HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CHRISTIA%ASUACAD.BITNET@vaxf.Colorado.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:03:22 -0600
From:         "(Glenn Radinsky)" <S05152@DOC.FLC.COLORADO.EDU>
Subject:      747 crash

                      October 10, 1992

Dear everyone:

     I know this is not really related to anything that has
been going on the lest of late, but I think I shall post it
anyway.

     Last Sunday, an El Al Boeing 747 freighter crashed into
some apartment buildings in Amsterdam and as many as 250
people were rumored to have been killed.  If in fact this
many people did die in this disaster, it would be the worst
of its kind in aviation history.

     The plane took off from Schilpol Airport at about 6:12
in the evening local time, and began to head north,
preparing for its normal vectoring back to Tel Aviv.  At
about 6:26 or so, the pilot radioed the tower and said that
engine 3 (the innermost engine on the right wing) was on
fire, and requested an emergency landing back at Schilpol.
A few minutes later he radioed the tower that engine 4 (the
outermost engine on the same wing) was also on fire.  He
thus could not turn left, and did not have enough altitude
or power to retain control of the aircraft.  While it
(apparently) was still airborne, it slammed into an
apartment building in a poor section of Amsterdam.  The
resulting fire took hours to control and burned many of the
bodies beyond recognition because the jet was heavily loaded
with fuel at the time of the crash.  The last I heard, 14
bodies had been recovered.

     The initial speculation regarding the crash was that
engines 3 and 4 suffered catastrophic failures of some kind
and sheared entirely free of the airframe (parts of an
engine were found in a lake where the plane had been dumping
fuel to reduce its landing weight).  They are designed to do
this before the engines start vibrating or shearing enough
to damage the wing and make the plane impossible to control.
Some people say that something in engine 3 may have given
way, spewing pieces into engine 4 and thus causing it to
fail as well.

     The point of the posting is this: Most of those people
in the apartment complex never knew what hit them.  Since it
was about 6:30 in the evening, most of them were probably
gathered around with their families eating or getting ready
to eat dinner.  Their lives depended on these little 4 inch
pins that held a pair of engines to a 747 as it flew a
normal mission.  The odds of these failing was probably 1 in
billions, but they failed nonetheless.  And some of them
were probably reading the Bible, sinning in various ways,
playing with the kids, hugging the wife, quibbling over
doctrine, etc.  They had no idea that their lives depended
on these pins, and that evening they lost their lives
because they failed.  I guess the moral of this story is
that we had better be doing everything we can to be serving
the Lord all the time.  We never know when something like
this might happen...

     Just my thoughts.

                         God Bless,



                          Glenn :-|
From: Leo_W@QM.CIRCA.UFL.EDU (Leo W)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Scripturette 10/16
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:56:16 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: QuickMail/SMTP interface.

"Come, let's bow down and worship him.  Let's kneel before the Lord who made
us" (Psalm 95:6).

"Our fathers worshiped on this mountain.  But you Jews say that Jerusalem is
the place where people must worship."

"Jesus said, "Believe me, woman.  The time is coming when you will not have to
be in Jerusalem or on this mountain to worship the Father ... the true
worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth ... these are the kinds
of worshipers the Father wants." (John 4:20-23).

"In Christ we can come before God with freedom and without fear" (Ephesians
3:12).

Yours in Christ Jesus,
Leo

Scriptures quoted from the International Children's Bible (ICB), New Century
Version, copyright 1986, 1988 by Word Publishing, Dallas, Texas 75039.  Used by
permission.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 10:22:33 EDT
From:         Bernice Tennant <U1A9A@WVNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Praise Report...

God bless you Stephen.
From: ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM (Eric James Ewanco)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Gnosticism defined
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:47:13 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Excerpts from christia: 16-Oct-92 Gnosticism defined Michael
Million@UAFSYSB. (361)

>  For the definitionally challenged:
>       Gnosticism   n.  The doctines of certain early Christian sects
> that valued inquiry into spiritual truth above faith, considered
> salvation attainable only by the few whose faith enabled them to
> transcend matter, and viewed Christ as noncorporeal.

>  [American Heritage def.]         .... try again.     Michael

Gnosticism theologically covers a wide range of heresies.  Often
Gnostics spoke of various celestial beings between man and God; they
also rejected the Scriptures as corrupted, and some claimed to have
information that superceded the traditions of the Church.  Some also
claimed that they were more enlightened than the Apostles.  I haven't
read really carefully the things you're talking about, but it has a lot
of those elements:
1) Scripture is corrupted;
2) The Apostles corrupted Christian teaching;
3) The church corrupted Christian teaching through its Tradition;
4) "We" have secret teachings that are better and more accurate.

