our current President,
>but this is from last fall:
>
>     "Is there life on Mars?  Maybe not now.  But there will be."
>        -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator, 24 August 1992
>
>-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
>      kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov  (713) 483-4368
Lets hear it for Dan Goldin...now if he can only convince the rest of
our federal government that the space program is a worth while
investment!
I hope that I will live to see the day we walk on Mars, but
we need to address the technical hurdles first!  If there's sufficient
interest, maybe we should consider starting a sci.space group
devoted to the technical analysis of long-duration human spaceflight.
Most of you regulars know that I'm interested in starting this analysis
as soon as possible.
Ken
khayash@hsc.usc.edu
USC School of Medicine, Class of 1994
From: djf@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Marvin Batty)
Subject: Re: What counntries do space surveillance?
Nntp-Posting-Host: cc_sysk
Organization: Starfleet, Coventry, UK
Lines: 35
The European Space Agency has involvement with remote earth
observation, and I presume this includes surveillance (optical etc.).
So it's not just the US/USSR(ex) who are in the game.
But what *is* the game? What can be done with space observation?
The military functions of missile spotting, troop spotting etc. are well
documented, but what about anything else?
The biggest eg I can think of is to get a  metal sensing sat over a
paying country and scan their territory for  precious metals.
More importantly, if radar can spot water vapour (clouds), presumably
a radar based sat will be capable of spotting rivers,open water and
*underground water* from space. This would be a positive life saver
for African or other drought affected countries. Implementing a
clean water and irrigation program would be of imense benifit to such
countries and should cut down mortalities considerably.
So how about it? Is there a charity or government agency that would
pay for a third world country to have their minerals and water deposits
mapped?
Or is this still sci-fi?
Mail replies would be great.
Thought for the day: Thermal energy needs water to make steam so sstick
it in the ocean!
--
****************************************************************************
Marvin Batty - djf@uk.ac.cov.cck
"And they shall not find those things, with a sort of rafia like base,
that their fathers put there just the night before. At about 8 O'clock!"
From: ralph.buttigieg@f635.n713.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Ralph Buttigieg)
Subject: Why not give $1 billion to first year-lo
Organization: Fidonet. Gate admin is fido@socs.uts.edu.au
Lines: 34
Original to: keithley@apple.com
G'day keithley@apple.com
21 Apr 93 22:25, keithley@apple.com wrote to All:
kc> keithley@apple.com (Craig Keithley), via Kralizec 3:713/602
kc> But back to the contest goals, there was a recent article in AW&ST
about a
kc> low cost (it's all relative...) manned return to the moon.  A General
kc> Dynamics scheme involving a Titan IV & Shuttle to lift a Centaur upper
kc> stage, LEV, and crew capsule.  The mission consists of delivering two
kc> unmanned payloads to the lunar surface, followed by a manned mission.
kc> Total cost:  US was $10-$13 billion.  Joint ESA(?)/NASA project was
$6-$9
kc> billion for the US share.
kc> moon for a year.   Hmmm.  Not really practical.  Anyone got a
kc> cheaper/better way of delivering 15-20 tonnes to the lunar surface
within
kc> the decade?  Anyone have a more precise guess about how much a year's
kc> supply of consumables and equipment would weigh?
Why not modify the GD plan into Zurbrin's Compact Moon Direct scheme? let
one of those early flight carry an O2 plant and make your own.
ta
Ralph
--- GoldED 2.41+
* Origin: VULCAN'S WORLD - Sydney Australia (02) 635-1204  3:713/6
(3:713/635)
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: sex education
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Lines: 44
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
From: by028@cleveland.freenet.edu (Gary V. Cavano)
Subject: Pantheism & Environmentalism
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Lines: 21
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?
From: morgan@socs.uts.edu.au
Subject: re: technology
Reply-To: morgan@socs.uts.edu.au
Organization: University of Technology Sydney
Lines: 39
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
From: qtm2w@virginia.edu (Quinn T. McCord)
Subject: Seven castaways w. Gilligan=Seven Deadly Sins
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 7
Gilligan = Sloth
Skipper = Anger
Thurston Howell III = Greed
Lovey Howell = Gluttony
Ginger = Lust
Professor = Pride
Mary Ann = Envy
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Subject: Daily Verse
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA
Lines: 4
Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the
kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 18:4
From: stanly@grok11.columbiasc.ncr.com (stanly)
Subject: Re: Elder Brother
Organization: NCR Corp., Columbia SC
Lines: 15
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.
From: davem@bnr.ca (Dave Mielke)
Subject: Does God love you?
Organization: Bell Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 416
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
From: nichael@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Subject: Re: Dead Sea Scrolls
Reply-To: ncramer@bbn.com
Organization: BBN, Interzone Office
Lines: 24
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?     ;)
From: jemurray@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John E Murray)
Subject: quality of Catholic liturgy
Organization: The Ohio State University
Lines: 37
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
From: gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham)
Subject: Re: Prophetic Warning to New York City
Organization: Computer Science Lab, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA.
Lines: 16
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
From: leonard@aix3090b.uky.edu (Leonard Lauria)
Subject: Re: Prayer in Jesus' Name
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Lines: 34
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.
From: KSTE@vm.cc.purdue.edu (Kerry Stephenson)
Subject: Request for research subjects
Organization: Purdue University
Lines: 14
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]
From: HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com
Subject: Re: Deification
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Lines: 19
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 ......?
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Subject: Daily Verse
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA
Lines: 4
Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above
yourselves.
Romans 12:10
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Revelations
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 29
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.
From: mussack@austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Subject: Re: Sin
Organization: IBM Austin
Lines: 29
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
From: jkellett@netcom.com (Joe Kellett)
Subject: Re: Opinions asked about rejection
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 22
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
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Prophetic Warning to New York City
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 65
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.
From: conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt)
Subject: Re: christians and aids
Organization: Applied Research Laboratories, University of Texas at Austin
Lines: 98
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
From: harwood@umiacs.umd.edu (David Harwood)
Subject: Re: Essene New Testament
Organization: UMIACS, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
Lines: 11
[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.
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Subject: Anybody out there?
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA
Lines: 30
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]
From: daniels@math.ufl.edu (TV's Big Dealer)
Subject: Prayer in Jesus' name
Organization: Me
Lines: 5
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.
From: rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe)
Subject: Re: What did Lazarus smell like?
Lines: 15
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
From: luomat@alleg.edu (Timothy J. Luoma)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???
Reply-To: luomat@alleg.edu
Organization: Allegheny College
Lines: 53
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
From: qtm2w@virginia.edu (Quinn T. McCord)
Subject: Questions from a newbie
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 56
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]
From: reid@cs.uiuc.edu (Jon Reid)
Subject: Re: Prophetic Warning to New York City
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Lines: 66
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 *
******************************************************************
From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal F Lillywhite)
Subject: Re: Ancient Books
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.
Lines: 106
{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.
From: anasaz!karl@anasazi.com (Karl Dussik)
Subject: Re: Is "Christian" a dirty word?
