HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 07:39:25 CDT
From:         Roy Jacobsen <NU021927@NDSUVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: pro-choice
              3 Apr 1992 13:36:47 CST from
              <CXKJP%UTXDP.bitnet@UTXVM.CC.UTEXAS.EDU>

On Fri, 3 Apr 1992 13:36:47 CST <CXKJP%UTXDP.bitnet@UTXVM.CC.UTEXAS.EDU> said:
>   I'm sure you've heard this before, but pro-choice isnt pro-
>abortion. the scriptures dont tell us when life begins. Have
>you read the book "Tilly" or heard it on the radio?
>
>Kim
Kim,
     Problem is, "pro-choice" is vague and misleading.
Choice of what?  Ice cream toppings?  It is a slick label
designed to give people warm feelings.  How could anyone
be against choice?
     Now with "pro-abortion," at least it identifies the
issue.  It isn't nearly as clumsy as "pro-abortion-on-demand"
although it isn't perfectly accurate.
     You may have heard this one before, but here it is anyway:
"I'm personally not in favor of slavery, but I support the
rights of people to choose to have slaves."  Any response to that
one?

ttfn

Roy M. Jacobsen                | "Progress does not create
North Dakota State University  |            victims."
Voice: 701-237-8641            |              -Marty Strange
BITNET: NU021927@NDSUVM1       |
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: QuickMail/SMTP interface.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 12:18:00 EDT
From:         Leo W <Leo_W@QM.CIRCA.UFL.EDU>
Subject:      Scripturette 4/10
X-To:         Christia <christia@asuvm.inre.asu.edu>

"Stand fast in one spirit, with one mind *striving together* for the faith of
the gospel" (Philippians 1:27).

"Let nothing be done through *strife* or vainglory, but in lowliness of mind
let each esteem other better than themselves" (Philippians 2:3).

Yours in Christ Jesus,
Leo
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:19:39 EST
From:         John Ross <ROSSJB@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: help with prayer

A=Adoration
C=Contrition
T=Thanksgiving
S=Supplication

John
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <S096556@UMRVMA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 10:37:37 CDT
From:         Lonnie Schubert <S096556@UMRVMA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Yoga & Medicine

On Sun, 5 Apr 1992 16:22:00 CST Darryl (The Other Brother) Johnson said:
>I was thinking about the nonChristian origin of Yoga, and
>realized that if we reject yoga for this reason, we must reject
>modern medicine for the same reason.  It is based beyond extraction
>in the ancient Greek mythic gods.
>
>I\ /\ I\ I\ \/ I   Texas         "Treat the other man's faith
>I/ )( I( I( /  I..  Christian      gently; it is all he has to believe
> DJohnson@tcucvms    University     with.  His mind was created for
> DJohnson@gamma.is.tcu.edu         his own thoughts, not yours or
>  Big Ugly Signature (tm)         mine" -- Henry S. Haskins

I don't disagree with your points here Darryl, but I think you drew the
focus a bit too tight (or pehaps "zoom" instead of "focus").

I always advocate that a person not throw the baby out with the bath water,
but on the other hand, if you wash a pig, you only have a clean pig.
(Does that make adaquate sense?  i.e., keep the baby and keep it clean,
but there's not much you can do for a creature that is not clean by its own
nature.  Doesn't help much, does it.)

Anyway, my point is that I hope no one will reject anything based solely
(i.e., solely :-) on its origins.  With yoga, I would think that the fact
that it is still taught and practiced in line with its origins makes the
objection more valid, but still not compelling.  Yoga's current teaching and
practices are what it should be accepted or rejected on.  My feeling is that
the current "yoga" should be rejected on these grounds.
    Lonnie Schubert
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 03:25:10 EDT
From:         JEK@NIHCU.BITNET
Subject:      God and evolution

Allen asks about the possibility of believing BOTH that God created
the human race AND that the race came about by evolution from
non-human ancestors.