I haven't paid much attention to all the celestial beings you're talking
about but it sounds very similar to Gnostic ideas.

So are you telling me that you believe that Christ really did come in
the flesh?  how about this: is it necessary to have knowledge of certain
mysteries in order to be saved?

Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:44:25 EDT
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2X
From:         Angela Zimmerman <AMZIMM01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU>
Subject:      Voting for Clinton

Item Retrieval Assistant, DADS
Phone: 588-6757

I know that we're not supposed to talk about politics on the list, so
please answer me in private.  Let me say that again: answer this message
privately, I don't want to start a political discussion on this list.

Ok, my question is, why is Clinton considered to be such a bad presidental
possibility?  Why are so many of you voting for Bush instead?  Why has
there been no talk of voting for Perot or not?

again ANSWER THIS IN PRIVATE MAIL, OR DON'T ANSWER IT AT ALL.  Political
discussions inevidibly bring flames, and we certainly don't need those,
especially now.  My email address is:

bitnet:  amzimm01@ulkyvm.bitnet
internet:  amzimm01@ulkyvm.louisville.edu

Thank you for your PRIVATE replies.

(oh yeah, did I mention that I wanted private responses to this?)  :)
From: NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET (Jesse Carnes)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: That P' word again
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:31:02 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              8 Oct 1992 13:29:19 -0500 from <BKCOBB@LIFE.UAMS.EDU>

Dear Brian ;

2 Peter begins with a salutation to the effect that his letter is to
CHRISTIANS.

Your answer is not an answer.  You have to contextually PROVE that my
eschatology is colouring my exegesis.
In logic, if YOU make the assertion ... then YOU have the burden of
proof.

By the way, your diplomacy is remniscent of the fine subtlety of Le
"Poland-China."


So, get Crackin' Kracken ;


Jesse
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 09:02:07 EDT
From:         LMENDELS@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU
Subject:      Re: Yom Kippur

On Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:51:52 EST Kerry Stephenson said:
>
>I am wondering whether there is any biblical textual basis for Rosh Hashanah
>(sp?) and Yom Kippur (specifically, the opening and closing of the book and
>so forth).  Is this derived from the Old Testament somewhere or is it only
>in the Talmud?
>
There is certainly a biblical basis for the festivals.  Regarding the stuff on
the opening and closing of the Book of Life, that's Talmudic material.
If, however, you were involved in a discussion with a Jewish person about
this issue, I would not recommend basing any arguments on the fact that
this belief is non-biblical, as there is nothing in the OT which specifically
says that it is not true.

Hope this answers your question...

Shalom,

Lon Mendelsohn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: DRAKE@ASUCHM.LA.ASU.EDU ((MARK DRAKE))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: RE: Two natures vs. one new nature.
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:17:37 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU"

Thanks Dan (Graham) for your post:

> So, No, I don't think we really have two natures, but we most certainly do
> have two sets of drives, one from God and one from Adam's sin.  We still
> must contend with the old drives, but are not held responsible for what
> those drives do, responsible in terms of salvation, not necessairly in
>terms of physical results here on earth.

> There, is that more confusing than ever?  I hope not, but you never know...

> Dan Graham

Here's the semantic thing I mentioned earlier (though I can't remember if
it was this topic or not).

To me, saying that we have two sets of drives is saying that we have
two natures.  Obviously you don't see it that way.  It seems that we believe
essentially the same thing, but use different words to explain it.


Mark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: JEK@NIHCU.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: For Sunday 18 October 1992
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:38:07 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

FOR SUNDAY 18 OCTOBER 1992

READING: Genesis 32:3-8,22-30
 (Jacob contends with a mysterious stranger at the ford of Jabbok)

PSALM 121
 (God as the protector of those in trouble or danger, including
travellers)

EPISTLE: 2 Timothy 3:14--4:5
 (Paul encourages Timothy to remain steadfast in the truth as he has
received it, guided by the Scriptures, diligent in preaching the
message entrusted to him.)

THE HOLY GOSPEL: Luke 18:1-8a
 (Jesus tells the story of a woman who by persistence obtained
justice from a magistrate, and tells his listeners that they ought
to be no less tireless in their prayers to God.)

PRAYER
   Almighty and everlasting God, who in Christ hast revealed
   thy glory among the nations: Preserve the works of thy
   mercy, that thy Church throughout the world may persevere
   with steadfast faith in the confession of thy Name;
   through the same Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and
   reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for
   ever and ever.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 07:41:15 -0700
From:         "(MARK DRAKE)" <DRAKE@ASUCHM.LA.ASU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: That P' word again

> Dear Brian ;

> 2 Peter begins with a salutation to the effect that his letter is to
> CHRISTIANS.