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Lines: 73
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
From: dleonar@andy.bgsu.edu (Pixie)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Organization: Hell
Lines: 35
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.
From: gsu0033@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Eric Molas)
Subject: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Lines: 59
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....."                  //
From: caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Lines: 37
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
From: whheydt@pbhya.pacbell.com (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: Ancient Books
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Lines: 21
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    |
From: teama@bucknell.edu (meyers@bucknell.edu)
Subject: Doug Sturm
Organization: Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA
Lines: 3
Is anyone familiar with Doug Sturm?
If so, please post what you think.
From: jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas)
Subject: Re: technology
Organization: Kulikauskas home
Lines: 28
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
From: jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas)
Subject: Re: post
Organization: Kulikauskas home
Lines: 30
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
From: jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas)
Subject: re: Pantheism and Environmentalism
Organization: Kulikauskas home
Lines: 31
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
From: jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas)
Subject: Easter: what's in a name? (was Re: New Testament Double Standard?
Organization: Kulikauskas home
Lines: 22
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
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: sex education
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Lines: 27
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
From: halsall@murray.fordham.edu (Paul Halsall)
Subject: Weirdness of Early Christians
Reply-To: halsall@murray.fordham.edu
Organization: J. Random Misconfigured Site
Lines: 76
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]
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: Hell
Organization: AI Programs, University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 22
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 :  ** *** **  <><
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???
Organization: AI Programs, University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 14
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 :  ** *** **  <><
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Legitimate bawdy humor; was: Re: sex education - it's a joke !
Organization: AI Programs, University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 28
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 :  ** *** **  <><
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: Easter: what's in a name? (was Re: New Testament Double Standard?
Reply-To: noye@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 26
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?
From: xx155@yfn.ysu.edu (Family Magazine Sysops)
Subject: WITNESS & PROOF OF CHRIST'S RESURRECTION
Reply-To: xx155@yfn.ysu.edu (Family Magazine Sysops)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Lines: 143
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!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe)
Subject: Re: quality of Catholic liturgy
Lines: 56
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
From: shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker)
Subject: Re: christians and aids
Organization: Shell Oil
Lines: 49
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
From: aaronc@athena.mit.edu (Aaron Bryce Cardenas)
Subject: Re: christians and aids
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 94
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
From: chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie)
Subject: Re: Essene New Testament
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Lines: 16
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
From: tbrent@florin.ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent)
Subject: Re: Pantheism & Environmentalism
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Lines: 26
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]
From: cpage@two-step.seas.upenn.edu (Carter C. Page)
Subject: Re: Prayer in Jesus' Name
Organization: University of Pennsylvania
Lines: 46
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
+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=+-=-+-=+-=-+=-+-=-+-=-+=-+-=
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe)
Subject: Re: Easter: what's in a name? (was Re: New Testament Double Standard?
Organization: Florida State University
Lines: 63
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
From: cpage@two-step.seas.upenn.edu (Carter C. Page)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."
Organization: University of Pennsylvania
Lines: 34
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
+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=+-=-+-=+-=-+=-+-=-+-=-+=-+-=
From: cpage@two-step.seas.upenn.edu (Carter C. Page)
Subject: Re: Reason vs. Revelation
Organization: University of Pennsylvania
Lines: 130
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]
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Salvation by deeds
Organization: Indiana University
Lines: 3
Another guess to your salvation riddle would be "saved".
Joe Fisher
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Deification
Organization: Indiana University
Lines: 14
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
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Revelations
Organization: Indiana University
Lines: 34
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 +   +
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Ancient Books
Organization: Indiana University
Lines: 8
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!
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Sin
Organization: Indiana University
Lines: 22
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.
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Unity
Organization: Indiana University
Lines: 126
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
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: Weirdness of Early Christians
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Lines: 58
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
From: Steve.Hayes@f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
Subject: Confession & communion
Lines: 14
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
From: Steve.Hayes@f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
Subject: Sin
Lines: 10
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
From: Steve.Hayes@f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
Subject: Pantheism & Environmentalism
Lines: 51
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
From: atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez)
Subject: Re: Ancient Books
Organization: National Association for the Disorganized
Lines: 20
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.
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe)
Subject: Re: Revelations
Organization: Florida State University
Lines: 11
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
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Prayer in Jesus' Name
Organization: Indiana University
Lines: 42
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]
From: xx155@yfn.ysu.edu (Family Magazine Sysops)
Subject: THE EMPTY TOMB...
Reply-To: xx155@yfn.ysu.edu (Family Magazine Sysops)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Lines: 218
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.
From: topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Subject: Re: old vs. new testament
Organization: Applied Presuppositionalism, Ltd.
Lines: 39
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
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Christ references in OT
Organization: Indiana University
Lines: 11
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
From: atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez)
Subject: Re: A question that has bee bothering me.
Organization: National Association for the Disorganized
Lines: 18
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.
From: atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez)
Subject: Re: Pantheism & Environmentalism
Organization: National Association for the Disorganized
Lines: 46
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.
From: atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez)
Subject: Re: Opinions asked about rejection
Organization: National Association for the Disorganized
Lines: 23
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.
From: mhsu@lonestar.utsa.edu (Melinda . Hsu   )
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Lines: 74
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]
From: topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Subject: Re: Revelations
Organization: Applied Presuppositionalism, Ltd.
Lines: 25
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
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Environmentalism and paganism
Organization: AI Programs, University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 12
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 :  ** *** **  <><
From: wquinnan@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Malcusco)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Organization: University of California, San Diego
Lines: 60
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
From: jonh@david.wheaton.edu (Jonathan Hayward)
Subject: Re: Pantheism & Environmentalism
Organization: Wheaton College, IL
Lines: 46
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            #
################################################################################
From: apodaca@spot.Colorado.EDU (mu'tafikah)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???
Organization: University of Blaspheme
Lines: 20
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
From: vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."
Organization: Case Western Reserve Univ. Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Lines: 31
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.
From: Deon.Strydom@f7.n7104.z5.fidonet.org (Deon Strydom)
Subject: Re: Prophetic Warning to New York City
Lines: 32
--> 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.
From: dwatson@cser.encore.com (Drew Watson)
Subject: Ethics vs. Freedom
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Lines: 70
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
=============================================================================
From: topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht)
Subject: Re: Revelations
Organization: Applied Presuppositionalism, Ltd.
Lines: 30
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
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: Easter: what's in a name? (was Re: New Testament Double Standard?
Organization: AI Programs, University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 31
(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]
From: halsall@murray.fordham.edu (Paul Halsall)
Subject: Catholic Liturgy
Reply-To: halsall@murray.fordham.edu
Organization: J. Random Misconfigured Site
Lines: 60
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
From: heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath)
Subject: Re: Pantheism & Environmentalism
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 14
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!
******************************************************************
From: dmn@kepler.unh.edu (There's a seeker born every minute.)