It seems to me that there is no necessary contradiction here, any
more than there is in believing BOTH that God is the creator of John
Doe AND that John Doe came about by biological processes.
     However, the effort to harmonize Christian belief with
Darwinian evolution does raise some questions. I have tried to deal
with said questions in a seven-part paper on Genesis in the Library.
To obtain a copy of part N (N = 1 to 7) send the message
 GET GEN01 RUFF to LISTSERV@ASUACAD. The part dealing most directly
with your question is Part 3 (GEN03 RUFF), but (like any author) I
encourage you to read the whole thing.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
X-Organization: University of Prince Edward Island
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: LHARRIS
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:17:00 -0400
From:         Lora Harris <LHARRIS@UPEI.CA>

// JOB ECHO=YES
DATABASE SEARCH DD=RULES CPULIM=99:00 OUTLIM=5000
//RULES DD *
SEARCH * IN CHRISTIA - FROM 13-APR-92 7:00 TO 14-APR-92 14:00
PRINT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 09:28:42 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Poverty
              8 Apr 1992 07:59:00 EST from <BSC92SPA18@RCNVMS.RCN.MASS.EDU>

Jeff:

Please explain the following words of God, as recorded in Isaiah:

"I am the LORD and there is none else.  I form the light, and create
darkness:  I make peace, and create evil.  I the LORD do all these
things."   (Is. 45:6-7).

If God created evil, how can it not exist?

                                       Love and Curiousity INC,
                                                               ---Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 11:10:45 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Jesus Christ Superstar

In reply to Carol's question about Jesus Christ Superstar:
As I recall, I saw it when I was in high school.  I liked it, but then
again, I was an atheist then!  From a Christian point of view, you
may be interested in the following information from "The Golden Turkey
Awards" by Harry and Michael Medved, in which the film is nominated for
and wins the prize for "Worst Performance by an Actor as Jesus Christ.":
  The role of Jesus was originally to be played by (get ready, Carol)
   MICK JAGGAR.  Then they tried David Cassidy and JOHN LENNON.  None
   apparently were available.  This should tell you something about the
  attitudes of the producers.  Then they present this quote from a
  "Playboy" interview with the director, Norman Jewison:
"We could have been vulgar.  We could have played this for cheap.  Nothing
simpler.  Guaranteed socko at the box office.  We could have been really
filthy.  But we weren't.  For instance...half the apostles are gay, right?
and what about Jesus and Judas?....A big wet smackeroo, right on the lips.
How about that?  Oh, yeah, we could have been vulgar all right.  We could
have milked it for every grab in the book.  But we didn't.  Instead, we
decided to make it beautiful...We made it into a spiritual experience and
it's beautiful, and Jesus is beautiful, the kids are beautiful, it's going
to be a beautiful film.  People are going to see it in drive-ins and
neighborhood nowhere theaters and they're going to be moved by it.  People
who were never moved by this story before.  People who always thought that
Jesus Christ was some kind of schmuck.  They're going to see something
beautiful and they're going to cry.  They won't be able to help themselves.
When you really come to think of it, we're doing Him a favor."

Doing Him a favor?  I think that says it all.

By the way, my store is selling tickets for a local production of "Godspell."
The staff is divided on whether or not we ought to.  I don't know anything
about it, except that it was really popular when I was in high school and I
never saw it.  Any comments?
                                         Love INC,
                                                  ---Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 08:47:50 MST
From:         Madge McBurney <ISPMOM@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Subject:      Attn Carol Nemec

On Fri, 3 Apr 1992 22:17:15 EST carol nemec said:

>We have a 'prodigal'....he's in the Lord's hands, and we pray!
>Thanks for sharing...