But what is he talking about?  He is explaining why the end has not come,
by saying that God is working on saving people - nonchristians.


> Your answer is not an answer.  You have to contextually PROVE that my
>eschatology is colouring my exegesis.

No, you have to give an exegesis that is not colored by your eschatology.
Most of your exegeses asumes the result while you are still trying to
demonstrate it, and usually disregards alternative interpretations without
giving any reasons for such disregard.

> In logic, if YOU make the assertion ... then YOU have the burden of
> proof.

Exactly.  You need to prove all you assertions with better thought out
exegesis.  Presently, they are often unsatisfactory (as far as proving
their assertions go).

> Jesse

Mark
From: EMOREAU@UMASSD.BITNET (Liz Moreau)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Hate Post
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:29:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: christia@asuacad.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN::"christia@asuacad"
X-VMS-Cc: EMOREAU

I'm not really surprised at this attack at all.  I'm sure many of you
aren't.  This is where we are headed.  Soon it will be a crime to
speak the gospel freely.  It will be construed as offending someone.
We won't have any rights, they will have them all.  Americans really
haven't come under the gun in testing their faith.  Sure, there have
been instances here and there, but nothing really major.

I feel the accuser read a post that spoke to his/her heart.  He/she
couldn't deal with the fact that it was a sin and a change was needed,
so therefore he/she lashed out in the way it happened.

I ask all of you to join me in prayer in lifting up this person to our
Lord.  Pray that the veil over this person's eyes will be lifted, that
the stone on their heart will be broken and that they will be open to
what the Lord is trying to say to them.

                                        Liz Moreau
                                        emoreau@umassd.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 07:56:47 CDT
From:         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: What is Truth?
              12 Oct 1992 21:09:10 EDT from <LMENDELS@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU>

Replying to Lon 's post on the question of Scriptural interpretation and
the seeming enigma of, say, two somewhat plausible interpretations of
a passage, one thing to remember is that our God is not illogical.
In fact, he speaks to us on our terms in terms whcih we can understand.
There are in fact more than one section of Scripture where more than one
rendering, much interpretation is available.
The case is one or more varient renderings versus a muchly accepted one.
The one which is correct is the one which honours the overall context.

Now, as to interpretation, this often takes in the "Analogy of Scripture"
rule in hermeneutics.  As I have stated in the past, in sections whcih seem
vague or ostensibly contradictory to others, we have to let the EXPLICIT
passages take the day and the implicit ones have to bow.
Remember the Lord is not attempting to bluff or trick us, at least those
who ever come to Christ.  No promises for the rest.

There are implicit passages that indicate that Jesus was NOT DIVINE,
because He was not omnicient.  Other more clear passages take primacy over
these.
Jahovah's Witnesses often use verses which show that Jesus was not Divine.
They overlook other passages however, that clear up the matter ... even in
their OWN poorly "non-translated" Bibles.

A case in point is the 1 John passages which say in the King James that there
are three witness in Heaven : the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these
three agree.(found in Jerome's "Vulgate")
(pardon the paraphrase)
However, in the earliest and most reliable Greek manuscripts, this passage does
not occur.  What you have is the New International Version's rendering which
refers to the following : The Spirit, the water and the blood.
Now, the verses predeeding this verse talks of SPIRIT, WATER and BLOOD, not
of FATHER, SON, an SPIRIT.  Now, the Vulgate rendering makes for Excellent
theology and Christians agree on the Tri-unity of the one God.
Nevertheless, the second rendering not only appears in the earlier and
better Greek manuscripts, but even if that were still in question, we would
still have to go with the second rendering due to CONSISTENCY with the
context of the rest of that section in 1 John.

R.C. Sproul in his short easy book "Knowing Scripture" ellucidates on this
very Scriptural problem as well as the problem of the "Woman Caught in
Adultry" question.


Hermeneutically yours in Christ ;

Jesse Irwin Carnes
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Is this working?
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:12:37 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


I'm sending this through the newsgroup on netnews; will someone from the
email list let me know if it reaches them?  I know I can post to netnews
people this way, but it's not clear that I'm reaching those of you who
read Christia through your email.

Thanks!


-- 
The trick of reason is to get the imagination to seize the actual world --
if only from time to time.     -- Annie Dillard, "An American Childhood"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
From: A16905@ITESO.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: John Michael Talbot's music style
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:35:39 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Mark,

I have a CD from him, he is great !!!  His style is very mild, contemplative,
whisper praise, things like that. The letters are from the Bible or fome
famous prayers. Absolutely, try it.

Shalom,
Memo.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 09:21:38 CDT
From:         JRALLS@TRINITY.EDU
Subject:      Re: WOW!
              7 Oct 1992 17:50:47 CST from <iwilliam@AU.ORACLE.COM>

Congratulations Ian! What wonderful news. You and Chellon will be in
my prayers.