Subject: -= Hell =-
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Lines: 98
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
From: vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Organization: Case Western Reserve Univ. Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Lines: 56
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.
From: armstrng@cs.dal.ca (Stan Armstrong)
Subject: Re: Prodigal Son
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Lines: 18
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
From: reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???
Organization: The Claremont Graduate School
Lines: 29
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
From: reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???
Organization: The Claremont Graduate School
Lines: 40
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]
From: vic@mmalt.guild.org (Vic Kulikauskas)
Subject: Eternity of Hell (was Re: Hell)
Organization: Kulikauskas home
Lines: 11
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"?
From: luom@storm.cs.orst.edu (Luo Martha BaoMing)
Subject: summer program
Organization: Computer Science Department, Oregon State University
Lines: 8
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
From: jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas)
Subject: Re: Can sin "block" our prayers?
Organization: Kulikauskas home
Lines: 27
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
From: norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak)
Subject: Atheist's views on Christianity (was: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")
Reply-To: norris@mit.edu
Organization: l'organisation, c'est moi
Lines: 53
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.
From: vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Organization: Case Western Reserve Univ. Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Lines: 32
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.
From: lhep_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Leonidas Hepis)
Subject: Re: Prophecy on NYC
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York
Lines: 46
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
From: Nabeel Ahmad Rana <rana@rintintin.colorado.edu>
Subject: RFD: soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya moderated
Organization: UUNET Communications
Lines: 171
Reply-To: rana@rintintin.colorado.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: rodan.uu.net
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
From: aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Reply-To: aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker)
Organization: The National Capital Freenet
Lines: 58
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
==============================================================================
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: Pantheism & Environmentalism
Organization: AI Programs, University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 18
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 :  ** *** **  <><
From: jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas)
Subject: RE: Does God love you?
Organization: Kulikauskas home
Lines: 32
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
From: jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas)
Subject: quality of Catholic liturgy
Organization: Kulikauskas home
Lines: 34
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
From: jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas)
Subject: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."
Organization: Kulikauskas home
Lines: 29
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
From: maridai@comm.mot.com (Marida Ignacio)
Subject: Re: Every Lent He suffers to save us
Organization: trunking_fixed
Lines: 59
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
From: trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre)
Subject: Re: Atheist's views on Christianity (was: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Lines: 66
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...
--
From: jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas)
Subject: Weirdness of Early Christians
Organization: Kulikauskas home
Lines: 21
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
From:  (Phil Bowermaster)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Lines: 36
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.
From: isc10144@nusunix1.nus.sg (CHAN NICODEMUS)
Subject: Greek Wordprocessor/Database.
Organization: National University of Singapore
Lines: 25
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
From: lbutler@hubcap.clemson.edu (L Clator Butler Jr)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???
Organization: Clemson University
Lines: 11
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
From: darndt@nic.gac.edu (David Arndt)
Subject: Johnny Hart's (B.C. comic strip) mailing address?
Organization: Gustavus Adolphus College
Lines: 17
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
From: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Organization: University of South Africa
Lines: 51
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
From: bluelobster+@cmu.edu (David O Hunt)
Subject: Conversions
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 13
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
From: BOCHERC@hartwick.edu
Subject: Does God Love You?
Lines: 5
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
From: creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)
Subject: Re: quality of Catholic liturgy
Organization: Indiana University
Lines: 72
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
From: kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Certainty and Arrogance
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey
Lines: 114
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
From: caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Lines: 72
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
From: vek@allegra.att.com (Van Kelly)
Subject: Re: Prayer in Jesus' Name
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ, USA
Lines: 39
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.
From: heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath)
Subject: Nature of God (Re: Environmentalism and paganism)
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 26
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!
******************************************************************
From: psb@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Jr Phillip S Buckland)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."
Organization: Kansas State University
Lines: 168
[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
From: eggertj@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???
Reply-To: eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu
Organization: MIT Lincoln Lab - Group 41
Lines: 13
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)
From: jerryb@eskimo.com (Jerry Kaufman)
Subject: Re: Questions from a newbie
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
Lines: 27
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.
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe)
Subject: Re: Eternity of Hell (was Re: Hell)
Organization: Florida State University
Lines: 26
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
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Ancient Books
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services
Lines: 20
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
From: simon@giaeb.cc.monash.edu.au (simon shields)
Subject: SSPX schism ?
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Lines: 78
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|     |
\------------------------------------------------------------------------/
From: dsegard@nyx.cs.du.edu (Daniel Segard)
Subject: Re: Easter: what's in a name? (was Re: New Testament Double Stan
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Lines: 98
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]
From: christian@geneva.rutgers.edu
Subject: end of discussion: Easter
Lines: 2
I just about closed this once before.  I'm now doing so for real, after
tonight's posting.
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: 'Easter' not derived from 'Ishtar'
Organization: AI Programs, University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 22
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 :  ** *** **  <><
From: revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille)
Subject: Re: Easter: what's in a name? (was Re: New Testament Double Stan
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Lines: 40
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
From: tcsteven@iaserv.b1.ingr.com (Todd Stevens)
Subject: Rebuilding the Temple (was Re: Anybody out there?)
Organization: ingr
Lines: 14
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
From: marka@amber.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley)
Subject: Re: Easter: what's in a name? (was Re: New Testament Double Stan
Organization: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Lines: 30
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 ?
From: gifford@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Barbara Gifford)
Subject: The Mystery in the Paradox
Reply-To: gifford@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Barbara Gifford)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD
Lines: 9
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
From: randerso@acad1.sahs.uth.tmc.edu (Robert Anderson)
Subject: When are two people married in God's eyes?
Organization: Univ. Texas-Houston Allied Health Sci
Lines: 18
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
From: jsledd@ssdc.sas.upenn.edu (James Sledd)
Subject: proof of resurection
Organization: Social Science Computing
Lines: 44
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.
From: maridai@comm.mot.com (Marida Ignacio)
Subject: Re: Every Lent He suffers to save us
Organization: trunking_fixed
Lines: 17
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
From: vbv@r2d2.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Organization: Case Western Reserve Univ. Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Lines: 72
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.
From: king@ctron.com (John E. King)
Subject: Re: Eternity of Hell (was Re: Hell)
Organization: Cabletron Systems Inc.
Lines: 8
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
From: dhawk@netcom.com (David Hawkins)
Subject: Need Help with "They came for the Jews" quote
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Lines: 19
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
From: johnsd2@rpi.edu (Dan Johnson)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: not Sun Microsystems
Lines: 95
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.
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Clarification: Easter
Organization: AI Programs, University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 23
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 :  ** *** **  <><
From: halat@panther.bears (Jim Halat)
Subject: Re: Prophetic Warning to New York City
Reply-To: halat@panther.bears (Jim Halat)
Lines: 8
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]
From: JBF101@psuvm.psu.edu
Subject: same-sex marriages
Organization: Penn State University
Lines: 17
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]
From: wagner@grace.math.uh.edu (David Wagner)
Subject: Re: Eternity of Hell (was Re: Hell)
Organization: UH Dept of Math
Lines: 27
"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]
From: wquinnan@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Malcusco)
Subject: Re: A question that has bee bothering me.