Carol, I'm sorry I can't take the time right now to include my thoughts
regarding your son.  I will be writing something later.  I can't remember
where I found this, but I thought you might like it.   --Madge McBurney

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

  I can teach you right from wrong, but I cannot always decide for you.
  I can allow you freedom, but I cannot account for it.
  I can share your life, but I cannot live it for you.
  I can give you direction, but I cannot always be there to lead you.
  I can teach you things, but I cannot make you learn.
  I can pray for you, but I cannot make you walk with God.
  I can buy you beautiful clothes, but I cannot make you lovely inside.
  I can take you to church, but I cannot make you believe.
  I can offer you advice, but I cannot accept it for you.
  I can teach you to be a friend, but I cannot make you become one.
  I can tell you about drugs, but I cannot say NO for you.
  I can show you faith, but I cannot make you trust in Christ.
  I can teach you to share, but I cannot make you unselfish.
  I can advise you about friends, but I cannot choose them for you.
  I can warn you about sin, but I cannot make you repent.
  I can teach you respect, but I cannot force you to show honor.
  I can teach you about sex, but I cannot keep you pure.
  I can give you love, but I cannot force it upon you.
  I can teach you about Jesus, but I cannot make Him your Savior.
  I can teach you to obey, but I cannot answer for your actions.
  I can help you to set goals, but I cannot achieve them for you.
  I can teach you about prayer, but I cannot make you pray.
  I can love you as my child, but I cannot place you in God's family.
  I can teach you kindness, but I cannot force you to be gracious.
  I can tell you how to live, but I cannot give you Eternal Life.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 11:11:49 EST
From:         carol nemec <YA67@FERRIS.BITNET>
Subject:      Jesus Christ Superstar

In a class I'm taking we are currently watching _Jesus Christ
Superstar_ .  I had not seen the movie, although I'm familiar with
some of the music.  We are watching it as an example of social
movement among the poor, resource mobilization to be precise.

I have different feelings about what I've seen so far.  It's
difficult to separate what we are supposed to learn about
resource mobilization and how Jesus is portrayed in the movie,
when Jesus, to me, is more than just a leader of the poor.

Are any of you familiar with the movie?  I would like some
thoughts of other Christians on the subject.

Thanks,
Carol
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAROL NEMEC                             +
YA67@FERRIS                           +++++
FERRIS STATE UNIVERSITY                 +
BIG RAPIDS, MI 49307                    +   PHILIPPIANS 4:13
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Poverty
Summary: Concepts are not tangible things, unless you believe the Forms.
Keywords: objects, tangible, things, existence, `Woof!'
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:42:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: gboro.1992Apr8.014239.9350
Organization: Glassboro State College
Disclaimer: This article was written by my dog, Brandy.  He was testing to see
            if Bitnet postings worked from our machine.


Vicky Somebody wrote:
> Jeff, just because most of us believe that poverty is a real, tangible
> thing does not mean that we also believe that God *created* it.

And I thought it was worth some comment.  In particular, I don't think that
anybody _really_ believes that poverty is "a real, tangible thing".  It seems
to me that someone who says that hasn't really thought about it carefully.

I believe that poverty is a concept, like `round'.  Tires are round objects,
but `round' itself is not tangible; it is not an object, it is not a material,
and it is not a kind of energy.  You can't have a bucket of `round', you can't
have a ton of `round', you can't have a kilowatt of `round'.  You can't do
with `round' things like you do with `water' and `electricity'.

Similarly with poverty; you can't put poverty in a bucket and carry it around;
it does not exist as either an object or a material or energy.  You can't take
a rich person, stick some poverty in his pockets, and make him into a poor
person.  You can't take a flat tire, stick some round in it, and make it into a
round tire.