JoEllen Ralls                       Jralls@trinity (Bitnet)
Elizabeth Coates Maddux Library     Jralls@trinity.edu (Internet)
Trinity University                  so many books,
San Antonio, Texas                          so little time...
From: NOTTMB@LSUVM.BITNET (Tom Brewer)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: A "Million" Errors
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:43:49 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Dan:

Super cataloger, Jesse, got the title of the secret book for me. If I remember
correctly, Michael Million's book is the same one Kerry Livgren (Kansas) was
reading when Jeff Pollard (Louisiana Leroux) witnessed to him on a touring
bus. It's The Urantia Book.

I guess I'd keep it quiet too.

Tom Brewer
From: iwilliam@AU.ORACLE.COM (Ian Williams)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Political Correctness
Date: 14 Oct 92 23:00:07 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL0]

Could someone sum this up in 100 words or less for me please??????

(political correctness that is).


Is it politically incorrect to say that the homosexual sexual act is a SIN
in the sight of God?? If so ,then let me be politically incorrect??

Is it politically incorrect to say that Jesus Christ is the only way to the
Father and hence the only way out of an eternity in hell??? If so
then call me politically incorrect!!

Christia is love mail, not hate mail....We disagree over matters of
doctrine, and sometime this may get heated, but I still sense the underlying
love we all have for each others as brothers and sisters in christ, and as
POTENTIAL brothers and sisters in Christ!

I may be seen as being one of the 'trouble makers' when it comes to
doctrinal argument, and one person even told me in private that I had
a reputation for it, however I still think the overriding message that
is comming across christia is the love of Christ!.



---------------------+-------------+-----------------------------------------
Ian Williams         |    _--_|\   |      Internet: iwilliam@au.oracle.com
Oracle Systems       |   /      \  |	  Phone	  : +61 8 239 3900
Adelaide, Australia  |   \_.--*_/  |
                     |         v   |
From: hartley@maths.uwa.oz.au (Mike Hartley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: evolution versus creationism
Date: 12 Oct 92 09:46:03 GMT
Organization: The University of Westrn Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: madvax.maths.uwa.oz.au

MARCI HENDRIX <HENDRIX@RHODES.BITNET> writes:

>Folks:  Have we discussed the topic of scientific evolution versus
>scientific creationism?  I would be most interested in hearing a
>Christian perspective on this subject, which * theory * do you lean
>towards and why.  

Many people are under the impression that scientific creationism is
a contradiction in terms. Recently, the Australian Academy of Science (?)
put out a document, stating its position on Creation. It stated that
the theory of evolution, being imperfect and subject to change, was
therfore a scientific theory, whereas Creation was a matter of faith.
It stated that Creation, being a matter of faith, wAs therfore a
religious issue, and should therefore not be taught as science.

Certainly, the fundamentals of creation science are matters of faith -
namely that roughly 6000yrs ago, God created the world as per Genesis.
This is a non-negotiable in Creation Science.

The details of the theory of evolution are in dispute amongst evolutionists.
For example, there is the conflict between neo-Darwinism, and the theory
of punctuated equilibria (assuming I have the names of the theories correct).
Which I will not give details of here. This is what leads to the assertion
that "the theory of evolution, being subject to change, is a scientific
theory."

However, the fundamentals of the theory of evolution are not subject to
change. If one denies that the universe has been around for billions of
years, or if one denies that all life evolved from one single self-replicating
molecule, which formed by chance, then one is no longer an evolutionist.
These are non-negotiables in the theory of evolution. In that sense,
evolutionism is just as much a matter of faith as creationism.

On the other hand, the details of the theory of Creation are in dispute
amongst creationists - for example, the idea has been put foreward (with
empirical data to support it) that the speed of light is not actually
a constant, as commonly supposed. This idea has not (yet?) gained wide
support, even amongst creationists. (The idea of a non-constant speed
of light would answer a number of difficult questions facing creation
scientists in the field of cosmology, and also geology, strange as
the latter may sound). In this sense, creationism is just as much a 
science as evolutionism.

However - what is really important in comparing scientific theories is
not how much people discuss them, but rather how well the theories align
with the scientific evidence. 

Creationists claim that the scientific evidence supports creation far 
better than evolution, whereas evolutionists claim that it fits evolution
better than creation.

Yours, Mike H...
--
Michael Hartley 		    _-_|\  | "All things works for good to
hartley@madvax.maths.uwa.oz.au     /	 \ |  them that love God - them that
University of WA ----------------> *_.-._/ |  are the called according to His
					v  |  purpose" - Romans 8:28