Organization: University of California, San Diego
Lines: 56
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
From: mayne@ds3.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne)
Subject: Re: Ancient Books
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute
Lines: 25
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]
From: fox@graphics.cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Subject: Re: Pantheism & Environmentalism
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
Lines: 17
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.
From: shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Organization: Shell Oil
Lines: 109
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
From: jasons@atlastele.com (Jason Smith)
Subject: Re: Atheist's views on Christianity (was: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")
Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc.
Lines: 91
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        	|
From: mhsu@lonestar.utsa.edu (Melinda . Hsu   )
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Lines: 26
>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 |
--
From: shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker)
Subject: Re: SSPX schism ?
Organization: Shell Oil
Lines: 34
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]
From: bassili@cs.arizona.edu (Amgad Z. Bassili)
Subject: Need a book
Lines: 4
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>
From: HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com
Subject: Re: What did Lazarus smell like?
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Lines: 20
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]
From: aaronc@athena.mit.edu (Aaron Bryce Cardenas)
Subject: Re: Questions from a newbie
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 7
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.
From: rgolder@hoh.mbl.edu (Robert Golder)
Subject: Re: Pantheism & Environmentalism
Organization: Marine Biological Laboratory
Lines: 39
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...
From: kwyatt@ccscola.columbiasc.ncr.com (Kershner Wyatt)
Subject: Re: quality of Catholic liturgy
Organization: NCR Corp, E&M-Columbia, Columbia, SC
Lines: 79
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.
From: sciysg@nusunix1.nus.sg (Yung Shing Gene)
Subject: Mission Aviation Fellowship
Organization: National University of Singapore
Lines: 3
Hi,
Does anyone know anything about this group and what they
do? Any info would be appreciated. Thanks!
From: healta@saturn.wwc.edu (TAMMY R HEALY)
Subject: Re: SDA Doctrinal Distinctives
Organization: Walla Walla College
Lines: 15
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
From: xx155@yfn.ysu.edu (Family Magazine Sysops)
Subject: NATIONAL DAY Of PRAYER
Reply-To: xx155@yfn.ysu.edu (Family Magazine Sysops)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Lines: 54
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
From: shd2001@andy.bgsu.edu (Sherlette Dixon)
Subject: Christianity & Atheism:  an update
Organization: BGSU
Lines: 32
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
From: mike@nx39.mik.uky.edu (Mike Mattone)
Subject: Re: sex education
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Lines: 17
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
From: mcovingt@aisun2.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: Nature of God (Re: Environmentalism and paganism)
Organization: AI Programs, University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 18
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 :  ** *** **  <><
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Subject: Daily Verse
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA
Lines: 4
He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will
be my son.
Revelation 21:7
From: alvin@spot.Colorado.EDU (Kenneth Alvin)
Subject: Re: Certainty and Arrogance
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 66
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]
From: dsegard@nyx.cs.du.edu (Daniel Segard)
Subject: Re: Easter: what's in a name? (was Re: New Testament Double Stan
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Lines: 15
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"?
From: emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery)
Subject: Re: Can sin "block" our prayers?
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Lines: 28
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)
From: reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???
Organization: The Claremont Graduate School
Lines: 15
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
From: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jesus in your heart..."
Reply-To: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
Lines: 20
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
From: atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Organization: National Association for the Disorganized
Lines: 35
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.
From: mussack@austin.ibm.com (Chris Mussack)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Reply-To: mussack@austin.ibm.com
Lines: 14
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}
From: sschaff@roc.slac.stanford.edu (Stephen F. Schaffner)
Subject: Re: Ancient Books
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Lines: 18
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.
From: eng10205@nusunix1.nus.sg (LING SIEW WEE)
Subject: ONLINE BIBLE as bible study
Organization: National University of Singapore
Lines: 33
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   |                               *
***********************************************************************
From: sbuckley@sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Lines: 22
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.
From: cctr114@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Rea)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Lines: 68
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 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???
Organization: Washington University Astrophysics
Lines: 36
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.
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Eternity of Hell (was Re: Hell)
Organization: Indiana University
Lines: 98
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]
From: morgan@socs.uts.edu.au
Subject: Re: Prophetic Warning to New York City
Reply-To: morgan@socs.uts.edu.au
Organization: University of Technology Sydney
Lines: 49
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
From: ruthless@panix.com (Ruth Ditucci)
Subject: Losing your temper is not a Christian trait
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Lines: 13
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.
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Certainty and Arrogance
Organization: FNAL/AD/Net
Lines: 70
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.
From: gerhard@vmars.tuwien.ac.at (Gerhard Fohler)
Subject: phone number of wycliffe translators UK
Organization: Technical University Vienna, Dept. for Realtime Systems, AUSTRIA
Lines: 15
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]
From: 18669@bach.udel.edu (Steven R Hoskins)
Subject: Some questions from a new Christian
Organization: University of Delaware
Lines: 40
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]
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5
Organization: Florida State University
Lines: 227
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]
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Subject: Daily Verse
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA
Lines: 4
How much better to get wisdom than gold, to choose understanding rather
than silver!
Proverbs 16:16
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (boundary)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 50
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)
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: hearing sinners
Lines: 18
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
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: John 3:16 paraphrased
Lines: 25
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.
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (boundary)
Subject: Re: Certainty and Arrogance
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 54
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)
From: poram%mlsma@att.att.com
Subject: WBT (WAS: Re: phone number of wycliffe translators UK)
Organization: AT&T
Lines: 36
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)
From: sliew@ee.mu.OZ.AU (Selbyn Liew)
Subject: Re: An agnostic's question
Organization: Dept of E & E Eng, U of M
Lines: 79
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
==========================================================================
From: fraseraj@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Andrew J Fraser)
Subject: Religious wars
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Science Dept.
Lines: 33
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]
From: salaris@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrabbits)
Subject: Re: Hell_2:  Black Sabbath
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Lines: 25
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
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Subject: Re: phone number of wycliffe translators UK
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York
Lines: 38
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
From: sfp@lemur.cit.cornell.edu (Sheila Patterson)
Subject: Re: Losing your temper is not a Christian trait
Organization: Cornell University CIT
Lines: 10
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
From: belville@athena.mit.edu (Sharon Belville)
Subject: Re: God-shaped hole (was Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 13
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
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Subject: Daily Verse
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA
Lines: 4
For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister
and mother."
Matthew 12:50
From: maridai@comm.mot.com (Marida Ignacio)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jesus in your heart..."
Organization: trunking_fixed
Lines: 34
|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
From: david-s@hsr.no (David A. Sjoen)
Subject: 'Moody Monthly' and 'Moody' the same?
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Lines: 15
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)
From: tom_milligan@rainbow.mentorg.com
Subject: Anyone with L'Abri Experiences
Organization: Mentor Graphics Corporation
Lines: 6
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
From: caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Lines: 88
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
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (boundary)
Subject: Re: Atheist's views on Christianity (was: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 52
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)
From: JBUDDENBERG@vax.cns.muskingum.edu (Jimmy Buddenberg)
Subject: Revelations - BABYLON?
Organization: Muskingum College
Lines: 34
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]
From: Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca (Desiree Bradley)
Subject: Doing the work of God??!!)
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Lines: 33
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]
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (boundary)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 55
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)
From: jcj@tellabs.com (jcj)
Subject: Re: When are two people married
Organization: Huh?  Whuzzat?
Lines: 14
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
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Subject: Re: Atheist's views on Christianity (was: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")
Organization: University of Georgia - UCNS
Lines: 32
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
From: reid@cs.uiuc.edu (Jon Reid)
Subject: Cell Church discussion group
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Lines: 15
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 *
******************************************************************
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell
Organization: Freshman, Civil Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 16
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
From: JJMARVIN@pucc.princeton.edu
Subject: prayers and advice requested on family problem
Organization: Princeton University
Lines: 70
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)
From: mussack@austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Subject: Re: Christian's need for Christianity
Lines: 44
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
From: reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???
Organization: The Claremont Graduate School
Lines: 34
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
From: reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: proof of resurection
Organization: The Claremont Graduate School
Lines: 30
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
From: Bjorn.B.Larsen@delab.sintef.no (A 369)
Subject: Question: Jesus alone, Oneness
Reply-To: bjorn.b.larsen@delab.sintef.no
Organization: delab
Lines: 31
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
______________________________________________________________________
From: mussack@austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Subject: Re: sex education
Organization: IBM Austin
Lines: 9
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
From: reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???
Organization: The Claremont Graduate School
Lines: 58
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
From: jono@mac-ak-24.rtsg.mot.com (Jon Ogden)
Subject: Re: Latest on Branch Davidians
Organization: Motorola LPA Development
Lines: 23
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...
----------------
From: sun075!Gerry.Palo@uunet.uu.net (Gerry Palo)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."
Lines: 22
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)
From: lfoard@hopper.virginia.edu (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Assurance of Hell
Organization: ITC/UVA Community Access UNIX/Internet Project
Lines: 43
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  . . . .
From: parkin@Eng.Sun.COM (Michael Parkin)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???
Reply-To: parkin@Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 57
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.
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: etymology of "Easter"
Lines: 53
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]
From: lmvec@westminster.ac.uk (William Hargreaves)
Subject: Help
Organization: University of Westminster
Lines: 25
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 |
============================================
From: norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak)
Subject: Re: Interfaith weddings
Reply-To: norris@mit.edu
Organization: l'organisation, c'est moi
Lines: 10
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
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: Paul on weekly collections
Lines: 15
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
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: about Eliz C Prophet
Lines: 21
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
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: Chanting of the Passion
Lines: 14
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
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: muslim tithe; sexism in Genesis 2
Lines: 33
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
From: jcj@tellabs.com (jcj)
Subject: Re: proof of resurection
Organization: Huh?  Whuzzat?
Lines: 22
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]
From: cs89mcd@brunel.ac.uk (Michael C Davis)
Subject: Re: Help
Organization: Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK
Lines: 27
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)
From: jkjec@westminster.ac.uk (Shazad Barlas)
Subject: iterations of the bible
Organization: University of Westminster
Lines: 53
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]
From: hall@vice (Hal F Lillywhite;627-3877;59-360;LP=A;YApG)
Subject: Re: Help
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.
Lines: 73
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]
From: alvin@spot.Colorado.EDU (Kenneth Alvin)
Subject: Re: Assurance of Hell
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 31
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
From: drt@athena.mit.edu (David R Tucker)
Subject: Re: Question: Jesus alone, Oneness
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 89
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]
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse
Lines: 6
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
From: max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb)
Subject: Re: A question that has bee bothering me.
Organization: Cypress Semi, Beaverton OR
Lines: 47
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
From: marka@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?
Organization: FL
Lines: 22
>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              |
From: rjb@akgua.att.com
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?
Organization: AT&T
Lines: 69
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]
From: bluelobster+@cmu.edu (David O Hunt)
Subject: Re: Serbian genocide Work of God?
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 24
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.
From: caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Lines: 44
(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
From: will@futon.webo.dg.com (Will Taber)
Subject: Re: Being right about messiahs
Lines: 41
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               |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: shd2001@andy.bgsu.edu (Sherlette Dixon)
Subject: Was Jesus Black?
Organization: BGSU
Lines: 43
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]
From: seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 38
{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
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Hell_2:  Black Sabbath
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 8
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.
From: u9126619@athmail1.causeway.qub.ac.uk
Subject: Could anyone answer this question???
Organization: Free University of Berlin, Germany
Lines: 41
Cc: u9126619@athmail1.causeway.qub.ac.uk
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]
From: bassili@cs.arizona.edu (Amgad Z. Bassili)
Subject: Copt-Net Newsletter[4]
Lines: 18
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
From: robp@landru.network.com (Rob Peglar)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???
Reply-To: robp@landru.network.com
Organization: Network Systems Corporation
Lines: 71
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.
From: rcfec@westminster.ac.uk (James Holland)
Subject: Re: Help
Organization: University of Westminster
Lines: 41
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)
From: dotsonm@dmapub.dma.org (Mark Dotson)
Subject: Re: Hell_2:  Black Sabbath
Organization: Dayton Microcomputer Association; Dayton, Ohio
Lines: 10
: 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)
From: stoney@oyster.smcm.edu (Stanley Toney)
Subject: Re: Am I going to Hell?
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Lines: 45
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.
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?
Organization: AI Programs, University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 39
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]
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Re: Assurance of Hell
Lines: 29
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)
From: revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille)
Subject: Re: Serbian genocide Work of God?
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Lines: 22
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
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (boundary, the catechist)
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 54
>>"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)
From: phs431d@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Organization: Monash University - Melbourne. Australia.
Lines: 96
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.
From: ss6349@csc.albany.edu (Steven H. Schimmrich)
Subject: Looking for Christians in Urbana, Illinois...
Distribution: usa
Organization: Department of Geological Sciences, SUNY at Albany
Lines: 12
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."
From: XOPR131@maccvm.corp.mot.com (Gerald McPherson)
Subject: Re: Am I going to Hell?
Lines: 42
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.
============================
From: max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb)
Subject: Re: Atheist's views on Christianity (was: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")
Organization: Cypress Semi, Beaverton OR
Lines: 55
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]
From: u2i02@seq1.cc.keele.ac.uk (RJ Pomeroy)
Subject: Re: Losing your temper is not a Christian trait
Lines: 72
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!
From: jono@mac-ak-24.rtsg.mot.com (Jon Ogden)
Subject: Re: Hell_2:  Black Sabbath
Organization: Motorola LPA Development
Lines: 38
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.
From: jono@mac-ak-24.rtsg.mot.com (Jon Ogden)
Subject: Re: Losing your temper is not a Christian trait
Organization: Motorola LPA Development
Lines: 26
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.
From: djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson)
Subject: Re: harrassed at work, could use some prayers
Organization: =CSE Dept., U.C. San Diego
Lines: 63
(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...
From: gchin@ssf.Eng.Sun.COM (Gary Chin)
Subject: Christians that are not church members
Reply-To: gchin@ssf.Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Lines: 13
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 |
|-------------------|
From: khan0095@nova.gmi.edu (Mohammad Razi Khan)
Subject: Re: Am I going to Hell?
Organization: GMI Engineering&Management Institute, Flint, MI
Lines: 32
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
From: khan0095@nova.gmi.edu (Mohammad Razi Khan)
Subject: Re: Bible Unsuitable for New Christians
Organization: GMI Engineering&Management Institute, Flint, MI
Lines: 19
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
From: lmvec@westminster.ac.uk (William Hargreaves)
Subject: Re: Help
Organization: University of Westminster
Lines: 26
: > 	   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 |
============================================
From: scott@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Scott Shalkowski)
Subject: Re: Doing the work of God??!!)
Organization: The University of Western Australia
Lines: 31
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
From: gchin@ssf.Eng.Sun.COM (Gary Chin)
Subject: National Day of Prayer,5/6/93
Reply-To: gchin@ssf.Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Lines: 20
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 |
|-------------------|
From: MANDTBACKA@finabo.abo.fi (Mats Andtbacka)
Subject: Re: Hell_2: Black Sabbath
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
Lines: 12
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!"
From: ide!twelker@uunet.uu.net (Steve Twelker)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Organization: Interactive Development Environmenmts, SF
Lines: 63
>	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]
From: kramersc@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Kramer)
Subject: Re: Daily Verse
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Lines: 14
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
From: nichael@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Subject: Re: Some questions from a new Christian
Reply-To: ncramer@bbn.com
Organization: BBN, Interzone Office
Lines: 49
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
From: tsmith@cs.stanford.edu (Todd Michael Smith)
Subject: God-shaped hole (was Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Lines: 16
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
From: J.Hale@latrobe.edu.au
Subject: Re: Can sin "block" our prayers?
Organization: VAX Cluster, Computer Centre, La Trobe University
Lines: 35
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
_____________________________________________________________________________
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Subject: Daily Verse
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA
Lines: 4
Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of
sins.
IPeter 4:8
From: phs431d@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Organization: Monash University - Melbourne. Australia.
Lines: 42
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.
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Ancient Books
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services
Lines: 43
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
From: sdittman@liberty.uc.wlu.edu (Scott Dittman)
Subject: Re: Some questions from a new Christian
Organization: Washington & Lee University
Lines: 21
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
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?
Organization: AI Programs, University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 17
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 :  ** *** **  <><
From: smayo@world.std.com (Scott A Mayo)
Subject: Re: proof of resurection
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Lines: 33
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.
From: pwhite@empros.com (Peter White)
Subject: Some questions from a new Christian
Lines: 50
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
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: RE: Does God love you?
Organization: FNAL/AD/Net
Lines: 70
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
From: af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.)
Subject: MAJOR VIEWS OF THE TRINITY
Organization: Youngstown State/Youngstown Free-Net
Lines: 224
[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
From: cs89mcd@brunel.ac.uk (Michael C Davis)
Subject: Love Europe
Organization: Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK
Lines: 4
Are any readers of s.r.c. going to the Love Europe congress in Germany this
July?
--
Michael Davis (cs89mcd@brunel.ac.uk)
From: hedrick@cs.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: Doing the work of God??!!)
Lines: 59
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.
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Subject: Daily Verse
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA
Lines: 6
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
From: labson@borneo.corp.sgi.com (Joel Labson)
Subject: Maybe?????
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Lines: 17
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]
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Hell_2:  Black Sabbath
Organization: FNAL/AD/Net
Lines: 20
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
From: jono@mac-ak-24.rtsg.mot.com (Jon Ogden)
Subject: Re: Help
Organization: Motorola LPA Development
Lines: 87
> 	   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...
----------------
From: parkin@Eng.Sun.COM (Michael Parkin)
Subject: Re: Being right about messiahs
Reply-To: parkin@Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 71
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
From: bohja@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Subject: WITCHES AND WICCAN:  your opinion
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire
Lines: 19
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]
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Assurance of Hell
Organization: FNAL/AD/Net
Lines: 142
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
From: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Organization: University of South Africa
Lines: 36
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
From: mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server)
Subject: Re: src
Lines: 39
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
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Lines: 86
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]
From: vbv@nomad.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Organization: Case Western Reserve Univ. Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Lines: 90
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.
From: mussack@austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Subject: Re: Questioning Authority
Lines: 60
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.)
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Organization: Indiana University
Lines: 13
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
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Cell Church discussion group
Organization: Indiana University
Lines: 7
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
From: KEMPJA@rcwusr.bp.com
Subject: Re: Religious wars
Organization: BP Research, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 30
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
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: prayers and advice requested on family problem
Organization: Indiana University
Lines: 34
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
From: rbutera@owlnet.rice.edu (Robert John Butera)
Subject: Re: about Eliz C Prophet
Organization: Rice University
Lines: 33
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
From: kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko)
Subject: Re: Atheist's views on Christianity (was: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")
Organization: University of Oulu, Finland
Lines: 183
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.
From: healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy)
Subject: Re: Branch Davidians info
Organization: Walla Walla College
Lines: 40
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
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (boundary, the catechist)
Subject: Re: Assurance of Hell
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 13
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)
From: schnitzi@osceola.cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell
Organization: University of Central Florida
Lines: 70
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]
From: cs89mcd@brunel.ac.uk (Michael C Davis)
Subject: Re: WBT (WAS: Re: phone number of wycliffe translators UK)
Organization: Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK
Lines: 17
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)
From: jprzybyl@skidmore.edu (jennifer przybylinski)
Subject: Re: Hell_2:  Black Sabbath
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY
Lines: 14
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
From: marka@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley)
Subject: Re: hearing sinners
Organization: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Lines: 24
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              |
From: hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?
Organization: University of South Africa
Lines: 27
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
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: Latest on Branch Davidians
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Lines: 36
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]
From: reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: proof of resurection
Organization: The Claremont Graduate School
Lines: 51
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
From: caralv@caralv.auto-trol.com (Carol Alvin)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Lines: 54
> 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
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: iterations of the bible
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Lines: 24
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]
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Serbian genocide Work of God?
Organization: Freshman, Civil Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 57
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
From: mwhaefne@infonode.ingr.com (Mark W. Haefner)
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Lines: 27
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
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Cell Church discussion group
Organization: Indiana University
Lines: 5
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
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: Christians that are not church members
Organization: Indiana University
Lines: 51
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
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?
Reply-To: noye@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 51
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]
From: spebcg@thor.cf.ac.uk (BCG)
Subject: Re: Knowing God's Will
Organization: uwcc
Lines: 20
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
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: harrassed at work, could use some prayers
Reply-To: noye@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 22
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"
_______________________________________________________________________________
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: Am I going to Hell?
Reply-To: noye@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 51
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]
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (boundary, the catechist)
Subject: Re: Am I going to Hell?
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 45
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)
From: johnsd2@rpi.edu (Dan Johnson)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: not Sun Microsystems
Lines: 148
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.
From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate)
Subject: Re: Was Jesus Black?
Lines: 45
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."
From: FSSPR@acad3.alaska.edu (Hardcore Alaskan)
Subject: Looking for videotapes
Lines: 44
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]
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: Am I going to Hell?
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
Lines: 17
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
From: trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre)
Subject: Theists And Objectivity
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Lines: 90
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]
From: reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???
Organization: The Claremont Graduate School
Lines: 65
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
From: regy105@cantva.canterbury.ac.nz (James Haw)
Subject: Any good electronic Christian magazine?
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
Lines: 9
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.
From: shimpei@leland.Stanford.EDU (Shimpei Yamashita)
Subject: Survey: Faith vs. Reason
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 55
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]
From: jkellett@netcom.com (Joe Kellett)
Subject: Re: sex education
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 20
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
From: khan0095@nova.gmi.edu (Mohammad Razi Khan)
Subject: Re: Doing the work of God??!!)
Organization: GMI Engineering&Management Institute, Flint, MI
Lines: 33
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]
From: reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Q the Lost Gospel
Organization: The Claremont Graduate School
Lines: 5
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
From: cbc5b@virginia.edu (Charles Campbell)
Subject: Re: Was Jesus Black?
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 21
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
From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Subject: Re: Christians that are not church members
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Lines: 69
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.
From: todd@nickel.laurentian.ca
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?y
Organization: Laurentian University
Lines: 48
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]
From: aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Reply-To: aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker)
Organization: The National Capital Freenet
Lines: 106
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
==============================================================================
From: marka@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley)
Subject: Re: Was Jesus Black?
Organization: FL
Lines: 31
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              |
From: fostma@saturn.wwc.edu (Mark Gregory Foster)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5
Organization: Walla Walla College
Lines: 60
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
From: cs89mcd@brunel.ac.uk (Michael C Davis)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?
Organization: Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK
Lines: 62
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!
From: alvin@spot.Colorado.EDU (Kenneth Alvin)
Subject: Re: Certainty and Arrogance
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 48
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]
From: shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker)
Subject: Re: Easter: what's in a name? (was Re: New Testament Double Stan
Organization: Shell Oil
Lines: 36
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
From: jsledd@ssdc.sas.upenn.edu (James Sledd)
Subject: intolerance - eternal life - etc
Organization: Social Science Computing
Lines: 89
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?
From: tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard)
Subject: Re: Can sin "block" our prayers?
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Lines: 24
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
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
Reply-To: mussack@austin.ibm.com
Lines: 38
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
From: aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Reply-To: aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker)
Organization: The National Capital Freenet
Lines: 22
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
==============================================================================
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Subject: Rom 9-11 article ready..requests
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 14
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.
From: phs431d@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Organization: Monash University - Melbourne. Australia.
Lines: 41
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.
From: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jesus in your heart..."
Reply-To: whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
Lines: 7
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
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: Watt misquoted
Lines: 30
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
From: MANDTBACKA@finabo.abo.fi (Mats Andtbacka)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
Lines: 65
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!"
From: k053730@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Philip G. Sells)
Subject: Hebrew grammar texts--choose English or German?
Organization: Kalamazoo College Alumni Association
Lines: 28
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]
From: mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server)
Subject: Re: cause
Lines: 38
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
From: rsteele@adam.ll.mit.edu (Rob Steele)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."
Reply-To: rob@ll.mit.edu
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Lines: 17
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
From: rsteele@adam.ll.mit.edu (Rob Steele)
Subject: Re: Atheist's views on Christianity (was: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")
Reply-To: rob@ll.mit.edu
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Lines: 19
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
From: rsteele@adam.ll.mit.edu (Rob Steele)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?
Reply-To: rob@ll.mit.edu
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Lines: 15
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]
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe)
Subject: Re: Some questions from a new Christian
Organization: Florida State University
Lines: 27
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
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: When are two people married
Lines: 128
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
From: rbutera@owlnet.rice.edu (Robert John Butera)
Subject: Book Review Wanted
Organization: Rice University
Lines: 18
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
From: oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE?
Organization: Washington University Astrophysics
Lines: 4
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
From: halsall@murray.fordham.edu (Paul Halsall)
Subject: Bible Unsuitable for New Christians
Reply-To: halsall@murray.fordham.edu
Organization: J. Random Misconfigured Site
Lines: 42
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
From: aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker)
Subject: Re: Nature of God (Re: Environmentalism and paganism)
Reply-To: aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker)
Organization: The National Capital Freenet
Lines: 31
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]
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: Re: SSPX schism ?
Organization: none
Lines: 240
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]
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: Re: quality of Catholic liturgy
Organization: none
Lines: 13
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.
From: news@cbnewsk.att.com
Subject: Re: anger
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs
Lines: 31
>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
From: abigail@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Shawn Abigail)
Subject: Re: ONLINE BIBLE as bible study
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON
Lines: 54
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
From: cox@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (Sherman Cox)
Subject: Re: SDA Doctrinal Distinctives
Organization: NASA/MSFC
Lines: 21
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
From: stovall@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Steven Stovall)
Subject: Re: Rebuilding the Temple (was Re: Anybody out there?)
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Lines: 25
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
From: mdbs@ms.uky.edu (no name)
Subject: tuff to be a Christian?
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Lines: 63
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.
From:  (Phil Bowermaster)
Subject: C. S. Lewis is OK (was Ancient Books)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Lines: 49
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.
From: brownli@ohsu.edu@ohsu.edu (Liane Brown)
Subject: DOCTRINE OF GOD
Organization: Oregon Health Sciences University
Lines: 111
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
From: coffey@cptc2.neep.wisc.edu (Robert L. Coffey)
Subject: Re: Questions...
Organization: Univ. of Wisconsin,Madison., NEEP Department
Lines: 35
>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.
From: Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca (Desiree Bradley)
Subject: Being right about messiahs
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Lines: 39
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]
From: jdt@voodoo.ca.boeing.com (Jim Tomlinson (jimt II))
Subject: An agnostic's question
Organization: BoGART To You Buddy, Bellevue, WA
Lines: 24
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
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Subject: Re: phone number of wycliffe translators UK
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York
Lines: 14
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
From: ide!twelker@uunet.uu.net (Steve Twelker)
Subject: Esotericism
Organization: Interactive Development Environmenmts, SF
Lines: 11
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
From: kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Re: Certainty and Arrogance
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey
Lines: 122
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
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5
Organization: Freshman, Civil Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 34
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]
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: Thinking about heaven
Lines: 20
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
From: jemurray@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John E Murray)
Subject: quality of Catholic liturgy
Organization: The Ohio State University
Lines: 20
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
From: ata@hfsi.hfsi.com ( John Ata)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???