Poverty is a concept; it does not exist the way material things exist.  It was
never created by anybody.  It is just a category that we use to understand the
world around us, like `angry' and `heavy' and `democratic'.  `Poverty'
*describes* living conditions, just as `heavy' describes bulldozers.  But
neither `poverty' or `heavy' exists as a tangible thing apart from what they
describe.


kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu      Darren F. Provine      ...njin!gboro!kilroy
"Stop reifying concepts!  (Plato, get thee behind me!)" -- Russell Turpin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, North Dartmouth, MA, USA
X-Envelope-to: christia@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN::"christia@asuacad"
X-VMS-Cc: EMOREAU
Importance: SEMASSU.EDU was changed to UMASSD.EDU on Aug 10, 1991
Priority: SEMASSU.BITNET was changed to UMASSD.BITNET on Oct 10, 1991
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 20:02:00 EDT
Comments:     A VAX cluster with VMS V5.3-1, PMDF V3.2-19,
              JNET V3.5 & UCX V1.3A
From:         LIZ MOREAU <EMOREAU@UMASSD.BITNET>
Subject:      Meaning of Names

I was reading this the other night and found it quite interesting how
the names fit Biblical people to a tee.  This info was taken from the
Thompson Chain Reference Bible.

Enoch           dedicated

Abraham         Father of a multitude

Moses           drawn forth

David           beloved

Solomon         peaceful

Job             he cries

Balaam          destruction

Amos            one with a burden

Abel            vanity

Melchizedek     king of righteousness

Lot             covering

                                        Liz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 09:46:06 EDT
From:         Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Changing a Church
              15 Apr 1992 03:04:59 GMT from <kilroy@GBORO.GLASSBORO.EDU>

Darren,

It is true that we cannot know the motives of people who try to
change the Catholic Church, or any other church, into something
completely different from what it was, but this discussion has gone
beyond that point.

My parenthetical statement may have conceded the point you wanted to
make, but your statements expressing that point were sufficiently
misleading that they had to be corrected.  One cannot "remain" a
priest unless one is a priest in the first place, and Anglican cler-
gymen, as such, are not priests in the Catholic sense of the term.
If you had said that a married Anglican clergyman who became a Catho-
lic and wanted to continue to be a clergyman could be given permis-
sion to be ordained a priest even though he is married, I would have
had no objection.  The same is true of a Protestant minister who
became a Catholic and wanted to continue as a clergyman.  He, too,
could be ordained a priest, and, nowadays, if married, could be given
permission to be ordained even though he was married.

My statement about the Vatican and divorce was not a distinction
without a different.  The Catholic Church does make rules.  Until
recently there was a rule against Catholics, in most circumstances,
eating meat on Friday. Several years ago that rule was significantly
modified, although not, as many people mistakenly think, completely
repealed.  The requirement for a celibate clergy is a Church made
rule, although based on biblical principles, and therefore can be
changed.  The prohibition of remarriage after divorce--not of divorce
in itself--is God's law over which the Church has no authority.  All
the Church does is proclaim it.  (By analogy, a state government has
the authority to change state laws that it made.  It has no authority
to abrogate federal laws.)  This is an important distinction because
some people have actually said things like, "If the Church can change
the rule about Friday abstinence, why can't the Church permit divorce
and remarriage or contraception?" The answer is that the Church can
change the rule of Friday abstinence because the Church made that
rule.  The Church cannot change the prohibitions against remarriage
after divorce or contraception because they come from God.  The
Church could no more say that contraception is permissible than the
Church could say that the Holy Spirit is not God and that there is a
Dualty of Father and Son, not a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit.

I see no point in getting bogged down in a discussion of what can be
changed in the Catholic Church without radically transforming it into
something other than the Catholic Church, but, for example, a "Catho-
lic" theologian who denies the deity of Jesus is not a Catholic in
any meaningful sense of the word, and if, although it is impossible,
the Church were to adopt that position it would no longer be the
Catholic Church.

Marty Helgesen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 13:47:00 CST
From:         "Darryl (The Other Brother) Johnson" <DJOHNSON@TCUCVMS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: rally

From: Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Who says to Brenda:
But the other side of it is that the media is part of the
proabortion establishment.  And the other possible numbers come from the
     I must have missed the news of that merger.  When did it
     happen?  Can you send me the address of the Proabortion
     Establishment?