Reply-To: <news@opl.com>
Organization: HFSI
Lines: 51
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
From: salaris@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrabbits)
Subject: Re: Hell_2:  Black Sabbath
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Lines: 28
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
From: rayssd!esther@uunet.uu.net (Esther A. Paris)
Subject: harrassed at work, could use some prayers
Reply-To: esther@demand.ed.ray.com
Organization: Raytheon Equipment Division, Marlboro, MA
Lines: 110
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
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: Re: SSPX schism ?
Organization: none
Lines: 138
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.
From: news@cbnewsk.att.com
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs
Lines: 23
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
From: wagner@grace.math.uh.edu (David Wagner)
Subject: Re: Certainty and Arrogance
Organization: UH Dept of Math
Lines: 162
"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.
From: drt@athena.mit.edu (David R Tucker)
Subject: Re: Question: Jesus alone, Oneness
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 52
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]
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse
Lines: 6
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
From: mchamberland@violet.uwaterloo.ca (Marc Chamberland)
Subject: Re: God-shaped hole (was Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")
Organization: University of Waterloo
Lines: 17
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
From: MNHCC@cunyvm.bitnet (Marty Helgesen)
Subject: RADIO FREE THULCANDRA  (was Dungeons & Dragons: An author's view
Organization: City University of New York
Lines: 18
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?"
From: sfp@lemur.cit.cornell.edu (Sheila Patterson)
Subject: Re: Being right about messiahs
Organization: Cornell University CIT
Lines: 14
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
From: littlejs@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Jeffrey S Little)
Subject: Re: Revelations - BABYLON?
Reply-To: littlejs@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Jeffrey S Little)
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
Lines: 38
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
From: jsledd@ssdc.sas.upenn.edu (James Sledd)
Subject: Afterlife
Organization: Social Science Computing
Lines: 23
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
From: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Subject: HELPHELP Part2
Reply-To: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Lines: 52
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
From: news@cbnewsk.att.com
Subject: Re: An agnostic's question
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs
Lines: 42
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
From: news@cbnewsk.att.com
Subject: Re: Bible Unsuitable for New Christians
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs
Lines: 8
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
From: HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com
Subject: Re: Need a book
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Lines: 37
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]
From: simon@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au
Subject: Saint Story St. Aloysius Gonzaga
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Lines: 113
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       |\|/|     |
From: rjs2@po.cwru.edu (Richard J. Szanto)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?
Reply-To: rjs2@po.cwru.edu (Richard J. Szanto)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 27
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
From: Rick_Granberry@pts.mot.com (Rick Granberry)
Subject: Pastoral Authority
Reply-To: Rick_Granberry@pts.mot.com (Rick Granberry)
Organization: Motorola Paging and Telepoint Systems Group
Lines: 17
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)
From: tbrent@ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent)
Subject: Am I going to Hell?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Lines: 12
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
From: kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu
Subject: Re: Certainty and Arrogance
Lines: 112
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]
From: stephen@mont.cs.missouri.edu (Stephen Montgomery-Smith)
Subject: Re: Latest on Branch Davidians
Organization: University of Missouri
Lines: 63
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
From: jsledd@ssdc.sas.upenn.edu (James Sledd)
Subject: Serbian genocide Work of God?
Organization: Social Science Computing
Lines: 13
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.
From: conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt)
Subject: Goodbye, but not forever
Organization: Applied Research Laboratories, University of Texas at Austin
Lines: 46
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
From: reedr@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???
Organization: The Claremont Graduate School
Lines: 9
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.
From: jcj@tellabs.com (jcj)
Subject: Re: Losing your temper is not a Christian trait
Organization: Huh?  Whuzzat?
Lines: 12
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
From: revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille)
Subject: Re: Maybe?????
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Lines: 14
: [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
From: jerryb@eskimo.com (Jerry Kaufman)
Subject: Re: prayers and advice requested on family problem
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
Lines: 11
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.
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Help
Lines: 44
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]
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's e
Reply-To: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Lines: 8
|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?
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Reply-To: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Lines: 40
>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]
From: mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Subject: Re: proof of resurection
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.
Lines: 22
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
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: Re: SSPX schism ?
Organization: none
Lines: 52
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.
From: vbv@lor.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Organization: Case Western Reserve Univ. Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Lines: 28
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.
From: Rick_Granberry@pts.mot.com (Rick Granberry)
Subject: Re: Help
Reply-To: Rick_Granberry@pts.mot.com (Rick Granberry)
Organization: Motorola Paging and Telepoint Systems Group
Lines: 46
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)
From: reid@cs.uiuc.edu (Jon Reid)
Subject: Re: Cell Church discussion group
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Lines: 18
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 *
******************************************************************
From: andrew@srsune.shlrc.mq.edu.au (Andrew McVeigh)
Subject: Re: proof of resurection
Organization: SHLRC, Macquarie University
Lines: 74
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
From: lmh@juliet.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.)
Subject: Re: catholic church poland
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 10
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
From: ata@hfsi.hfsi.com ( John Ata)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???
Reply-To: <news@opl.com>
Organization: HFSI
Lines: 40
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]
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5
Organization: Florida State University
Lines: 27
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]
From: dohertyl@dcs.gla.ac.uk (dohertyl)
Subject: (none)
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Science Dept.
Distribution: uk
Return-Path: <dohertyl@uk.ac.gla.dcs>
X-Mailer: mail-news 2.0.5
Lines: 2
I AM Satan!
From: Gene.Gross@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Gene Gross)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Lines: 60
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]
From: ata@hfsi.hfsi.com ( John Ata)
Subject: Re: -= Hell =-
Reply-To: <news@opl.com>
Organization: HFSI
Lines: 19
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
From: ata@hfsi.hfsi.com ( John Ata)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???
Reply-To: <news@opl.com>
Organization: HFSI
Lines: 49
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
From: aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Reply-To: aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker)
Organization: The National Capital Freenet
Lines: 63
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
==============================================================================
From: wjhovi01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: tuff to be a Christian?
Organization: University of Louisville
Lines: 24
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
From: wjhovi01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Hebrew grammar texts--choose English or German?
Organization: University of Louisville
Lines: 37
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.
From: wquinnan@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Malcusco)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?
Organization: University of California, San Diego
Lines: 59
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
From: shredder@telerama.pgh.pa.us (Ed Sayre)
Subject: Orthodox List
Organization: Telerama Public Access Internet, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 7
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
From: mauaf@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr P D Simmons)
Subject: Why religion and which religion?
Organization: Computing Services, University of Warwick, UK
Lines: 46
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]
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Lines: 155
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]
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's eyes?
Organization: AI Programs, University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 17
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.)