     Needless to say, I am a little skeptical of claims by
     prolife individuals who feel that the entire media is
     prochoice.  Nor can I see what benefit is obtained by
     saying that a class of individuals who are almost
     entirely college-educated and who are in contact with
     educational sources and "the facts" every day are ALL
     prochoice.  If a combination of an educated mind and
     knowledge of the facts leads 100% OF THE TIME to a
     prochoice individual, I think the prolife movement has
     a more serious problem to contend with than a few negative
     newspaper articles!  :-)

     Again, I don't feel the media is "part of the proabortion
     establishment", but if you wish to assert that, be my guest.
     It only helps the prochoice agenda a little further along.

     Darryl at TCU
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, North Dartmouth, MA, USA
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Importance: SEMASSU.EDU was changed to UMASSD.EDU on Aug 10, 1991
Priority: SEMASSU.BITNET was changed to UMASSD.BITNET on Oct 10, 1991
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 08:11:00 EDT
Comments:     A VAX cluster with VMS V5.4-2, PMDF V3.2-19,
              JNET V3.5 & UCX V1.3A
From:         JHART@UMASSD.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Yoga & Medicine

Hi Carol;
        Just thought I would jump in on this one.  Jeremiah Films
Inc. produced 'Gods of the New Age'.

John Hart
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 19:55:15 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Changing A Church
              13 Apr 1992 19:26:52 GMT from <kilroy@GBORO.GLASSBORO.EDU>

Darren:
Certainly the Vatican made some changes; the Vatican _makes_ the rules and
always has.  I have no objection to the Pope, in his role, reinterpreting
that which is the Catholic faith, since the Catholic faith views that which
is said ex cathedra to be authoritative.  However, the Pope is not considering
admitting any of the things we have been discussing; ordaining women to the
priesthood, ordaining individuals actively and unapologetically engaged in
the sin of homosexual fornication, and other fundamental alterations of the
Catholic faith are not being advocated by the Pope.  They are being suggested
by congregants, bishops, and cardinals very close to being excommunicated.
What you have brought up and what I was talking about have nothing to do with
each other.
           Love INC,
                    ---Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sat, 11 Apr 1992 23:24:00 EST
From:         "Jeff Sinatra" <BSC92SPA18@RCNVMS.RCN.MASS.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Spiritual and physical death
X-To:         CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU

Kerry,
Jesus overcame death, therefore it is not real.  If death were real, then
one could not overcome death.  I never caimed that _everything_ is "...part of
God."--only the things that are good and pure, perfect and eternal.  I do not
know of any "New Age" philosophy that denies the reality of mortality, and
there is an infinite gulf between the "New Age" religions of today, and
Christian Science.  Man is the expression of God--God is Spirit and man is
spiritual.  To say there is such a thing as "spiritual death" is to say that
a part of God could die. IMHO this is an impossibility, therefore spiritual
death is an impossibility.

				love,
				  Jeff Sinatra
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL0]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 22:03:51 EST
From:         Ian Williams <iwilliam@AU.ORACLE.COM>
Subject:      Re: Should women cover their heads?
X-To:         CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
              Jensen" at Apr 9, 92 11:25 pm

Well Brenda may fall over dead, but I actually am against such things
as women covering their heads..
I am of the opinion that paul was addressing a cultural issue with a cultural
solution, one that definately does not apply to us today..
My heart weaps when I see Moslem women walking down the street with their
coverings on, I think it is so degrading to women. (I am ALSO against women
walking down the street with clothing designed to attract the lust of men,
I think  that is ALSO degrading to women)..
The issue of women not talking in church is another example of the apostle
directing a solution to a localised problem (chatty disrespectful women in
that church).

*****************************************************************************
Ian Williams          			Internet: iwilliam@au.oracle.com
Oracle Systems         			Phone   : +61 8 239 3900
Adelaide, Australia
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU